3 ms·
Two points. 1) App.net expenses are quite low. Nowhere near your $500K-$720K range. Since it's not "free", it's going to be quite profitable. 2) App.net is NOT
by teawithcarl 14y ago
Two points.
1) App.net expenses are quite low.
Nowhere near your $500K-$720K range.
Since it's not "free", it's going to be quite profitable.
2) App.net is NOT shooting for 1 million users. Not yet.
Paul Graham challenged people in his PyCon keynote address to "build a Google Search for the top 10,000 geeks on earth". Dalton is responding to that in "social". He's not trying to scale quickly to 1 million users ... rather, he's wisely getting 10,000 top geeks involved, by sharing revenue and building a blackbox with integrity long term.
Rather than falling for a "must scale like Twitter" mindset ... ponder why Paul Graham himself suggested a smaller, ultra-geek laser focus.
Dalton is executing beautifully.
Paying developers well is smart, and it's profitable.
Economically when it does scale, this model has the potential to be off the charts. Patience.
- waterlesscloud 14y agoA search engine is judged by its utility, which is why having 10,000 geeks use it is a good sign. A social network is not judged by the same sort of criteria, and so it's not at all clear to me why someone would apply the same strategy.
- nasmorn 14y agoI actually think of search as a heavily branded product. Like sugary drinks. Sure there are people that try somerhing new sometimes but that doesnt hurt the behemoths. I wonder if it is even possible to make a searchengine so much better than the "googles" that people referring to it as such could notice.