[manaskarekar]

That's a legitimate complaint. This attempt does seem to point out how a basic online tool is considered "first world luxury" even though it might be, and probably is, an important tool that will help a lot of people create value (new companies, mergers, sharing of information that may save people money by propagating best practices etc). (Sorry for the salesman pitch.)

I mean you don't go out and guilt a carpenter for money because he bought a nice power saw instead of using a manual one?

This just goes on to imply that internet "goods" are frivolous commodities further degrading the idea of paying for software.

I wonder if they did this similar thing for other 'tangible' goods, like this silver plated ballscratcher http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0010NWP9K.

[thinkingisfun]

Some things are only really useful as protocols. We don't pay for the email or http protocol either. We pay for the hosting, not for the ability to interact with others - we pay for the actual resources, not proprietary ideas. At least those of us who live in the amazing world of wonders that is the future.

Why pay for federation of content and relations, and subscription to updates? I mean sure, feel free, but for me that's just throwing money on something that isn't just pointless, it's actually counterproductive.

It is NOT buying a powersaw, it is making a contract with someone who saws your stuff. And the criticism is "when that guy runs away or starts being silly, you will STILL have to learn how to saw a piece of wood, so maybe learn that right away." - not that it's always bad to pay money for convenience.

It's the difference between a literate person paying someone to summarize the newspaper for them, and someone who can't read doing the same, never developing the desire to learn reading and writing. The latter should raise red flags. In that sense, app.net offers zero improvement over twitter and facebook. It's just another dead end.