5 ms·

Ad-Free Social Platform App.net Raises Another $2.5M From Andreessen Horowitz

33 points by jayzee 13y ago

tsurantino 13y ago
I'm confused, as I thought that part of the reason why app.net pursued it's monthly payment ad-free business model was to ensure that it was sustainable while providing a non-intrusive service to users. The way that app.net did this originally was by charging it's monthly fee. It was actually very difficult for me to find a pricing scheme for the site this time around. So what's the plan to normalize the business? What else besides not adding advertising or something of that nature? Tax developers? Tax users?
- gizzlon 13y ago
  "..but the two positive examples of non-advertising companies that Caldwell cited are Dropbox and particularly GitHub, which both offer free services and then charge for additional features."
robk 13y ago
Traffic growth doesn't seem to be very good: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=app.net#q=app.net&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=app.net#q=app.net&da...
- coryl 13y ago
  Google trends is not always a good indicator of traffic
  - Kiro 13y ago
    It definitely is in this case though.
workbench 13y ago
This service has become such a joke. People paid for a Twitter clone and just got a confused mess of hand wavy nonsense about being a general purpose pipe for applications.
- benguild 13y ago
  I believe what they've put up is designed to be bare bones, and my guess is that they're building something much better if they were able to raise millions more.
- lukifer 13y ago
  ...actually, I would say that people paid for hand wavy nonsense about a general purpose pipe for applications, and instead got a Twitter clone. :P I love app.net, but I never use it; brass tacks, most people are still on Twitter (which is itself a small player compared to Facebook). I'm rooting for Caldwell and I applaud what he's going for, but it's going to take some very clever disruption and/or pivoting to unentrench or sidestep the social momentum of Facebook and Twitter (even Google with its billions isn't really cracking that nut). Federation would be the best approach; it's just a shame that that the nuances of social networks make it a much tougher problem than with email or the web. One potential path might be to integrate with hardware and offer some sort of "self-hosted identity as a service", an encryption-heavy digital break-out box that provided web, email, distributed social network, Dropbox-style app integration, etc. The initial buyers would the people nervous about recent spying revelations, but if the UX was compelling enough, it might have enough other consumer benefits to cross over. I can dream, anyway. :)
  - jamesbritt 13y ago
    G+ seems to be doing quite well: http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/08/google-plus-one-number-two/ http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/08/google-plus-one-number-two...
    - lukifer 13y ago
      That appears to measure G+ for the purpose of logging in to third-party sites; and I'd guess that to most users doing so, they think primarily in terms of their Google account, or their Gmail account. I've heard of very little traction with "regular people" for Google+ itself; Facebook still reigns king there.
ksec 13y ago
The problem is how is it sustainable.
onedev 13y ago
Welcome to Silicon Valley eh?
Dirlewanger 13y ago
This is the first story I've heard in months on this website. Who's using it? Has anything meaningful happened behind its paywall? Is there anything at all besides a gimped Facebook clone or whatever the hell it is?
- Neff 13y ago
  There has been a lot going on in the past year for the service: * Free tier of accounts. Limited to following 40 people, limited file storage * Multiple microblogging clients on just about every platform * 2FA and messages, files, search, and geolocation APIs It isn't just a "gimped facebook clone", the App.net service is a framework for developers to build a multitude of social networks on top of a single platform. The microblogging aspect was just the easiest "get" for them out of the gate. You can look at their One Year post [0] if you want to see a list of everything that they've implemented. [0]: http://blog.app.net/2013/08/14/we-are-just-getting-started/ http://blog.app.net/2013/08/14/we-are-just-getting-started/
BaconJuice 13y ago
I don't understand app.net, I have a free account and I never use it. Can any one explain to me the difference between app.net and twitter?
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  It's like twitter with no ads and no one on it. Also the api is less restrictive than twitter's but you have to pay a small fee to use it. The fact that the api is less restricted allows devs to build any kind of apps on top of it and this is what they are trying to push right now.
  - BaconJuice 13y ago
    but what's is the use of their less restricted api if there are no users on it? Also I didn't think twitter has ads does it? even if it did I've never noticed much which means its not intrusive in any way.

