zlacker

[parent] [thread] 11 comments
1. kylec+(OP)[view] [source] 2017-01-13 01:50:17
This is an unfortunate, but not unexpected, end of an era. App.net was created at a time when discontent was high with how Twitter was treating its users and 3rd party app developers. Even though App.net wasn't hugely successful, its existence provided a needed check against Twitter exercising user-hostile control over their platform.

However, it has not been a viable platform (one that people actually used) for many years, so while I am saddened that it is finally being shut down, I'm not surprised. Many thanks to Dalton and everyone who built it and kept it going these many years!

replies(2): >>tlrobi+j >>xwowse+03
2. tlrobi+j[view] [source] 2017-01-13 01:54:43
>>kylec+(OP)
Did Twitter actually do anything in response to App.net?
replies(3): >>ianlev+U >>kylec+w1 >>intove+Jw
◧◩
3. ianlev+U[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 02:01:31
>>tlrobi+j
No.
◧◩
4. kylec+w1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 02:12:43
>>tlrobi+j
App.net came out in 2012, and while I can't really remember the specific areas of discontent that I experienced with Twitter back then, here's an article I found:

http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2013/01/14/twitter-in-2012/

I think what everyone was worried about back then was that Twitter was changing the nature of what Twitter was. Twitter started placing limits on API tokens, introduced new UI in the form of cards, which could also be used for ads, etc. There was a sense that the freedom and openness of the Twitter platform was quickly diminishing.

Twitter's response was basically no response, but in a good way. They slowed down making those sorts of radical changes, and to this day you can still browse Twitter with a 3rd-party app like TweetBot and never see cards or ads.

replies(2): >>groovy+4r >>mcinty+Nt
5. xwowse+03[view] [source] 2017-01-13 02:33:39
>>kylec+(OP)
It provided a check? How?
replies(1): >>kylec+O4
◧◩
6. kylec+O4[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 03:05:48
>>xwowse+03
If people were dissatisfied with Twitter, they could leave and join App.net. If enough people did this and App.net reached critical mass, it could have become the default service of its kind.

Since the primary motivation for people switching to App.net was them getting upset at Twitter, they slowed down the frequency and breadth of the changes they were making to their service so as to upset fewer people and less frequently. In the end, this was a positive outcome for users that liked Twitter exactly the way it used to be and didn't want it to change.

Of course, Twitter's changes may not have been motivated by App.net at all, but even if not there was still an escape hatch for users if things got too bad.

replies(1): >>beejiu+bY
◧◩◪
7. groovy+4r[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 09:06:54
>>kylec+w1
This is my first time hearing of App.net.

(This is something that happens for me regularly -- I "discover" something only by its shutdown notice making the HN front page...).

replies(1): >>narrow+Bv
◧◩◪
8. mcinty+Nt[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 09:47:56
>>kylec+w1
> They slowed down making those sorts of radical changes, and to this day you can still browse Twitter with a 3rd-party app like TweetBot and never see cards or ads.

TweetBot is older than the API cap, so did they roll that back? It was 100,000 users (or 2x current users if that was >100,000 which TweetBot probably was). So if they didn't roll it back I guess TweetBot would have stopped adding clients.

◧◩◪◨
9. narrow+Bv[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 10:13:45
>>groovy+4r
You realize that when App.net launched, it was on the front page of HN and with much discussion (relatively speaking)? Given your account's age, you were here. In 2010, Bitcoin made the HN front page and you could get 5 BTC for signing up for an email list; 3 years later 1 BTC was worth over $1k.
replies(1): >>groovy+Xb5
◧◩
10. intove+Jw[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 10:35:42
>>tlrobi+j
It didn't need to. App.net was a "success" at first because the bigshots from the tech twitter-sphere all jumped over.

Problem was none of them actually stopped posting on Twitter, at best they just set app.net to mirror their Twitter never really engaging with the network because none of them were willing to give up their high follower counts they had from being early adopters of Twitter.

Too much ego to put up with the BS from twitter, yet also too much ego to give up their high follower counts.

◧◩◪
11. beejiu+bY[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-13 15:31:51
>>kylec+O4
> they could leave and join App.net

Except they couldn't. They had to be invited or pay for it. In those days circa 2012, it was a hype train among a niche crowd.

◧◩◪◨⬒
12. groovy+Xb5[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-16 01:49:10
>>narrow+Bv
Sure, I realize that. But it seems I missed that initial event, and then everyone fell silent about App.net (nobody really continued to buzz about it).

Whenever stuff like this happens, I always wonder how many people, like me, hadn't heard of some service or product, and I wonder how many of them would have used it if they had. Would it have been enough to save the company from going under? Was it a marketing problem? I dunno, that's just the kind of strange places my mind tends to encounter in its errings.

[go to top]