

App.net is a nice idea but won’t solve anything - railsbob
http://zachinglis.com/2012/app-net-is-a-nice-idea-but-wont-solve-anything/

======
gfodor
People seem to keep misattributing the high signal/noise ratio of app.net to
the fact that it's a paid service. It's a _small_ service, full of tech geeks.
See also: Google+.

If app.net is aiming to be a small niche service for tech geeks to discuss
tech things, then great, but we already have a lot of those (that are free)
and the market is going to be very small. If app.net is aiming to be a service
every man, woman, and child is on (like Facebook or Twitter) not only will the
signal/noise ratio drop to the levels we are witnessing on existing networks
but it's hard to imagine a world where anyone outside of the tech community
pays $50 for a social network.

The whole thing seems like a nicely marketed effort towards geeks. The public
at large does not care about Facebook ads or Twitter ads or "being the
product." The fact the "being the product" quip is the thesis and rallying cry
for app.net tells me this is a service that will always be by and for the
people who care about such things, largely technologists.

------
ekpyrotic
Small point: Zach assumes that Facebook's current conversion rate properly
estimates App.net's prospective conversion rate. Incorrect.

App.net's users have /already/ paid $50 for membership, so their userbase will
be more likely to (1) have expendable income, (2) feel comfortable buying
digital products, and (3) feel comfortable buying products over the Web.

As such, you can expect App.net's prospective conversion rate to be (much)
higher (cf. iPhone vs. Android).

~~~
ryguytilidie
Along a similar line, the first thing I thought when I heard about App.net is
how everyone who can afford it will now be cut off from the people who can't.
No more news about uprisings in Syria straight from the source, no Occupy news
straight from the source, no news from basically anywhere but NYC, SF and
random other towns around the US but basically no input from anyone who
doesn't have extra expendable income. Pretty sad really.

~~~
Supermighty
At first I can see this. It would change if App.net gets crazy relevant. Maybe
not as many direct from the source, but groups of dissident people could pool
their resources to buy an account.

That also doesn't include the idea of sponsored accounts. Where App.net or
charities in rich countries buy an account for someone in a conflict zone.

~~~
ryguytilidie
Why on earth would a group of people pool money to create an app.net account
when they could post a tweet for free? Statements like that make me feel like
we are super, super out of touch. We're not talking can't afford to eat at
Benu 5 nights a week poor, we're talking can't afford their next meal poor.
When its food to keep you alive or a part of an app.net account to broadcast
whats going on to americans, the choice is going to be pretty easy.

------
ibagrak
I feel like people who deny the business model of app.net are trying to refute
the existence and success of HBO. You don't need to operate at the scale of
Facebook, Twitter or cable networks to be successful, mainly because your
criteria for success are very different with a pay-for, ad-free product.

Moreover I don't need to be a victim of guns (sorry for referring to a
lightning rod of an issue, but bare with me) to advocate gun control. Same way
you don't have to be a developer victimized by Twitter and Facebook to think
that there might be a better way.

And for the record, I did put my money where my mouth is.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
HBO's success doesn't depend on my friends also watching HBO.

~~~
alexboots
But you are much more likely to pay for HBO if all your friends watch it and
talk about the shows.

------
guscost
App.net users will probably solve more than a few things, not all of which
involve talking. Isn't this a bit presumptive?

~~~
AtTheLast
I agree, it's so early in the game for App.net and its community that it's
hard to say it won't solve anything.

