4 ms·

A lot of people who didn't follow App.net/Alpha on the first go around, are going to look at this and say, "Why on earth would I pay $50 for a twitter clone tha

A lot of people who didn't follow App.net/Alpha on the first go around, are going to look at this and say, "Why on earth would I pay $50 for a twitter clone that has 1/10,000th as many users, and that absolutely none of my friends or celebrities are on?" Think of App.net/Alpha as an experiment, funded by geeks who want to see if a service can be built in which the users are the customers instead of the advertisers. The $50, I have to believe, is "Startup Capital" to get Dalton running with a bit of infrastructure, cover his salary for a year, and maybe let him hire a couple designers, and developers. This service, more than likely, is not meant for you right now, as it's just gotten started. Clients are under development, features are being added. Check back in six months before passing any judgement on it's merit.

guscost 14y ago
Exactly. Imagine what Twitter could be with third-party developer support, and then ask yourself if that would be worth about $5 a month. Or just wait for half a year as stated.
- markmm 14y ago
  The problem is most people are not devs and don't care about twitter tightening up their API rules (which is entirely up to them), I understand and applaude the idea as a developer but I can't see it rivalling twitter.
  - jeremyjh 14y ago
    They do care about their apps being broken.
- vegashacker 14y ago
  But there's no way app.net is going to be Twitter without ads if you have to pay $50/year for it. It may be Super Small Niche Twitter, but it won't come close to being actual Twitter in numbers.
EwanToo 14y ago
"Startup Capital" is certainly how it's been marketed, but it's not true as far as I can see. Mixed Media Labs, the company that owns app.net, has taken $5 million of venture capital funding from Andreessen Horowitz [1]. 1 - http://mxml.tumblr.com/post/1539239012/off-to-the-races http://mxml.tumblr.com/post/1539239012/off-to-the-races
jasonlotito 14y ago
> want to see if a service can be built in which the users are the customers instead of the advertisers. That's not accurate. The $50 is for a full year of App.net service. That's all. Where is the binding agreement that that says what you are suggesting? People like to quip that if you aren't paying for something, you are what's being sold. Frankly, the same is true even if you are paying for something. We should have learned by not that unless it's spelled out, we should be wary. After all, if App.net gets bought out, you've effectively paid to become the product. So, what rights is App.net giving you for paying $50? What promises have they made that can be enforced? Take this: > We will never sell your personal data, content, feed, interests, clicks, or anything else to advertisers. We promise. Maybe I'm just cynical, but that doesn't mean much. I mean, you don't have to sell the data to sell being able to advertise using that data. It's very easy to get away with saying this and still provide data to 3rd parties or allow for advertising to target users. My hope is that App.net is sincere. But unless they've hidden it, nothing on their site suggests they are doing what people say they are doing.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  It's very accurate - If you do a poll, you will find that 90%+ don't see the money they are paying is for a "full year of App.net service" but money to encourage Dalton to try and do something interesting. If it was just for a full year of service, almost nobody would have put their money into App.net, I assure you. It's an experiment akin to what was done with Diaspora, just this time with someone who has both the experience and the track record to demonstrate he can pull it off.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    I understand what you are saying, but it is just a years worth of service. That's the only thing you are guaranteed. You are banking on good will and good karma to carry you. > he can pull it off. Pull what off? What is "something interesting?" You said it was a service where "the users are the customers instead of the advertisers." But nothing of the sort is promised. > It's an experiment akin to what was done with Diaspora… And we've learned nothing from that? You've given $50 for a years worth of service in return. You hope for more, and you hope for specific things, but none of that is promised. What's so wrong with asking these expectations be clarified? Isn't that the entire point of App.net, to be different, to be about the users? If so, then why isn't that made clear? Nothing I see promises anything different then you see with other social networks. Except in this one, you are paying them $50.

guscost 14y ago

Exactly. Imagine what Twitter could be with third-party developer support, and then ask yourself if that would be worth about $5 a month. Or just wait for half a year as stated.

markmm 14y ago
The problem is most people are not devs and don't care about twitter tightening up their API rules (which is entirely up to them), I understand and applaude the idea as a developer but I can't see it rivalling twitter.
- jeremyjh 14y ago
  They do care about their apps being broken.
vegashacker 14y ago
But there's no way app.net is going to be Twitter without ads if you have to pay $50/year for it. It may be Super Small Niche Twitter, but it won't come close to being actual Twitter in numbers.

EwanToo 14y ago

"Startup Capital" is certainly how it's been marketed, but it's not true as far as I can see. Mixed Media Labs, the company that owns app.net, has taken $5 million of venture capital funding from Andreessen Horowitz [1]. 1 - http://mxml.tumblr.com/post/1539239012/off-to-the-races http://mxml.tumblr.com/post/1539239012/off-to-the-races

jasonlotito 14y ago

> want to see if a service can be built in which the users are the customers instead of the advertisers. That's not accurate. The $50 is for a full year of App.net service. That's all. Where is the binding agreement that that says what you are suggesting? People like to quip that if you aren't paying for something, you are what's being sold. Frankly, the same is true even if you are paying for something. We should have learned by not that unless it's spelled out, we should be wary. After all, if App.net gets bought out, you've effectively paid to become the product. So, what rights is App.net giving you for paying $50? What promises have they made that can be enforced? Take this: > We will never sell your personal data, content, feed, interests, clicks, or anything else to advertisers. We promise. Maybe I'm just cynical, but that doesn't mean much. I mean, you don't have to sell the data to sell being able to advertise using that data. It's very easy to get away with saying this and still provide data to 3rd parties or allow for advertising to target users. My hope is that App.net is sincere. But unless they've hidden it, nothing on their site suggests they are doing what people say they are doing.

ghshephard 14y ago
It's very accurate - If you do a poll, you will find that 90%+ don't see the money they are paying is for a "full year of App.net service" but money to encourage Dalton to try and do something interesting. If it was just for a full year of service, almost nobody would have put their money into App.net, I assure you. It's an experiment akin to what was done with Diaspora, just this time with someone who has both the experience and the track record to demonstrate he can pull it off.
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  I understand what you are saying, but it is just a years worth of service. That's the only thing you are guaranteed. You are banking on good will and good karma to carry you. > he can pull it off. Pull what off? What is "something interesting?" You said it was a service where "the users are the customers instead of the advertisers." But nothing of the sort is promised. > It's an experiment akin to what was done with Diaspora… And we've learned nothing from that? You've given $50 for a years worth of service in return. You hope for more, and you hope for specific things, but none of that is promised. What's so wrong with asking these expectations be clarified? Isn't that the entire point of App.net, to be different, to be about the users? If so, then why isn't that made clear? Nothing I see promises anything different then you see with other social networks. Except in this one, you are paying them $50.