|
|
|
|
|
by kelleyk
5078 days ago
|
|
It seemed like an aside, but the issue of being at the mercy of the people who provide platforms and other foundational technology really resonates with me. ("Building on top of a platform is a foundational risk, and if your platform decided one day that it doesn’t like what you are doing, or likes what you are doing so much they want to compete with you, it’s Very Bad. Your platform partner can easily damage your quality of service, or simply shut you down. If that happens, your business is dead.") Have I missed an explanation from Dalton or the App.net crew about how what they're envisioning will be different? What protects a developer from being at their mercy for uptime, timely bugfixes, continued development, and so on? Actually, on a more general level... what can platform/tech providers do to provide those reassurances? I can't seem to think of anyone who's done a really stellar job of it. |
|
I believe our approach is different in that App.net customers are developers+members paying for a service that is provided. This is different than customers being advertisers, and developers+users being treated as a product, or at worst collateral damage.
I think this all boils down to business model choices and financial incentives: http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal