4 ms·

Curious how this any different than uploading your photos to Facebook and using apps which integrate with the Graph API to access your photos? I get that App.n

by jmathai 14y ago

Curious how this any different than uploading your photos to Facebook and using apps which integrate with the Graph API to access your photos? I get that App.net charges users money but I'm often baffled by that being misconstrued into users somehow having more control and ownership of their content. Specifically, how's that make my content portable? Disclaimer: I'm the lead dev/founder of OpenPhoto and our claims are similar but we're open source and let users specify what storage service they want to user with our service.

jazzychad 14y ago
> Curious how this any different than uploading your photos to Facebook... Technically it's not: app developers are using another service to handle file storage. However, the difference lies in the promise from app.net that they won't arbitrarily shut off your app because they feel like it or because it somehow competes with their own service. Facebook has introduced fear into their developer ecosystem that they can't be trusted to build a popular product on top of. App.net is saying, "you can trust us, we are an infrastructure company..." like Amazon. > Specifically, how's that make my content portable? I suppose it doesn't. Any file storage service has some amount of lock-in, but people can create tools to import/export data to and from different services. Unless you have all of your data stored locally on harddrives in your house, you will have to use some service and trust their level of non-evilness. OpenPhoto offers S3, Dropbox, and local storage out of the box (which is awesome), but even if I want to switch storage providers, I'm going to incur a switching cost (mostly paid with time to export/import).
- jmathai 14y ago
  I'm only mentioning OpenPhoto for philosophical reasons as I think these two services solve entirely different problems. We support S3, Dropbox, CX, Box.com, DreamObjects and local file system. Two of which were contributed by the community. The point being, this list isn't controlled by any single person or entitiy. > However, the difference lies in the promise from app.net that they won't arbitrarily shut off your app because they feel like it or because it somehow competes with their own service. Perhaps I'm in the minority that doesn't trust promises of a company with valuable data (photos, for me). If it's not valuable data then why care at all (my tweets). > I'm going to incur a switching cost For hosted accounts we provide a migration option. All your photos are seamlessly moved from Dropbox to S3 and all your links and mobile apps work as they always have. http://i.imgur.com/wWUc5uA.png http://i.imgur.com/wWUc5uA.png That being said, someone should write an App.net file system adapter for OpenPhoto :).
CaveTech 14y ago
Different in that app.net is supposed to be fully accessible and is more "yours" then it is on Facebook.
- jmathai 14y ago
  > is supposed to be That's my point.
  - cytzol 14y ago
    Put it this way: Facebook has a very good reason to sell your data and limit API access; App.net does not. While there's nothing technical stopping them from suddenly targeting ads based on your posts or making sure that you can only use their official apps, they wouldn't make as much revenue as they're currently getting up front (how much does Facebook make per user?). Thus, their best course of action is to simply carry on as they are doing now.
    - jmathai 14y ago
      I completely agree with that. I do think aligning users' interest with the company is a good thing. It's just the "marketing" of App.net that makes it feel otherwise. For example, the heading of this post was "The promise of “unbundling”". It's vague but I think a little bit misleading. But I guess that's the point of marketing :).
kmfrk 14y ago
I think the key argument to App.net is not open data but an open business model.
- jmathai 14y ago
  They charge users a yearly subscription. It's the same as any business model. Somehow they've pulled in "openness" and "transparency" into their marketing lingo and it's damn confusing. I don't dislike App.net. A good friend of mine works there and I'm rooting for them and wish more online services would charge consumers.
  - kmfrk 14y ago
    The openness and transparency comes from the open business model, which obviates incentives to monetize users through ads and data-mining. It's still theoretically possible that App.net would employ these income models, but their entire platform is based on goodwill, and without it, no one will use it. I don't buy the holier-than-thou rhetoric employed by Dalton, which also trivializes a lot of the complexities in running companies, but I think the value proposition is fairly clear - for nerds like us at least. It's not enough to entice me to use the platform, because as nice as it is that the founders are profitable, the wider appeal to a general audience requires an electron microscope to find.
    - jmathai 14y ago
      I agree with most of that. Though most services which charge users are disincentivized (is that a word?) to sell user data and display ads. Besides having the API docs in Github I've never seen how it's much different from other companies that charge users. Nontheless, I wish them luck because we need more self sustaining services on the web for consumers.
      - kmfrk 14y ago
        For one, we know they are - comfortably - profitable at the current price per user, so they won't get desperate enough to go in different directions. (They may do it out of stupidity, but perceived financial necessity won't be the reason.) I'm sure it isn't easy for Twitter to make money, but their reputation is still in tatters, because of all they've done to affirm their position and guarantee what they believe is a healthy profit. With most companies, we not only have to wonder how they earn or plan on earning money (Instagram! Quora! Facebook!); their business plan may not even suffice. Tumblr is currently twisting and turning to monetize their platform more, because David Karp has refused to use a business model that is implemented at the expense of users. But good intentions don't guarantee a (sizeable) profit.

