arielm

37 ms·

331.
by arielm 12y ago
True, but they're only extending an existing service you have to be a part of.
332.
by arielm 12y ago
I fully agree. Separation would have made it easier to understand it's not the goal but rather an implementation.
333.
by arielm 12y ago
That'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.
334.
by arielm 12y ago
Or use some sort of a freemium model much like the one they ended up doing anyway.
335.
by arielm 12y ago
That's definitely what it feels like, a visceral reaction, but from everything I could piece together it was about much more. Dalton tried to create a platform for communication that could power a twitter-like service. But... he neve
336.
by arielm 12y ago
If Wikipedia does a better job explaining the service than the service's own site it's in trouble. If there was no competition maybe, but there is, and everyone knows about it.
337.
by arielm 12y ago
It's very true, but they: 1. never really made it clear 2. never explained what else that framework was good for 3. never grew out of being a Twitter clone.
338.
by arielm 12y ago
I think if their concept was clearer the business model would have evolved to be effective. It's hard to get it right the first time but with a strong enough base they could have iterated.
339.
by arielm 12y ago
Well said.
340.
by arielm 12y ago
Thanks for sharing the cached version! The blog is back up and is fortified with a few layers of caching :)
341.
by arielm 12y ago
I 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,
342.
by arielm 12y ago
I totally agree, a clear message can make it or break it for a service, especially one with such a strong competitor.
343.
Where Did App.net Go Wrong?(arielmichaeli.com)
26 points by arielm 12y ago|48 comments
344.
by arielm 12y ago
I'm happy to see this service growing up and getting a real revenue model. In today's world it seems that to succeed you have to be free, get tons of VC money and sell your users or operate on a loss and exit. That's not how
345.
by arielm 12y ago
I like the product but just like most of the web I don't like that they're hiding their funding sources and making Kickstarter users believe it's because of them the product will come to market. Building a bootstrapped compan
346.
by arielm 12y ago
Would love to hear from any any app developers that publish on the Amazon Appstore exclusively about their decision to not cross-publish on Google Play.
347.
Diffraction of Sound(hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu)
1 points by arielm 12y ago|0 comments
348.
by arielm 12y ago
I didn't submit this story because of the way the police office handled this person but rather because I (and most likely a good number of other readers) take uber x and should know that this could happen to them as well. I was talking
349.
by arielm 12y ago
I'm pretty sure the URL disappeared after I updated the title. Thanks for correcting it.
350.
My Uber got pulled over by the Denver police – and then things got really weird(geekwire.com)
85 points by arielm 12y ago|25 comments
351.
by arielm 12y ago
Quirky does this for physical products. I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for but it's a pretty cool company with an interesting business model. I'd personally love to see something like that for apps, but do
352.
Marketing isn't Advertising(arielmichaeli.com)
1 points by arielm 12y ago|0 comments
353.
Setting small goals and reaching them(hellomrperez.com)
1 points by arielm 12y ago|0 comments
354.
Five years of doing it our way: Happy birthday appFigures(blog.appfigures.com)
2 points by arielm 13y ago|0 comments