4 ms·

I have an honest question for you because I'm trying to understand this mode of thinking myself: why suddenly "no fear" of the rug being pulled out from under y

I have an honest question for you because I'm trying to understand this mode of thinking myself: why suddenly "no fear" of the rug being pulled out from under you? How does giving Dalton your money permanently align your interests with his? Edit: this isn't meant to accuse Dalton of nefarious plans in the least. I just don't understand the causal link.

eridius 14y ago
Because the user is the customer. With Twitter, the advertiser is the customer, and the user is the product. This leads to seemingly-capricious changes like the recent backlash against third-party developers. But when the user is the customer, then the business's goals are aligned with the user's.
- alexknowshtml 14y ago
  I was with you until the last sentence. How does that help developers who are being harmed under the advertiser arrangement? The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue. Even if that flipped...there are multiple customer interests at play. Developers, member users, and the company. No advertisers is better than advertisers, but I don't see anything that protects developers (except Dalton's word, which you didn't bring up) from similar fates in this model.
  - gaelian 14y ago
    But couldn't part of the potential be that a 3rd party developer ecosystem that feels healthy and secure will focus on providing added value for users, thereby encouraging more users? More developers? More revenue? And assumedly proving the developers worth to the company as being greater than just their $100/year (or whatever it ends up being)? I'm not saying that all parties are always going to get along like a friendly gang-bang, but I don't think it is as simple as 'The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue.'
    - alexknowshtml 14y ago
      > I don't think it's as simple as... Is kinda the point I've been trying to make. :) A big part of twitter's initial growth was due to 3rd party development. But the tides shifted there as well, not (just) because of advertisers but because of "normal people" joining as users. I wonder if that's who we're actually excited to keep out? Not the advertisers, but all of those totally mediocre people who make our trending topics embarrassingly dull ;)
      - gaelian 14y ago
        > Is kinda the point I've been trying to make. :) OK fair enough. But I could have sworn I was just replying directly to something you said in your above comment. And I don't think I took it too far out of context. :) > A big part of twitter's initial growth was due to 3rd party development. But the tides shifted there as well, not (just) because of advertisers but because of "normal people" joining as users. Agreed. But what would you think the split would be on tide shifting regarding 3rd party development due to advertisers vs. 'normal people' signing up? I'd still bet on the former being the more pressing issue. > I wonder if that's who we're actually excited to keep out? Not the advertisers, but all of those totally mediocre people who make our trending topics embarrassingly dull ;) For me personally, I'm more excited about losing the advertisers. But now that you mention it, maybe losing (at least for a while) the mediocre users you speak of is just an added bonus. :P Of course, not I or anyone else knows how App.net is going to turn out at this point, but I'm approaching it with curiosity at this stage, I don't yet see a reson to add morbidity.
  - eridius 14y ago
    The 3rd-party developers add value for the users. If the users are customers, then this is a good thing for the business. In Twitter's case, the 3rd-party developers add value for the users, but subtract value from advertisers. This is good for users, but since the advertisers are Twitter's customers, this is bad for Twitter's business.
OoTheNigerian 14y ago
1. Because being a platform/ an API as a service is its's publicly stated goal. 2. The clear business model of charging users makes that goal viable and feasible. So far, I have no reason to doubt him. Do you? BTW, I have no idea if it will be wildly successful. However, I'm certain interesting things will come out of it.
- alexknowshtml 14y ago
  Neither of those points safeguard you from it turning into something other than what YOU want. That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't have a specific reason for doubt, but I don't have evidence for confidence either. I'm 100% behind a paid API as a service for the purpose of financial sustainability. But I don't think that's what has actually been purchased by the first batch of customers. They paid for a dream, like you. And that's okay. My point was to make sure people had a chance to see that's what they purchased. :)
  - OoTheNigerian 14y ago
    Re read what you just wrote. Is there ANYTHING that is guaranteed to become what EVERYONE wants? That includes the owner. You have no evidence to either doubt or believe. Like you have said, you chose the former, some people have decided to choose the later. That was a cool scenario until you decided your position is the right way. What I expect from a developer like you is to attempt building/prototyping what you would like to see on top app.net. Non devs like me can speculate on what products might/come from this and things we would like to see. To be clear, it is very good to raise questions, but let them be of substance . There is a great way to go about it [1] This is Hackernews, we do not spend all our energy and focus on the several ways things might fail. We have more than enough people wired for that. BTW, I am not a financial backer yet. Hopefully, I will be soon enough. [1] https://social-igniter.com/blog/2012/08/why-we-support-app-dot-net https://social-igniter.com/blog/2012/08/why-we-support-app-d...
  - dasil003 14y ago
    There are three factors that I think lend credibility in this case: 1) Dalton's founding vision is strongly principalled. This is what will give the company the strength to battle against the temptation to stripmine the value of the company the way that Twitter is doing with their developer-hostile stance. 2) The fact that 10k+ people put down a significant payment up front mean that there is a buy-in and critical mass to the service that mean it will have some value from day one, even just to users, and even if it is impossible for it to completely replace Twitter. 3) The money in the bank means there is both means and pressure for App.net to be developed quickly. None of that is a guarantee, but I think it's a strong foundation for success.
mechanical_fish 14y ago
I've been thinking about it. And my best guess so far is: App.net builds confidence because, if it succeeds, it will be an existence proof of itself. Or, to be a bit more concrete: People are supporting App.net because they hope it's possible, as a business proposition, to successfully fork a subnetwork away from a major social network. Once we have confidence that this is possible, it feels like we can always do it again. We can fork it as many times as we need to. When the rug gets pulled out from under some of us, as it inevitably will, we'll weave another rug. The money thing, which you believe is irrelevant, is actually part of the argument here: The more revenue each node in the network is worth, the smaller the size of the sub-network that can profitably be broken off and operated independently. (Note that there's as yet no evidence that Twitter itself, let alone a subset of Twitter, can be run at a profit.) By this interpretation, if App.net succeeds at all, Dalton's personal notions of how to run a network will rapidly diminish in relevance. Because, once one App.net succeeds, more will rapidly follow.
- alexknowshtml 14y ago
  I never said the money is irrelevant, quite the contrary. It's VERY relevant. Just not in the way that the other author I'd cited made it out to be, nor does money have the protective alignment that I think people have convinced themselves it brings. That said, your fragmentation thesis is an interesting one for sure. Have you seen anything along those lines researched outside of this context, by chance?

