zlacker

"Do you want to be the product (facebook, twitter) or the customer (app.net)?"

Where's the evidence that suggests that millions of people care about this distinction enough to pay for it?

>>natriu+(OP)
> Where's the evidence that suggests that millions of people care about this distinction enough to pay for it?

Where's the evidence that suggests millions of people have to join?

>>ceejay+n
Isn't that self-evident? People post to Facebook and Twitter to be heard. Currently, they seem to post on App.net about App.net. That's not sustainable.

Personally, I use Twitter mostly to talk to people in the fields I work in, namely hacking and journalism. I don't see how either of those communities will move to App.net wholesale. If you want me to pay money just to have a conversation with you, I'm probably going to decide to just not have the conversation.

Ads on Facebook and Twitter don't bother me. I won't be paying to get rid of them. I don't even use AdBlock to get rid of them for free (partially because I think it's unethical to do).

>>natriu+(OP)
Recent decisions made by Twitter are all about optimizing the site for advertising revenues.

I don't think Twitter has any other choice because they chose the free path from the start. I highly doubt Twitter would suddenly switch to a premium/freemium model.

While Twitter has empowered revolutions, I think the quality of the community has degraded though.

I believe that if people pay for being part of a community, people would care to improve its quality. If something is free, people just won't take care of it.

>>natriu+S
> Isn't that self-evident? People post to Facebook and Twitter to be heard. Currently, they seem to post on App.net about App.net. That's not sustainable.

My first post on Twitter was "trying to figure out WTF Twitter is". I subsequently didn't post for six months. I wouldn't judge the platform on what's posted in the first 30 days of existence. As for sustainability, $500k in revenue is more than Twitter had for years.

>>natriu+(OP)
I can't reply directly so I will reply here "People post to Facebook and Twitter to be heard."

I use facebook and twitter to be heard by my friends. I don't need a massive audience to get utility from the service. Brands and celebrities are the ones that want to be heard by tons of people. Twitter and Facebook are just a different type of ad platforms for them.

If my friends are on app.net, I will use it. Most people I know wouldn't pay for it though. Perhaps app.net would be good to allow power users to sponsor their friends.

>>dannyr+Y
On Twitter, you make your own community, right? Most people who have your problem would unfollow people instead of paying $50/year to have conversations with a small portion of their Twitter audience.

>>ceejay+41
I'm not judging the platform on its first 30 days. I just don't see a path to it being useful. What's the path that you see?

>>mdonah+k1
"If my friends are on app.net, I will use it."

This is the crux of the matter. I don't see how enough of my friends will ever be on App.net for me to pay for it, especially when I already use free products that have the same functionality.

>>natriu+w1
A smaller, more closely knit site that doesn't have to worry as much about Twitter's antagonism towards the third-party developers who helped make them succeed.

I don't know if it'll work, but I certainly hope it does.

I imagine it being pretty spam-free if it costs $50/year, as a bonus.

>>ceejay+41
That's not revenue. It's a donation. That's a pretty big difference. I know the counterargument will be that people are paying to use the service. That's like saying people who fund a project on Kickstarter are paying for the product. They aren't. They're paying for the development, which is one-time in nature and a donation.

>>dannyr+Y
> Recent decisions made by Twitter are all about optimizing the site for advertising revenues.

Sure, well, lets all hope that app.net will not run out of subscription fees. My take is that in a situation where IF this gets more popular and costs to sustain its life-pulse will grow, its plausible Dalton will have to choose between #1 shutting it down if not enough money flows in (and piss off all who still want to contribute and don't care that others won't pay), or #2 find a different way of bringing the money in. Let's hope its nor advertising.

> If something is free, people just won't take care of it.

Sure, that's why the Hackers News group is built upon 99% bots and is constantly filled in with spammers and haters. That's why every day you have high quality content uploaded to YouTube, for free to watch.

People don't care whether something is free or not; people care whether that something brings them any value, then they look at the price, whether they can afford it or not.

>>dkrich+D2
From the join.app.net page:

> You will be committing to pre-paying a full year of "member" tier service.

>>dannyr+Y
I really don't get this "quality of the community" has degraded argument. I hear the same about Facebook.

If the quality is degrading it's because of YOUR friends and YOUR choices about who to follow. Other people including myself simply hide posts or unfollow when the SNR becomes too low.

>>ceejay+w6
It was unclear to me if the $50 covers that or I'm expected to pay for membership at that point, on top of my donation towards development.

>>talige+z9
But wouldn't it be so much nicer if you didn't have to ignore the little people?