
Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware - auston
http://daltoncaldwell.com/appnet-is-not-vaporware
======
maxwin
I think it's going to be very hard to pull this off. I feel like Dalton is
living in a bubble of people who are willing to pay to avoid ads. But for most
everyone else, a social network with ads (that are not TOO annoying) is much
better than one that ask for your money. He might be able to find enough
people to pay to become a profitable business but I doubt he will ever reach
facebook or twitter like scale. And if it doesn't scale, the paying members
will leave eventually.

~~~
ghshephard
I listen to the podcasts of precisely six people . Four of those six people
have already voiced support for join.app.net ((Dan Benjamin, John Grueber,
Marco Armenti, John Siracusa). I expect the other two would join fairly
quickly, and, given the "open" nature of join.app.net, I expect anybody who
wanted cross-posting from twitter over to join.app.net, wouldn't have much
difficulty. Just have the client post on both locations (much like Path posts
to both Path and Facebook)

I really only want about a dozen people on Join.App.Net, and most of them are
already there. So, for _me_ it just has to scale to twelve people - it just
needs to be the _right_ twelve people - and so far it looks good.

~~~
jmduke
Honest question: what stops you from simply browsing a twitter list of those
twelve people?

Or, more pragmatically: what incentive do I, a person who doesn't really care
about 'openness' and uses Twitter for a billion other reasons anyway, have to
pay $50 and subscribe to app.net instead of just following the twitter list of
those twelve people?

~~~
dasil003
The incentives are A) to hedge against future developments of Twitter throwing
you under the bus for $0.50 and B) joining a social network of people who
explicitly value that network who you believe will have a generally higher
signal to noise ration than the unwashed masses.

Today you can follow those 12 people, but if this takes off then it promises a
return to the nostalgic '06 and '07 of Twitter when the community was small
and everyone there was "interesting". The cognoscenti of tech may well abandon
Twitter in favor of this un-walled, membership-only garden.

Now who really should care about this? Certainly not most people. It won't
compete with Twitter, but it won't have to because it will have a fraction of
the infrastructure costs, and it will avoid the eternal september that plagues
every popular free service. This will be a niche product, but if successful it
will potentially be highly valuable to that niche, and also it will be quite
novel as a paid product of this type has never taken off as far as I know. If
you really buy into the hype, you might even think that the success of app.net
could signal the high water mark of free services as it becomes apparent just
how much better a service can be created when it's paid for directly by users.

I'm not saying I believe any of this, but I do see the potential.

~~~
ghshephard
Point of information - the precursor example of a social networking product
supported by users might be <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WELL> , which
had a good 20 year run.

------
briandear
What's the real-world problem App.net solves? I'm not being cynical, just
curious. If I back the project, I want to know the pain point I'm solving and
if it's a pain point that actually is worth solving versus something else. The
other question I have is, who's the market? People are using the HN vs. Reddit
comparison, but HN is about as niche as it gets and also doesn't really do
much other than provide a place for us to share some data. Muggles don't
usually visit HN and I'm wondering if they'd have a need for App.net.

I'm considering backing it, but like all investments, there's some due
diligence involved. There's also the opportunity cost for the money that
should be considered. I'm also wondering why kickstarter is appropriate as
opposed to traditional VC and seed funds. If there's a sustainable business
there, it would seem like the App.net team would have a very easy time raising
money -- they seem competent, capable and passionate (at least enough to
warrant a small seed round.)

~~~
jumpbug
I don't think it solves one, I think its providing a way for developers to
stick it to the man. In this case, Twitter, Craigslist, and Facebook.

~~~
andrew_simone
If by "sticking it to the man" you mean "creating a business model based on an
open api and not the content in the platform the API uses," then I agree.

The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that they've moved away from
supporting external developers into media companies (so the argument goes).

If that's true, then Twitter and Facebook are looking for the best interests
of it's advertising partners like every media company (radio, television,
print, etc.) rather than the consumers.

In the case of Facebook and Twitter, it means rolling out features that
benefit the advertisers. Now, it is certainly possible that the features
rolled out could benefit both sides, but the moment Twitter/Facebook has to
make a decision between the two they'll pick the advertisers since that's how
they butter their bread.

App.net, by contrast, only has one option which is make the best choices for
the developers/users. In some sense, this is really more of a B-to-B venture
than a B-to-C since, ideally, App.net focuses on the API and let's the
developers build the robust applications.

