I personally think that this post does not belong to the top of HN for the mere fact that it says nothing.
Writing a blogpost speculating about the motivations behind App.net, behind people backing it, the result, the lesson about the post speaking of the fear of money, about how app.net will turnout.
Just a bunch of negative speculation bundled together and called a blogpost then to go on to the comments and boast about how charitable you are [1]
At worst, APP.NET is an experiment and people found it worthy to spend $50 on this experiment. NO-ONE knows how this thing can/will turn out.
I am really looking forward to what the outcome of this project/experiment would be. i.e a real-time messaging API with no fear of the rug being pulled under you by the platform owner.
I thought I agreed with you, because I read this post thinking it was a reply to the recent article about app.net's fee-based service not being inherently superior to twitter's ad-based service. When I read the post it was actually a response to, it does make sense, but it isn't clearly stated.
If I may attempt to restate, the argument is as follows: Ilya wrote an article criticizing those who are reluctant to ask users to plunk down cold hard cash for an actual solution to their problem. This is a legitimate point. However, app.net is a poor example of someone attempting to actually get paying customers because the app.net customers are doing something more similar to donating to a cause they believe in than actually buying a product. The value of this product -- the good feeling of supporting something new and exciting -- will inherently disappear as soon as the product is no longer new and exciting. Additionally, because the product does not yet exist in anything resembling a final form, the customers are able to project their own hopes and dreams for what they would like it to be, rather than what it actually is.
This argument is a lot more than saying nothing. I definitely agree with it. If a reluctance to ask for money in fear of getting shot down because your product isn't any good is the problem, then asking for money to support some product that exists more as dreams than code isn't the solution. The solution is to build something that real people will buy, not because they are your friends, not because they want to be able to say they were an early adopter of something that will become big, but because the product actually provides value to them as it exists today.
I get the argument you are making and you have restated OP's post in a more respectful manner at least towards the donors.
As to App.net being more of a cause than a product, I disagree. App.net's form is formless. That users are projecting their hopes on the API is the idea. The difference is the users (mainly devs) are being empowered to build out those hopes.
The Twitter interface is just a use case of a realtime API. People waiting for Dalton to build the killer use case have missed the point. Look to the chaps that are paying $100/ year.
The internet's form is formless though, too. The successful part so far of this is a the rallying of the troops, at least a large core group of tech community folk.
Interesting comparison, because the internet (coming out of a governmental and international history) is founded on a documented stack of open standards which have many implementations.
I don't know much about app.net and will happily admit to being wrong about this, but my impression was that they were offering a platform without any of the ingredients for duplicating that platform. In that respect, like Twitter, even if they promise not to cater to the advertising/user data industry.
I guess every company would like to become as indispensable to the internet as TCP/IP. Except that this isn't how it works - it has to be open and easily reproduced in order to become a thing like TCP/IP, which hurts monetization.
Indeed. In the end someone has to pay, and/or someone has to make some money to pay. It seems close to a zero-sum game - which is the point of capitalism and innovation, allowing technology to reach 100% of people and/or make the next unit of production equal to $0, and with digital software, it comes pretty damn close to $0 benefit for the next user.
I think the reason this is at the top of HN is that people want to talk about app.net and, though it may be lacking in substance, the OP brings up an interesting point of view.
A lot of people feel very deeply about some of the ideas around app.net and with people's speculation/discussion you can get a sense of what is really important to people who use HN.
I have an honest question for you because I'm trying to understand this mode of thinking myself: why suddenly "no fear" of the rug being pulled out from under you? How does giving Dalton your money permanently align your interests with his?
Edit: this isn't meant to accuse Dalton of nefarious plans in the least. I just don't understand the causal link.
I've been thinking about it. And my best guess so far is: App.net builds confidence because, if it succeeds, it will be an existence proof of itself.
Or, to be a bit more concrete: People are supporting App.net because they hope it's possible, as a business proposition, to successfully fork a subnetwork away from a major social network. Once we have confidence that this is possible, it feels like we can always do it again. We can fork it as many times as we need to. When the rug gets pulled out from under some of us, as it inevitably will, we'll weave another rug.
The money thing, which you believe is irrelevant, is actually part of the argument here: The more revenue each node in the network is worth, the smaller the size of the sub-network that can profitably be broken off and operated independently.
(Note that there's as yet no evidence that Twitter itself, let alone a subset of Twitter, can be run at a profit.)
By this interpretation, if App.net succeeds at all, Dalton's personal notions of how to run a network will rapidly diminish in relevance. Because, once one App.net succeeds, more will rapidly follow.
I never said the money is irrelevant, quite the contrary.
It's VERY relevant. Just not in the way that the other author I'd cited made it out to be, nor does money have the protective alignment that I think people have convinced themselves it brings.
That said, your fragmentation thesis is an interesting one for sure. Have you seen anything along those lines researched outside of this context, by chance?
Because the user is the customer. With Twitter, the advertiser is the customer, and the user is the product. This leads to seemingly-capricious changes like the recent backlash against third-party developers. But when the user is the customer, then the business's goals are aligned with the user's.
I was with you until the last sentence. How does that help developers who are being harmed under the advertiser arrangement?
The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue. Even if that flipped...there are multiple customer interests at play. Developers, member users, and the company.
No advertisers is better than advertisers, but I don't see anything that protects developers (except Dalton's word, which you didn't bring up) from similar fates in this model.
But couldn't part of the potential be that a 3rd party developer ecosystem that feels healthy and secure will focus on providing added value for users, thereby encouraging more users? More developers? More revenue? And assumedly proving the developers worth to the company as being greater than just their $100/year (or whatever it ends up being)? I'm not saying that all parties are always going to get along like a friendly gang-bang, but I don't think it is as simple as 'The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue.'
A big part of twitter's initial growth was due to 3rd party development. But the tides shifted there as well, not (just) because of advertisers but because of "normal people" joining as users.
I wonder if that's who we're actually excited to keep out? Not the advertisers, but all of those totally mediocre people who make our trending topics embarrassingly dull ;)
OK fair enough. But I could have sworn I was just replying directly to something you said in your above comment. And I don't think I took it too far out of context. :)
> A big part of twitter's initial growth was due to 3rd party development. But the tides shifted there as well, not (just) because of advertisers but because of "normal people" joining as users.
Agreed. But what would you think the split would be on tide shifting regarding 3rd party development due to advertisers vs. 'normal people' signing up? I'd still bet on the former being the more pressing issue.
> I wonder if that's who we're actually excited to keep out? Not the advertisers, but all of those totally mediocre people who make our trending topics embarrassingly dull ;)
For me personally, I'm more excited about losing the advertisers. But now that you mention it, maybe losing (at least for a while) the mediocre users you speak of is just an added bonus. :P
Of course, not I or anyone else knows how App.net is going to turn out at this point, but I'm approaching it with curiosity at this stage, I don't yet see a reson to add morbidity.
The 3rd-party developers add value for the users. If the users are customers, then this is a good thing for the business.
In Twitter's case, the 3rd-party developers add value for the users, but subtract value from advertisers. This is good for users, but since the advertisers are Twitter's customers, this is bad for Twitter's business.
Neither of those points safeguard you from it turning into something other than what YOU want. That's the point I'm trying to make.
I don't have a specific reason for doubt, but I don't have evidence for confidence either.
I'm 100% behind a paid API as a service for the purpose of financial sustainability. But I don't think that's what has actually been purchased by the first batch of customers.
They paid for a dream, like you. And that's okay.
My point was to make sure people had a chance to see that's what they purchased. :)
Re read what you just wrote. Is there ANYTHING that is guaranteed to become what EVERYONE wants? That includes the owner.
You have no evidence to either doubt or believe. Like you have said, you chose the former, some people have decided to choose the later. That was a cool scenario until you decided your position is the right way.
What I expect from a developer like you is to attempt building/prototyping what you would like to see on top app.net. Non devs like me can speculate on what products might/come from this and things we would like to see.
To be clear, it is very good to raise questions, but let them be of substance . There is a great way to go about it [1]
This is Hackernews, we do not spend all our energy and focus on the several ways things might fail. We have more than enough people wired for that.
BTW, I am not a financial backer yet. Hopefully, I will be soon enough.
There are three factors that I think lend credibility in this case:
1) Dalton's founding vision is strongly principalled. This is what will give the company the strength to battle against the temptation to stripmine the value of the company the way that Twitter is doing with their developer-hostile stance.
2) The fact that 10k+ people put down a significant payment up front mean that there is a buy-in and critical mass to the service that mean it will have some value from day one, even just to users, and even if it is impossible for it to completely replace Twitter.
3) The money in the bank means there is both means and pressure for App.net to be developed quickly.
None of that is a guarantee, but I think it's a strong foundation for success.
I get the difference between buying a finished product and helping fund the prospect of one you believe in. It's speculation with the return measured in non-monetary means. A point that could've been made in a tweet, on Twitter even.
It says that marketing the concept of 'paid' web-apps in a professional way managed to attract > 500'000 USD in sales (as opposed to providing a solution for real user problems).
That's a fact, not speculation. Building something that people pay money for is hard. Failing to do that and asking people to buy the dream while at the same time doing heavy marketing criticizing the concept seems ironic, to say the least.
Writing a blogpost speculating about the motivations behind App.net, behind people backing it, the result, the lesson about the post speaking of the fear of money, about how app.net will turnout.
Just a bunch of negative speculation bundled together and called a blogpost then to go on to the comments and boast about how charitable you are [1]
At worst, APP.NET is an experiment and people found it worthy to spend $50 on this experiment. NO-ONE knows how this thing can/will turn out.
I am really looking forward to what the outcome of this project/experiment would be. i.e a real-time messaging API with no fear of the rug being pulled under you by the platform owner.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4379277