3 ms·
Except even this doesn't make sense. Presumably Vine handles the videos on its own backend, and you only get your social graph when you move over to Instagram.
by otl1248 13y ago
Except even this doesn't make sense. Presumably Vine handles the videos on its own backend, and you only get your social graph when you move over to Instagram.
Unless you're going to provide free infrastructure for every component (not just the social graph) there will be an element of lock-in to virtually any social product.
- neuroscr 13y agoApp.net's API does providing more than a microblogging API. They have a file hosting (each user has their own quota), permissive messaging (point to point or group), and a search API so you can easily find anything on their system. They're planning to add more useful APIs, such as billing.
- otl1248 13y agoSeems like bad business strategy to build on top of those if it means it's easy to steal away your userbase. Sounds fine for mid-size apps who can't justify rolling their own though.
- eridius 13y agoIf your only competitive advantage is user lock-in, then you already have a problem. Either you need to get your userbase to grow big extremely fast, or you've already lost.
- otl1248 13y agoAnd if you grow the user-base fast you've won, right? Lock-in and network effects matter enormously. Saying you can't lock-in the social graph neither guarantees a company won't lock-in elsewhere nor guarantees this is an appealing platform on which to develop. This isn't a morality tale, I'm just pointing out what kind of decisions would be made around App.net and that the Vine/Instagram example doesn't really make sense.