33 points by jayzee 13y ago

I'm confused, as I thought that part of the reason why app.net pursued it's monthly payment ad-free business model was to ensure that it was sustainable while providing a non-intrusive service to users. The way that app.net did this originally was by charging it's monthly fee. It was actually very difficult for me to find a pricing scheme for the site this time around. So what's the plan to normalize the business? What else besides not adding advertising or something of that nature? Tax developers? Tax users?

gizzlon 13y ago
"..but the two positive examples of non-advertising companies that Caldwell cited are Dropbox and particularly GitHub, which both offer free services and then charge for additional features."

robk 13y ago

Traffic growth doesn't seem to be very good: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=app.net#q=app.net&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=app.net#q=app.net&da...

coryl 13y ago
Google trends is not always a good indicator of traffic
- Kiro 13y ago
  It definitely is in this case though.

workbench 13y ago

This service has become such a joke. People paid for a Twitter clone and just got a confused mess of hand wavy nonsense about being a general purpose pipe for applications.

benguild 13y ago
I believe what they've put up is designed to be bare bones, and my guess is that they're building something much better if they were able to raise millions more.
lukifer 13y ago
...actually, I would say that people paid for hand wavy nonsense about a general purpose pipe for applications, and instead got a Twitter clone. :P I love app.net, but I never use it; brass tacks, most people are still on Twitter (which is itself a small player compared to Facebook). I'm rooting for Caldwell and I applaud what he's going for, but it's going to take some very clever disruption and/or pivoting to unentrench or sidestep the social momentum of Facebook and Twitter (even Google with its billions isn't really cracking that nut). Federation would be the best approach; it's just a shame that that the nuances of social networks make it a much tougher problem than with email or the web. One potential path might be to integrate with hardware and offer some sort of "self-hosted identity as a service", an encryption-heavy digital break-out box that provided web, email, distributed social network, Dropbox-style app integration, etc. The initial buyers would the people nervous about recent spying revelations, but if the UX was compelling enough, it might have enough other consumer benefits to cross over. I can dream, anyway. :)
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  G+ seems to be doing quite well: http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/08/google-plus-one-number-two/ http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/08/google-plus-one-number-two...
  - lukifer 13y ago
    That appears to measure G+ for the purpose of logging in to third-party sites; and I'd guess that to most users doing so, they think primarily in terms of their Google account, or their Gmail account. I've heard of very little traction with "regular people" for Google+ itself; Facebook still reigns king there.

ksec 13y ago

The problem is how is it sustainable.

onedev 13y ago

Welcome to Silicon Valley eh?

Dirlewanger 13y ago

This is the first story I've heard in months on this website. Who's using it? Has anything meaningful happened behind its paywall? Is there anything at all besides a gimped Facebook clone or whatever the hell it is?

Neff 13y ago
There has been a lot going on in the past year for the service: * Free tier of accounts. Limited to following 40 people, limited file storage * Multiple microblogging clients on just about every platform * 2FA and messages, files, search, and geolocation APIs It isn't just a "gimped facebook clone", the App.net service is a framework for developers to build a multitude of social networks on top of a single platform. The microblogging aspect was just the easiest "get" for them out of the gate. You can look at their One Year post [0] if you want to see a list of everything that they've implemented. [0]: http://blog.app.net/2013/08/14/we-are-just-getting-started/ http://blog.app.net/2013/08/14/we-are-just-getting-started/

BaconJuice 13y ago

I don't understand app.net, I have a free account and I never use it. Can any one explain to me the difference between app.net and twitter?

patrickaljord 13y ago
It's like twitter with no ads and no one on it. Also the api is less restrictive than twitter's but you have to pay a small fee to use it. The fact that the api is less restricted allows devs to build any kind of apps on top of it and this is what they are trying to push right now.
- BaconJuice 13y ago
  but what's is the use of their less restricted api if there are no users on it? Also I didn't think twitter has ads does it? even if it did I've never noticed much which means its not intrusive in any way.