5 ms·
I thought I agreed with you, because I read this post thinking it was a reply to the recent article about app.net's fee-based service not being inherently super
by kevinpet 14y ago
I thought I agreed with you, because I read this post thinking it was a reply to the recent article about app.net's fee-based service not being inherently superior to twitter's ad-based service. When I read the post it was actually a response to, it does make sense, but it isn't clearly stated.
If I may attempt to restate, the argument is as follows: Ilya wrote an article criticizing those who are reluctant to ask users to plunk down cold hard cash for an actual solution to their problem. This is a legitimate point. However, app.net is a poor example of someone attempting to actually get paying customers because the app.net customers are doing something more similar to donating to a cause they believe in than actually buying a product. The value of this product -- the good feeling of supporting something new and exciting -- will inherently disappear as soon as the product is no longer new and exciting. Additionally, because the product does not yet exist in anything resembling a final form, the customers are able to project their own hopes and dreams for what they would like it to be, rather than what it actually is.
This argument is a lot more than saying nothing. I definitely agree with it. If a reluctance to ask for money in fear of getting shot down because your product isn't any good is the problem, then asking for money to support some product that exists more as dreams than code isn't the solution. The solution is to build something that real people will buy, not because they are your friends, not because they want to be able to say they were an early adopter of something that will become big, but because the product actually provides value to them as it exists today.
- OoTheNigerian 14y agoI get the argument you are making and you have restated OP's post in a more respectful manner at least towards the donors. As to App.net being more of a cause than a product, I disagree. App.net's form is formless. That users are projecting their hopes on the API is the idea. The difference is the users (mainly devs) are being empowered to build out those hopes. The Twitter interface is just a use case of a realtime API. People waiting for Dalton to build the killer use case have missed the point. Look to the chaps that are paying $100/ year.
- loceng 14y agoThe internet's form is formless though, too. The successful part so far of this is a the rallying of the troops, at least a large core group of tech community folk.
- slurgfest 14y agoInteresting comparison, because the internet (coming out of a governmental and international history) is founded on a documented stack of open standards which have many implementations. I don't know much about app.net and will happily admit to being wrong about this, but my impression was that they were offering a platform without any of the ingredients for duplicating that platform. In that respect, like Twitter, even if they promise not to cater to the advertising/user data industry. I guess every company would like to become as indispensable to the internet as TCP/IP. Except that this isn't how it works - it has to be open and easily reproduced in order to become a thing like TCP/IP, which hurts monetization.
- loceng 14y agoIndeed. In the end someone has to pay, and/or someone has to make some money to pay. It seems close to a zero-sum game - which is the point of capitalism and innovation, allowing technology to reach 100% of people and/or make the next unit of production equal to $0, and with digital software, it comes pretty damn close to $0 benefit for the next user.