Frankly, I like this idea.

~~~
briandear
So what's the business model? Are there enough developers willing to pay real
money for access to an API? It seems hard enough to get developers to actually
buy a license for Sublime or TextMate (or even pay $0.99 for a song on
iTunes.)

I could see some potential in the enterprise space to license out the API for
companies to then build their own information services atop of.. but that
seems to get away from the "power to the people" idea this project seems to be
capitalizing on.

>App.net focuses on the API and let's the developers build the robust
applications.

Robust applications that do what? I'm not sure what the value of the API is,
isn't the point of a Twitter-like API to allow people to use Twitter data. The
API side of the equation isn't that hard to do.. it's the content accessed
with the API that would be useful. I can see and appreciate the tech in this
project, but I'm not sure why a developer would build an application to
consume an API without much data..

I'm confused. I don't mean any disrespect to the folks involved or their
supporters, but I'm not sure what this project will accomplish -- is it a
technology platform or a content platform? And is the technology that "hard"
-- it seems to me that getting the content would be the hard part.

~~~
andrew_simone
I don't understand the confusion folks have about the business model (earnest
confusion, not "yur dumb" trolling confusion). App.net creates an API and
people pay money to have access. Different tiers demand different prices.
$500,000 in membership fees makes it sustainable (says Dalton). The big
question and, quite frankly, the whole point of Dalton's experiment (as I read
him anyway, I don't know the fellow personally), is to test if there is
actually a market for it, hence the kickstarter like campaign. There are paid
version of all sorts of web services that are offered for free that are
sustainable. I pay for a server space and a domain names yearly. I don't know
why something like this couldn't also exist for those who wanted more control.
Will Dalton's work? Time will tell, but something like this will happen and
will happen soon.

EDIT: Incidentally, you do know that other people are trying similar things,
right? Heello, for instance, is rebooting with a slightly different model:
[http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/08/08/twitpic-founders-
he...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/08/08/twitpic-founders-he..).

------
look_lookatme
Just to be clear, app.net is a centralized messaging service, to be owned and
operated as a private company, allowing integration to whoever it sees fit, at
whatever cost it sees fit?

The upside is they promise not to show ads?

~~~
anu_gupta
No, the upside is that as app.net relies on people paying money, the users are
customers instead of being the product.

~~~
look_lookatme
What's the product then?

~~~
ceslami
Have you taken a moment to read anything about it? It is abundantly clear.

join.app.net, in case you really haven't, which I'm hoping is the case.

~~~
look_lookatme
That's no answer. As far as I can tell, the product is people willing to pay
for their message updates and then a rev-share between the apps that allow
them to do it, and Dalton's service.

If that's your idea of a product... good luck.

------
SCdF
I read HN every day. It is probably the site I read the most after Google
reader. It is my go to for filling time between doing actual work and doing
more actual work. I'd like to think I'm vaguely down with the Internet kids,
but..

Wtf is App.net and why do I care? Am I supposed to know about this already? Is
this supposed to be as common knowledge as twitter or facebook in my
nomenclature?

Dalton is sure as shit not going to tell you, and the site is far too awesome
to waste its time telling you either.

Reading the API docs (really, I have to read API docs to work out what this
does?!) tells me it's a "real-time social service where users and developers
come first, not advertisers.".

Taking that knowledge on hand and looking at alpha.app.net, it looks like a
twitter clone, but presumably one that you pay for.

Aren't there free twitter clones already?

Anyway, rant over, colour me confused. Idk... there are lots of projects
people could be building, and there is every kind of possibility this has
really useful stuff in it, but from the outside it just looks like another
twitter clone.

~~~
notJim
What? It says "App.net is a real-time social feed without the ads." right at
the top of <https://join.app.net>, and "Continue to join.app.net, our
Kickstarter-like project to create a real-time social feed." right on app.net.

How is he supposed to tell you what it is if you don't even go to the website?

~~~
SCdF
I clicked the link in his blog post, which took me here:
<https://alpha.app.net/>. You're right though, 3 paragraphs into the blog
there is a link to join.app.net.

------
comex
Incidentally, whatever additional stuff dalton is planning to add and let
developers add, the alpha currently appears to be enough of a Twitter clone
that it should be compatible with Twitter clients. Therefore, I'm much more
likely to pay for this (before or after the funding deadline) if someone
convinces Tapbots to add support to Tweetbot... or, equivalently, releases a
Twitter API to app.net proxy and a hack to redirect it to there.

------
andrewljohnson
I would have worded a message like this much differently - I would keep it
positive. I would not mention my app name and the word vaporware in the same
article, I would just include the bit where I demonstrate who is using
app.net, and link the code. I would also not give lip service to doubters who
say the funding goal won't be reached.

