5 ms·
Where did App.net go right? I generally like the vision that App.net was promoting, but when you are trying to build something that relies on network effects f
by bmm6o 12y ago
Where did App.net go right? I generally like the vision that App.net was promoting, but when you are trying to build something that relies on network effects for success you need to remove every impediment to attracting users. They've had several glaring impediments since day 1.
- arielm 12y agoI think trying to monitize the way they did was a big mistake. A social network isn't really a business tool and mass-market consumers aren't ready to shell our a monthly fee for a new and unnecessary way to communicate. Twitter, the giant that's integrated into pretty much everywhere, is still fighting for engagement and new signups. So for a company to come and challenge them with such a vague value proposition is plain bad.
- yllus 12y agoI think that makes sense. I wonder though if WhatsApp is an outlier - did they always charge a flat fee to use their messenger client, or is that a recent thing (after they attracted immense numbers of users)?
- arielm 12y agoThat's a somewhat different use-case though because the alternative (text-messages) always had some sort of price tag, and iMessage wasn't around when WhatsApp started.
- comex 12y agoWhatsApp also is free for a year, literally costs $1 per year after that, and is for phones, which generally have a fast payment process. The friction is a lot less!
- Raphael 12y agoThere were free mobile clients for email, Skype, Google Talk, AIM, Yahoo, ICQ, etc.
- arielm 12y agoTrue, but they're only extending an existing service you have to be a part of.
- Raphael 12y agoIt was always free for the first year and 99 cents per year thereafter. This is pretty clever, because they get the network effect of a free service, plus the door is open to add premium content or services.