eridius 14y ago

Because the user is the customer. With Twitter, the advertiser is the customer, and the user is the product. This leads to seemingly-capricious changes like the recent backlash against third-party developers. But when the user is the customer, then the business's goals are aligned with the user's.

alexknowshtml 14y ago
I was with you until the last sentence. How does that help developers who are being harmed under the advertiser arrangement? The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue. Even if that flipped...there are multiple customer interests at play. Developers, member users, and the company. No advertisers is better than advertisers, but I don't see anything that protects developers (except Dalton's word, which you didn't bring up) from similar fates in this model.
- gaelian 14y ago
  But couldn't part of the potential be that a 3rd party developer ecosystem that feels healthy and secure will focus on providing added value for users, thereby encouraging more users? More developers? More revenue? And assumedly proving the developers worth to the company as being greater than just their $100/year (or whatever it ends up being)? I'm not saying that all parties are always going to get along like a friendly gang-bang, but I don't think it is as simple as 'The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue.'
  - alexknowshtml 14y ago
    > I don't think it's as simple as... Is kinda the point I've been trying to make. :) A big part of twitter's initial growth was due to 3rd party development. But the tides shifted there as well, not (just) because of advertisers but because of "normal people" joining as users. I wonder if that's who we're actually excited to keep out? Not the advertisers, but all of those totally mediocre people who make our trending topics embarrassingly dull ;)
    - gaelian 14y ago
      > Is kinda the point I've been trying to make. :) OK fair enough. But I could have sworn I was just replying directly to something you said in your above comment. And I don't think I took it too far out of context. :) > A big part of twitter's initial growth was due to 3rd party development. But the tides shifted there as well, not (just) because of advertisers but because of "normal people" joining as users. Agreed. But what would you think the split would be on tide shifting regarding 3rd party development due to advertisers vs. 'normal people' signing up? I'd still bet on the former being the more pressing issue. > I wonder if that's who we're actually excited to keep out? Not the advertisers, but all of those totally mediocre people who make our trending topics embarrassingly dull ;) For me personally, I'm more excited about losing the advertisers. But now that you mention it, maybe losing (at least for a while) the mediocre users you speak of is just an added bonus. :P Of course, not I or anyone else knows how App.net is going to turn out at this point, but I'm approaching it with curiosity at this stage, I don't yet see a reson to add morbidity.
- eridius 14y ago
  The 3rd-party developers add value for the users. If the users are customers, then this is a good thing for the business. In Twitter's case, the 3rd-party developers add value for the users, but subtract value from advertisers. This is good for users, but since the advertisers are Twitter's customers, this is bad for Twitter's business.