by jmathai 14y ago

jazzychad 14y ago

> Curious how this any different than uploading your photos to Facebook... Technically it's not: app developers are using another service to handle file storage. However, the difference lies in the promise from app.net that they won't arbitrarily shut off your app because they feel like it or because it somehow competes with their own service. Facebook has introduced fear into their developer ecosystem that they can't be trusted to build a popular product on top of. App.net is saying, "you can trust us, we are an infrastructure company..." like Amazon. > Specifically, how's that make my content portable? I suppose it doesn't. Any file storage service has some amount of lock-in, but people can create tools to import/export data to and from different services. Unless you have all of your data stored locally on harddrives in your house, you will have to use some service and trust their level of non-evilness. OpenPhoto offers S3, Dropbox, and local storage out of the box (which is awesome), but even if I want to switch storage providers, I'm going to incur a switching cost (mostly paid with time to export/import).

jmathai 14y ago
I'm only mentioning OpenPhoto for philosophical reasons as I think these two services solve entirely different problems. We support S3, Dropbox, CX, Box.com, DreamObjects and local file system. Two of which were contributed by the community. The point being, this list isn't controlled by any single person or entitiy. > However, the difference lies in the promise from app.net that they won't arbitrarily shut off your app because they feel like it or because it somehow competes with their own service. Perhaps I'm in the minority that doesn't trust promises of a company with valuable data (photos, for me). If it's not valuable data then why care at all (my tweets). > I'm going to incur a switching cost For hosted accounts we provide a migration option. All your photos are seamlessly moved from Dropbox to S3 and all your links and mobile apps work as they always have. http://i.imgur.com/wWUc5uA.png http://i.imgur.com/wWUc5uA.png That being said, someone should write an App.net file system adapter for OpenPhoto :).

CaveTech 14y ago

Different in that app.net is supposed to be fully accessible and is more "yours" then it is on Facebook.

jmathai 14y ago
> is supposed to be That's my point.
- cytzol 14y ago
  Put it this way: Facebook has a very good reason to sell your data and limit API access; App.net does not. While there's nothing technical stopping them from suddenly targeting ads based on your posts or making sure that you can only use their official apps, they wouldn't make as much revenue as they're currently getting up front (how much does Facebook make per user?). Thus, their best course of action is to simply carry on as they are doing now.
  - jmathai 14y ago
    I completely agree with that. I do think aligning users' interest with the company is a good thing. It's just the "marketing" of App.net that makes it feel otherwise. For example, the heading of this post was "The promise of “unbundling”". It's vague but I think a little bit misleading. But I guess that's the point of marketing :).

kmfrk 14y ago

I think the key argument to App.net is not open data but an open business model.

jmathai 14y ago
They charge users a yearly subscription. It's the same as any business model. Somehow they've pulled in "openness" and "transparency" into their marketing lingo and it's damn confusing. I don't dislike App.net. A good friend of mine works there and I'm rooting for them and wish more online services would charge consumers.
- kmfrk 14y ago
  The openness and transparency comes from the open business model, which obviates incentives to monetize users through ads and data-mining. It's still theoretically possible that App.net would employ these income models, but their entire platform is based on goodwill, and without it, no one will use it. I don't buy the holier-than-thou rhetoric employed by Dalton, which also trivializes a lot of the complexities in running companies, but I think the value proposition is fairly clear - for nerds like us at least. It's not enough to entice me to use the platform, because as nice as it is that the founders are profitable, the wider appeal to a general audience requires an electron microscope to find.
  - jmathai 14y ago
    I agree with most of that. Though most services which charge users are disincentivized (is that a word?) to sell user data and display ads. Besides having the API docs in Github I've never seen how it's much different from other companies that charge users. Nontheless, I wish them luck because we need more self sustaining services on the web for consumers.
    - kmfrk 14y ago
      For one, we know they are - comfortably - profitable at the current price per user, so they won't get desperate enough to go in different directions. (They may do it out of stupidity, but perceived financial necessity won't be the reason.) I'm sure it isn't easy for Twitter to make money, but their reputation is still in tatters, because of all they've done to affirm their position and guarantee what they believe is a healthy profit. With most companies, we not only have to wonder how they earn or plan on earning money (Instagram! Quora! Facebook!); their business plan may not even suffice. Tumblr is currently twisting and turning to monetize their platform more, because David Karp has refused to use a business model that is implemented at the expense of users. But good intentions don't guarantee a (sizeable) profit.