zlacker

> 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.

>>ceejay+(OP)
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?

>>natriu+s
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+(OP)
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.

>>dkrich+z1
From the join.app.net page:

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

>>ceejay+s5
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.