This message may feel nuanced to the author, but it's tone is negative and
defensive.

~~~
natrius
I think it works for this sort of audience. We're skeptics. I was skeptical
that their Kickstarter would be successful. This has convinced me otherwise.

I'm still not convinced that the project itself will be successful, but time
will tell.

------
junto
I just signed up. Actually a rather slick sign up process. Well done. Emails
look nice.

Only weird thing was the confirmation of my Twitter account. To start with I
selected the tweet option and the sign up process seemed to end with me being
redirected to my Twitter account page, but somehow I didn't feel "finished".

So then I went back and authorised the app with Twitter as well and that
seemed to properly complete the process. Maybe I just needed to wait a bit for
the original tweet to be picked up, but that wasn't obvious.

------
streptomycin
StatusNet is also not vaporware. Furthermore, it's also open source and
federated rather than being yet another proprietary walled garden run by a
corporation.

~~~
jmathai
The thing with projects/apps/sites is that there's a threshold of time before
it's considered passe. It's not logical and we in turn waste a lot of time and
resources reinventing the wheel but that's the truth of the matter.

I can't shake the feeling that this initiative suffers from the worst of both
worlds. It's not entirely open AND it's a paid service.

~~~
dasil003
Maybe you're right, but you could just as easily frame it as the best of both
worlds:

It's driven by the user's interests and it has the polish of a commercial
product.

~~~
jmathai
That's the goal...I'm skeptical but hope they can prove me wrong.

------
aniro
I think a paid model will be the only way forward for the set of people that
value privacy and control over their data.

I dont know that app.net hits the right ($) spot for that user group. The
implication of facebook's revenue is that users are willing to trade privacy
and data ownership for about $4/yr (the current monetization rate of a
facebook user), which means getting to $50/yr seems somewhat arbitrary and
hard to decode.

I think at some point in the future people will see $50/yr for those two
things (privacy and data control) as a relative bargain. I do today, and
backed this proposal due to these concerns.

I think driving developer investments may be critical to getting to their
funding goal, and frankly they are offering to take away a _potential_ threat
and not making a strong enough case about what value they are adding. It often
requires an explicit threat to get people to pony up for security, not an
implied threat.

~~~
ollysb
>> I think at some point in the future people will see $50/yr for those two
things (privacy and data control) as a relative bargain.

I can't remember ever hearing anyone mention privacy/data control issues
outside of HN. Facebook has ridden slipshod over these issues many times and
yet I've never heard anyone bring them up in conversation. The echo chamber
here is booming with concern but who actually cares? Users care about the
communication advantages of their online accounts but how many value the
identity associated with them? People change their phone number because they
want a new model that isn't available on their network. Do they see their
online identities as any less interchangeable? If this is the case what kind
of explicit threat could possibly justify paying money for protection of such
an identity?

~~~
aniro
I am not in Silicon Valley nor connected to any technology companies.

I know of a number of people within my own circle that refuse to use Facebook
or Twitter due to privacy concerns. I have heard a growing number of stories
from people concerned about protecting themselves and their friends, families
from the potential down sides to an over-shared life and deleting or
abandoning accounts due to those concerns. These are not people inside of the
echo chamber on Hacker News or the technology field or Silicon Valley, these
are people in retail, in investments, in hospitality, education.. from all
walks of life.

Facebook (as an example) wants to become an identity service. They are
_selling_ themselves on their ability to authenticate identity. It is
impossible to delete a facebook account, and attempting to do so will merely
ensure that you are the only one without access to the collected data.

I reiterate the point that "in the future" people will see $50/yr as a bargain
for privacy and data control. My first thought when seeing App.net was
"awesome idea.. 18-24 months too soon, especially at that price point."

------
mattlong
It seems that development is going full steam ahead even though the project
hasn't reached it's funding goal yet. What happens if the goal isn't met by
the deadline? I can't imagine Dalton will just drop it. I guess what I'm
asking is, what's the significance of the funding goal being met or not?

Am I missing something?

~~~
MatthewPhillips
If they don't meet the goal, they don't get any money from people who have
already pledged. So it's very significant.

~~~
jjb123
Is the funding goal about the financial significance? I'd argue it's more
about the significance of proving there are 10,000 paid members as the
foundation for the community (a notion of PG's that Dalton has referenced).

I'm a backer, and I'd argue the brilliance of this is two-fold: Dalton gets to
spend a month to see if there is enough demand to build this out for an
initial community (instead of 8 months finding out the hard way), and us as
backers will only be charged if there is a critical mass of interesting folks
to launch the community.

Neither of these are about the financial significance of $500,000 or $200,000
for that matter.

------
brackin
I think it doesn't have to just be a Twitter rival. Twitter is heading into
the mainstream direction. Focusing on news, celebrities, etc. A voice will
develop if this does go to plan and Twitter could be Reddit while App.net
could be Hacker News.

------
akulbe
It's definitely _not_ vaporware. I have backed the project, and I'm impressed
so far.

