I'm going to look at this from their perspective. They have a ton of subscribers right now, but they have 2 problems on the near horizon: 1. They know that a l

I'm going to look at this from their perspective. They have a ton of subscribers right now, but they have 2 problems on the near horizon: 1. They know that a lot of subscribers have abandoned the service and probably won't pay again, but they don't want to have to report that the number of users is declining once those subscriptions start to expire. 2. Acquiring new customers is not happening fast enough to keep critical mass or grow. This move is to address those two problems. I also think it's a negative signal for the future of the company because I don't think a limited free account will get people to join. While they make clear that they are not a Twitter clone, the concept of following people is a Twitter concept, and you don't have those same limitations on a Twitter free account. There's something in general that bothers me about App.net. In my career I've found that software engineers rarely are able to climb the org chart like business people are. The reason I've found is that engineers in general have a certain disdain for schmoozing and company politics, so they try to isolate themselves from it. App.net's marketing pitch I feel appeals to that isolationist desire and that's part of the reason it was such a hit.