
Where Did App.net Go Wrong? - arielm
http://arielmichaeli.com/2014/07/where-did-app-net-go-wrong/
======
eridius
> _If Dalton’s idea of the platform was really to create a Twitter-like
> messaging service he should have made it easier to access._

This is actually the complete opposite of what happened, and I think the key
to where they went wrong.

Dalton created a Twitter-like messaging service as a way of showcasing what
App.Net could do. But he seemed very intent on downplaying the service and
focusing on App.Net as a platform. This is what caused all the confusion; most
of the actual _users_ of App.Net were primarily users of Alpha, and anyone who
was creating a product with the App.Net platform were facing the confusion of
people thinking that's like creating a product with Twitter. I believe the
reason Dalton did this was because his dream was for him to solely care about
the platform and for other developers to provide all the apps. But nobody else
was going to provide an Alpha clone, nor should they.

What Dalton really should have done was immediately spun off Alpha into its
own full-fledged product. Give it a snappy name (heck, Alpha isn't too bad,
certainly better than App.Net), give it its own domain, and make it very
clearly a distinct product from App.Net. Then he could brand it all he wants
as "built on top of App.Net" or whatever, and having login, etc. go through
the app.net domain, but ultimately it should have been immediately
recognizable as what it was; a Twitter-like messaging service (with much
better features), that was built on top of App.Net. Just like a third-party
app would have been.

This would have made it much easier to understand. People talking about
App.Net would be obviously talking about the platform, people talking about
Alpha would be talking about the messaging service, and trying to encourage
people to build new apps on top of the App.Net platform would have made far
more sense than convincing people to build new apps on top of what they think
is basically just a Twitter clone.

~~~
arielm
I fully agree. Separation would have made it easier to understand it's not the
goal but rather an implementation.

------
mikeash
To me, it was two things:

1\. As a Twitter replacement, it solved the wrong problem. They seemed to
think that the flaw with Twitter is that it's free. In my opinion, the flaw
with Twitter is that it's centralized.

2\. Every time I mention how the Twitter replacement isn't compelling, people
would talk about how that's not what it is, it's a general platform for Stuff
that just happens to be something you can use to build a Twitter replacement.
But they never really explained what it _was_ , just that it wasn't merely a
Twitter replacement.

~~~
xxxmadraxxx
"...They seemed to think that the flaw with Twitter is that it's free. In my
opinion, the flaw with Twitter is that it's centralized..."

The flaw that made me leave Twatter for App.net was the ever-increasing amount
of stinking advertising [laughingly known as 'Sponsored Tweets' ] littering my
stream, combined with the relentless barrage of spam emails from Twitter
themselves.

Alpha offered everything Twatter did, as well as double length posts and
without spamverts. Unfortunately [and I agree with previous comments on
App.net's piss-poor marketting] few people even knew it existed.

------
bmm6o
Where did App.net go right? I generally like the vision that App.net was
promoting, but when you are trying to build something that relies on network
effects for success you need to remove every impediment to attracting users.
They've had several glaring impediments since day 1.

~~~
arielm
I think trying to monitize the way they did was a big mistake. A social
network isn't really a business tool and mass-market consumers aren't ready to
shell our a monthly fee for a new and unnecessary way to communicate.

Twitter, the giant that's integrated into pretty much everywhere, is still
fighting for engagement and new signups. So for a company to come and
challenge them with such a vague value proposition is plain bad.

~~~
yllus
I think that makes sense. I wonder though if WhatsApp is an outlier - did they
always charge a flat fee to use their messenger client, or is that a recent
thing (after they attracted immense numbers of users)?

~~~
arielm
That's a somewhat different use-case though because the alternative (text-
messages) always had some sort of price tag, and iMessage wasn't around when
WhatsApp started.

~~~
Raphael
There were free mobile clients for email, Skype, Google Talk, AIM, Yahoo, ICQ,
etc.

~~~
arielm
True, but they're only extending an existing service you have to be a part of.

------
mrcwinn
App.net was born out of a visceral, snap reaction to Twitter's API decisions
that, really, the mainstream didn't really care about. That's not enough to
build a product on top of. What's more, while I sympathize with the developers
who were negatively impacted by Twitter's decisions, one could argue the
choices they made were _right_ for the product. If you believe that, App.net's
decision, the inverse, was _wrong_ for the product (reducing quality and
focus).

Or in short, most people just don't care.

