
App.net developer incentive programme - anu_gupta
http://blog.app.net/blog/2012/09/27/announcing-the-app-net-developer-incentive-program/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=announcing-the-app-net-developer-incentive-program
======
smacktoward
_Once a month App.net members will receive an email asking them to give
feedback on the App.net apps they have used that month_

I bet they're going to _love_ that. There's nothing people like more than
filling out the same form over and over again, after all.

~~~
alanh
Hmm, yeah, what happens when people ignore the survey? Does it default to 1/n
or perhaps weight by some calculation of usage frequency?

~~~
smacktoward
The post says

 _App.net will use some basic algorithms to put in “presets” as a proxy for
how useful that particular app may have been to you. The member will then be
free to move the sliders in any configuration that they wish._

So if you don't fill out the form, they probably just use whatever their
algorithm tells them you think. But since Defaults Are Powerful my bet is that
the vast majority of people who _do_ bother to fill out the form will either
just submit the presets or a mildly tweaked version of same, so the survey is
skewed towards their algorithm's findings anyway.

~~~
untog
So then.. why bother with the survey?

------
jyap
The problem with 3rd party apps is that the participation will always be a
subset of the overall user base of App.net.

The overall user base of App.net is constrained by financial limitations (pay
to play yearly).

So if someone creates an app off of their platform, like the simple chess app,
they also need to be a member of App.net to play it. So while you may see the
benefits and be a member of App.net, if you want to convince your friend to
play who isn't a member of App.net you also need to convince them to pay and
join App.net.

App.net is arguing that their business model does not require lots of users to
be sustainable. While that may be true, for network effects to take hold, you
need users.

~~~
diego
That is not true. You can create apps on top of app.net that can be used by
non-members (as long as you respect their TOS).

For example, you can see my cloud of what people talk about there:

<http://adn.loqix.com/>

I could use my developer credentials to allow people to exchange information
via the app.net backend. Of course I'd be responsible for whatever gets
posted, so that places obvious limits on the kinds of apps I could write.

~~~
jyap
_You can create apps on top of app.net that can be used by non-members_

Truth be told, that's not what they had in mind. No offense, all you're doing
is data crunching.

"3rd party apps" are all about user interaction. This then drives engagement,
new users and in turn makes App.net valuable.

But then again, best of luck to you if you can get money out of their
developer incentive program by data crunching their own data set.

------
whalesalad
App.net really needs to work on a branding initiative sooner rather than
later. This bootstrap++ styling is not going to work forever. A logo at least.

~~~
interg12
Why is branding a priority right now?

~~~
RobAley
You need something to stick in the users mind, a visual that they will
remember. Although they can do better, at least with tent.io/tent.is you get
the image of a tent in your mind which is something your subconcious can latch
onto and remind you of when you are thinking about this kind of software. With
Twitter in the early days the "tweet" and bird branding had a cognitive link
with the product and helped keep it in your mind.

App.net is more or less an abstract title, it conjures no image in my mind,
just a generic concept of software apps which has no particular generic image
or symbol. So if they're going to stick with that name, they need to get some
visual branding on the page to help keep user momentum. Because at the moment,
press momentum is dying and they'll quickly become yesterdays news as people
forget them.

~~~
jeremyjh
I think it should be third-party apps that establish the major brands. They
can even enable white-label re-seller subscription management so that users do
not even really know that they use app.net (except that maybe they learn there
are other apps they can also use with their subscription).

------
cek
It is never a good idea to pay developers to support a platform [1]. I
struggle to find a single proof point of a successful platform where early dev
adoption was kickstarted by the provider paying for apps.

All that paying for apps does is get uncommitted developers doing second-rate
work. It sets the expectation that payments will continue as well.

I was bullish about ADN until I read this news. Now I fear it is doomed...

[1] [http://ceklog.kindel.com/2012/09/26/paying-developers-is-
a-b...](http://ceklog.kindel.com/2012/09/26/paying-developers-is-a-bad-idea/)

~~~
johns
They're not writing them checks before they start on something, like MS would
in the article you wrote. You built something, you can sell it, and if lots of
people use it you get a bonus. It's closer to the App Store's commission on
sales than buying a developer's time to build an app.

------
cheez
I swear I still have no idea what app.net is.

~~~
alanh
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net#App.net>

> _It is designed to be similar to Twitter, but have no advertising, instead
> relying on user and developer subscriptions. They began directly crowd
> funding it on July 13, 2012, with a goal of $500,000 and about 10,000
> backers. [They] exceeded the goal by August 13th, raising at least $750,000
> with over 11,000 backers. The service is currently in alpha._

ADN has made explicit promises to try to align their own incentives with those
of both users and developers.

~~~
cheez
So another Twitter. I remember hearing something about an open application bus
which was way more enticing to me.

~~~
ldayley
IMO this is really what this developer payment scheme is all about (based on
the discussions with Caldwell, et al on app.net). As a twitter clone it is
sufficient (minus the network effect), but it is really a messaging and
identity platform waiting to be defined by the applications written on top of
it. Caldwell alludes to this near the end of the OP.

------
spaghetti
This sounds pretty cool! Are there any screenshots of the chess app available
to non app.net members? I'd like to see what using an app in app.net looks
like. If it looks good I'll sign up for app.net and start developing apps
immediately.

Seems like there's some "low hanging fruit" problems that this app ecosystem
could attempt to solve. First is search and discovery. Just do it better than
Apple. Then there's the review process. Just scratch that entirely and use
collaborative filtering to let the best apps bubble up to the top of the list.
Of course have some flag for offensive, hate related etc apps.