------
rdl
I don't understand why a big company (or even a medium sized company) with no
stake in the newsfeeds of Twitter or Facebook, or at least no interest in
those being monopoly, doesn't fund this 100% just to reduce the power of
Twitter and Facebook. $500k is not a huge amount of money if Twitter is
disrupting your business (SMS carriers? Conventional blogging service? Print
publication? Portal? Yahoo?)

------
pdog
After August 13, how much can the _business model_ of App.net change?

Is it possible that a _free-tier_ could be added that allows the average user
to access and use the service without paying? Additional developer & other
features would be available to those who pay for them.

In determining a business model for App.net, it seems they've never addressed
why there isn't a free tier.

~~~
catenate
There is a free tier. Anyone can read the global feed.

------
AznHisoka
I won't say it'll fail only because he's so persistent in gaining mind share.
Sooner or later, someone will "acquire" this project.

------
uncoder0
Who has accused it of being vaporware?

~~~
Braasch
I wouldn't say it has been accused of being vaporware, but I think the reason
some people aren't backing it is because they believe it may just be an API
and nothing more (when in fact there's a working proof-of-concept alpha
version).

Also, to those that've backed the project and want access to the alpha: email
join@app.net and you'll be able to get in. :-)

~~~
uncoder0
I don't think it is a widely held opinion. Hopefully this move helps you find
the rest of your backers. :D

Backed.

------
mistercow
>Additionally, if you take a look at Kickstarter’s official stats, it would
appear that of 35,138 unsuccessful projects, only 2,026 of them ever reached
41% or more of their funding goal. In other words, only 5.7% of Kickstarter
projects that don’t succeed ever manage to reach 40% of goal.

Oh no. This is not how we Bayes. I don't have the mental energy to translate
these natural language statements into statements of probability and actually
apply Bayes' theorem, but I'm pretty sure if I did, the result would be a lot
less inspiring of confidence than "only a 5.7% chance of failure!"

------
catenate
Can anyone yet point to something done with app.net that twitter won't or
can't do? $50 is a lot to pay for something that so far acts just like
twitter. Without those new and interesting apps, which right now do appear to
be vaporware, it's not worth a premium over twitter. I don't think clients
that just show you the feed or your feed count, because twitter can do that.

~~~
dasil003
What app.net can do is offer you as a developer the credible promise that
whatever you build on it will not be shut down because it conflicts with
business decisions made 1, 5 or 10 years from now.

This of course trickles down to the user, since you are virtually guaranteed
that there will be new clients for as long as the service exists. With Twitter
you are virtually guaranteed that no new client ideas will see the light of
day unless they come from Twitter themselves, and those will all be designed
to increase your usage of the service with any increased utility merely
serving as the hook.

~~~
catenate
I do understand this, and would like it to be true. But until at least one
application actually exists that twitter won't or can't do, this is all
promises, and those apps (which I hope aren't limited to user clients) are, in
fact, vaporware. To a user, this $50 isn't today buying them anything they
can't get from twitter, which is why app.net might not get funded.

~~~
dasil003
Well this has only been promoted for like 3 weeks, so give it a minute.
There's a chicken or egg problem, if no one buys into the dream before it's
reality then it will fail.

~~~
catenate
It doesn't take half a million dollars to come up with one single actual
demoable application that does something twitter won't or can't do. The point
of this thing is supposed to be better apps. Fine, show me one, and I'll pay
$50 to see more.

------
wamatt
Do people really care about this? That might be the core problem.

That said, I really respect Dalton for going all out on it.

------
arunoda
Now I got it. This is a twitter clone.

Give me 3 reasons to use app.net instead of Twitter?

How do you different from Status.net & Yammer?

------
blntechie
The only reason I didn't sign up was that I felt that I'm paying for the cause
and not the product. Not that I support the reason behind app.net but it just
makes me hesitate. If it's simple as "pay for this great product", I might
have. Good luck on meeting your funding goal!!

~~~
cmelbye
You are paying for the product though... You're paying for an account and
alpha access to the product.

------
SebMortelmans
Dalton stated he will return all the money if he does not raise the full
amount.

Now why do I have the feeling that there is going to be a annex to that
statement in a few days? He'll probably figure something out that allows him
to (be allowed to) keep the money raised.

~~~
ceslami
Your baseless pessimism is annoying at best.

He is by no means a private figure -- a move like that would certainly destroy
his reputation.

------
citricsquid
re: Kickstarter stats, when 59% is remaining _and_ that remaining percentage
is over $250,000 I don't think there are any Kickstarter projects that have
ever come back from that position. Very few have ever had $500k targets...

------
bazookaBen
@dalton you need to pimp up the alpha design. That counts too, if you want a
larger audience.