OoTheNigerian 14y ago

1. Because being a platform/ an API as a service is its's publicly stated goal. 2. The clear business model of charging users makes that goal viable and feasible. So far, I have no reason to doubt him. Do you? BTW, I have no idea if it will be wildly successful. However, I'm certain interesting things will come out of it.

alexknowshtml 14y ago
Neither of those points safeguard you from it turning into something other than what YOU want. That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't have a specific reason for doubt, but I don't have evidence for confidence either. I'm 100% behind a paid API as a service for the purpose of financial sustainability. But I don't think that's what has actually been purchased by the first batch of customers. They paid for a dream, like you. And that's okay. My point was to make sure people had a chance to see that's what they purchased. :)
- OoTheNigerian 14y ago
  Re read what you just wrote. Is there ANYTHING that is guaranteed to become what EVERYONE wants? That includes the owner. You have no evidence to either doubt or believe. Like you have said, you chose the former, some people have decided to choose the later. That was a cool scenario until you decided your position is the right way. What I expect from a developer like you is to attempt building/prototyping what you would like to see on top app.net. Non devs like me can speculate on what products might/come from this and things we would like to see. To be clear, it is very good to raise questions, but let them be of substance . There is a great way to go about it [1] This is Hackernews, we do not spend all our energy and focus on the several ways things might fail. We have more than enough people wired for that. BTW, I am not a financial backer yet. Hopefully, I will be soon enough. [1] https://social-igniter.com/blog/2012/08/why-we-support-app-dot-net https://social-igniter.com/blog/2012/08/why-we-support-app-d...
- dasil003 14y ago
  There are three factors that I think lend credibility in this case: 1) Dalton's founding vision is strongly principalled. This is what will give the company the strength to battle against the temptation to stripmine the value of the company the way that Twitter is doing with their developer-hostile stance. 2) The fact that 10k+ people put down a significant payment up front mean that there is a buy-in and critical mass to the service that mean it will have some value from day one, even just to users, and even if it is impossible for it to completely replace Twitter. 3) The money in the bank means there is both means and pressure for App.net to be developed quickly. None of that is a guarantee, but I think it's a strong foundation for success.

mechanical_fish 14y ago

I've been thinking about it. And my best guess so far is: App.net builds confidence because, if it succeeds, it will be an existence proof of itself. Or, to be a bit more concrete: People are supporting App.net because they hope it's possible, as a business proposition, to successfully fork a subnetwork away from a major social network. Once we have confidence that this is possible, it feels like we can always do it again. We can fork it as many times as we need to. When the rug gets pulled out from under some of us, as it inevitably will, we'll weave another rug. The money thing, which you believe is irrelevant, is actually part of the argument here: The more revenue each node in the network is worth, the smaller the size of the sub-network that can profitably be broken off and operated independently. (Note that there's as yet no evidence that Twitter itself, let alone a subset of Twitter, can be run at a profit.) By this interpretation, if App.net succeeds at all, Dalton's personal notions of how to run a network will rapidly diminish in relevance. Because, once one App.net succeeds, more will rapidly follow.

alexknowshtml 14y ago
I never said the money is irrelevant, quite the contrary. It's VERY relevant. Just not in the way that the other author I'd cited made it out to be, nor does money have the protective alignment that I think people have convinced themselves it brings. That said, your fragmentation thesis is an interesting one for sure. Have you seen anything along those lines researched outside of this context, by chance?