How about partnering with Stripe and having an in-app-purchase system where
developers get 100% of the revenue? Or perhaps 90%. Just being better than
Apple is a great start.

One more thought: Apple's app ecosystem had the benefit of users' CC info pre-
entered. Seems like app.net could benefit from the CC or other payment info
already supplied by users when signing up.

------
fusiongyro
What a strange idea. I wonder if it will work. We used to kid that the app
store turned development into a popularity contest. Well, this is exactly a
popularity contest, no metaphor.

On the other hand, I'm glad they're going to suspend developers who goad; I am
sick of every app on my phone asking me to go give it five stars.

~~~
mdonahoe
Do you rate them 0 stars instead?

App companies will stop asking once the technique stops working, but it is
super effective right now. If you dont ask people to rate, you mostly get
ratings from people who dislike your app.

~~~
fusiongyro
That's a great point. I'll start doing that.

------
jaredcwhite
If enough amazing apps come out that require an App.net account to use, people
will get on it. Think about it like this: if Netflix came out with a developer
program whereby devs could create new video-watching-related apps that
required a Netflix account, guess what? They'd probably do just fine because
millions of people already have Netflix accounts. App.net is starting from
scratch, yes, but if they can build up to a few hundred thousand or over a
million paying users who perceive value, this thing is frankly a no-brainer.

I think the logic behind the feedback system is pretty good too. A lot of
users won't bother submitting feedback, but the ones that do are already
motivated to submit feedback and therefore reward apps they like. So it's in
the best interest of devs to create apps that delight their users. Win-win all
around.

~~~
smacktoward
The difference is that apps aren't what attract users to Netflix. _Movies_
attract users to Netflix. That lets Netflix build up a base of users, which
then makes it an interesting platform for apps.

App.net, on the other hand, is just glue to connect applications together.
Outside apps, there is no "there" there. So it suffers from a chicken-and-egg
problem that Netflix does not -- they need users to attract developers, but to
attract users, there have to be developers building attractive stuff.

Probably the easiest way out of this conundrum would be if they could entice
some celebrities or other high-profile figures to ditch Twitter for App.net.
They would create streams of content people want to read, which would attract
their fans, which would attract developers. This seems a bit contrary to the
App.net "we're just an API" philosophy, though.

~~~
jaredcwhite
I anticipated your response (not you personally, the point you're making). I
agree App.net needs top-notch personalities with interesting content or
discussion. I don't agree with the "no 'there' there" premise, however -- I've
already found that in spades. But I'm of the tech crowd. If they can draw more
people from the margins of the tech world who can pull their communities in,
there were be a lot more "there" to go around.

------
obilgic
I dont think app.net is revolutionary enough to be next big social network.

I believe that next big social platform will be open, decentralized,
interface-independent and wont be under direct control of a single
company/organization. Something like an email, just an api...

~~~
jaredcwhite
Nice, but I haven't seen it. (No, tent.is isn't it.) It's not a technology
problem, it's a user problem. Users aren't used to social networking being
decentralized. You tell someone "Friend me on Facebook" or "Follow me on
Twitter" and they know what to do. If a social network has no "brand" and it's
like email where you can be whatever@whatever.whatever, finding you on that
network will not be easy for the average Joe or Jane Doe.

~~~
obilgic
Well you think like that because there is no such a system/protocol/concept
yet. User adoption has nothing to with being centralized. Imagine few "big"
social players, implementing that new protocol, and/or forcing each other to
implement that as well.

I also don't think that this will be "tent.is". They are making the same
mistake(like diaspora), they are creating an application instead of designing
the unique platform/api/protocol/standart/whatever.

If I were google I would create that unique protocol, truly implement it to
google plus. Advertise google+ as a open, easy-to-switch social platform.
Then, they can easily put pressure on facebook to implement this new thing
too. People don't want to be trapped in these social networks with their data.
People want to feel that they own and can do whatever they want with their
data.

If you are trying to create a something new, "looking at what users are used
to" is a wrong way to go. If you create something unique, great, and something
people find useful, I am sure It will grow quickly. Plus I don't think average
joe knew how to use email or facebook when they were first introduced to the
world.

Again like an email. People own their data. Companies own and create value
with their APPs/interfaces. And protocol is open for anyone to implement.

Simple mail transfer protocol: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc821>

Internet message format: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322>

------
mikeknoop
I came up with a good explanation for the "vision" of app.net:

A replacement for traditional communication (instant messaging) that is built
into everything.

~~~
uptown
...that will never get built into everything if everybody has to pay to use
it.

~~~
RexRollman
I personally think Twitter is missing the boat by not offering a tiered model,
whereby members can pay to avoid ads (and perhaps other things, such as access
to their complete tweet history).

Flickr offers this and I have always enjoyed having the option.

~~~
x5315
[http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/21/you-might-be-able-to-
downlo...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/21/you-might-be-able-to-download-all-
your-tweets-by-end-of-the-year/)

------
EGreg
I think we are building something more ambitious.

<http://myownstream.com>

~~~
JosephRedfern
Looks interesting. I know that this, in the grand scheme of the project, is a
minor thing - but I think that the site could do with some more polish. Looks
a bit 2005!

------
teawithcarl
Way to go, Dalton. Disruptive approach to "target" innovation sharper. Ballsy
idea - I like it.

------
duked
It's always easy to play nice and call for 3rd party developer when you need
them to build your audience. I'm glad they do that but for now it's more
geared towards their own benefit.

Let's see how they behave once they actually have users.