~~~
arielm
That's definitely what it feels like, a visceral reaction, but from everything
I could piece together it was about much more. Dalton tried to create a
platform for communication that _could_ power a twitter-like service.

But... he never really explained it and in the absence of a message everyone
had to figure out the message on their own using what's most obvious.

That's how it became a twitter-clone/wannabe.

~~~
mrcwinn
Yes, I agree. Selling a platform is different from selling a product -
especially when you're speaking directly to the consumers. Consumers want the
product, not the platform.

------
beejiu
The only thing that went wrong with App.net is that it felt like you had to be
part of some inner circle to understand what they were actually doing. Their
communication and marketing was, and still is, diabolical. I still have no
idea what they are selling.

~~~
arielm
I totally agree, a clear message can make it or break it for a service,
especially one with such a strong competitor.

------
opendais
I think it really boiled down to the fact the market for "paid Twitter" was
too small to support the kind of network effects required to create an entire
ecosystem.

~~~
astrodust
I have never heard even one compelling argument for why paying for app.net
makes sense.

I pay money and...? I honestly have no idea.

~~~
bentlegen
You pay money, Dalton becomes a partner at YC.

~~~
smacktoward
Everybody wins!

Oh. Wait.

------
jhardcastle
Site appears to be down, Google cache version:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RxMTeUF...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RxMTeUF5-CkJ:arielmichaeli.com/2014/07/where-
did-app-net-go-wrong/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1)

~~~
arielm
Thanks for sharing the cached version! The blog is back up and is fortified
with a few layers of caching :)

------
pbreit
App.net's problem was that it was a philosophy, not something that people
would actually want to use.

------
m52go
I'm the first person to criticize free online media, but they should have
remained free until gaining a critical mass of users and THEN charged them to
stay on.

That's how Twitter should work...think Lady Gaga or Barack Obama are going to
leave Twitter over a $200 annual fee now? Nope, but they're sure as hell not
joining an unproven network with an upfront $20 annual fee.

Of course, you'd have to be clear about this in advance. Nobody likes an
unexpected bait-and-switch.

~~~
arielm
Or use some sort of a freemium model much like the one they ended up doing
anyway.

~~~
m52go
I should have been clearer...I think that model is effective only when users
who have disproportionally significant influence are charged.

So Gaga and Obama should actually be charged an annual fee of something like
$20,000. Maybe it's tiered, so someone like Robert Scoble pays $2,000.

Going by number of followers, Gaga's influence is an entire order of magnitude
higher than Scoble's, so it makes sense for her fee to be an order of
magnitude higher.

Everyone else below a certain threshold is free. I wouldn't (and shouldn't)
pay for Twitter...it gives me little influence.

------
smackfu
Main problem was that Twitter wasn't quite bad enough for people to stop using
it. Even if the website / official app was a mess, most of the App.net early
adopters use third-party Twitter clients anyways.

If even the people who paid for App.net were still using both systems, and
cross-posting, that wasn't really sustainable once the initial interest was
gone.

------
dmarlow
I still don't know what it is...

------
bradshaw1965
At least part of the problem was the resentment that people felt about
_needing_ to sign up to paid service to keep their identity and follow their
friends. Their was implied social proof in the very beginning but with a
pretty big arm twist.

------
palakchokshi
I still don't know what app.net is about after reading their About section.
Seems like a mish mash of products. Their messaging is very confusing. I
couldn't figure out why, me as a user, would ever download and use their
app(s)?

------
itistoday2
Charging money. Centralized. Personal data stored in the clear.

------
pjbrunet
It didn't solve the problem of centralized control.

------
imsofuture
Seems like a lot of beanplating around "it wasn't actually compelling to
enough people to make money".

~~~
arielm
As a twitter-clone only, sure. But I think it was supposed to be about much
more than that.

------
ksec
They just dont have a sustainable business model. That's all.

~~~
arielm
I think if their concept was clearer the business model would have evolved to
be effective. It's hard to get it right the first time but with a strong
enough base they could have iterated.

------
knd775
You really can tell when people have websites not meant for any significant
traffic. Site is down.

