zlacker

>>antina+(OP)
App.net combined two big ideas:

1. Social networks are important enough that a subscription model is viable

2. Social networks should be built on a platform for social network applications

Obviously neither idea could save app.net. Which idea caused most of the problems?

>>Zigurd+d6
I suspect 1 is the big turnoff. It's really hard to make people pay for something they can get for free, with a better perceived value. App.net promised to have value in the future, but demanded payment upfront. Twitter offers immediate value without demanding any form of payment.

>>rbanff+Fn
I sort of agree. App.net lacked value at launch because of the way it intended to build value - through apps on it's platform. That's inevitably slow just when you need to build take-off momentum, and there is no way to "prime the pump" except by throwing money at the problem and hoping you get the right apps.

Moreover, Twitter has a problem with churn. It's free to start, but baffling for many, and troll-infested if you stick around. All ad-supported social networks have that problem plus the invasiveness issue.