I didn't realise until this article that Alpha != App.net. Now that I do, a couple of problems spring to mind:
* For startups, user acquisition often remains the biggest hurdle to success. Here they have to sting the user for a monthly subscription even to try the app. Asking people to open their wallets is going to massively reduce the people a startup get through the doors.
* There are billions of active users on Facebook. It is the de-facto platform for interaction for most people. Why does the user want to change? Saying "but now you won't be the product, the platform will be" won't make clear to most users what advantage their might be. They'll respond "so I have to pay to be connected to less friends?".
* The two above problems are cyclical and exasperate one another.
I like the idea, I just think there are a lot of problems that are going to get in its way.
Exactly. I’m afried App.net will die soon if they can’t figure out how to appeal to anyone trying to build a business (not hobbyists making free apps, because charging your users to create an account has be a negligible part of your value proposition). The only way to fix this problem is by having a generous free tier or by allowing the app pulling in new users to remain free forever, for those users you brought in through your app.
As an app creator, even in this situation, where the user gets a free ride in your app because she’s a first time App.net user, you’re asking a lot from the user. When user acquisition and retention is your bread and butter, placing a huge level of complexity at the signup step, explaining what the hell an App.net account is, it’s basically strangling the acquisition part, and you never, ever, want to do that.
Taking a step back, what problems are they solving anyway? Shorten time to market for app makers? Because social app plumbing is getting pretty cheap and easy to pull off at scale with IaaS. Besides ending up with something very limited. Using App.net to build your app must add value, either for the creator, or the user. I’m failing to see how it does either. Unless, maybe, if App.net login is an optional part of your app that could lover the already in-place pricing scheme for all users (failing to see when this would make sense, but it’s possibly I guess).
Conclusion: Ask yourself, what app in the past 5 years, could have been pulled off, logistically, using app.net plumbing?
> Taking a step back, what problems are they solving anyway? Shorten time to market for app makers? Because social app plumbing is getting pretty cheap and easy to pull off at scale with IaaS.
Huh? IaaS does not provide users which is the basis of social, anyone can write code which implements a social network, getting users is the hard problem. The problem App.net is trying to solve is to provide a social network that app makers can trust. Currently you can get awesome functionality from Facebook or Twitter, but as Twitter have shown so publicly, they will only tolerate you as long as they perceive you as providing a net benefit to them. If they see you as siphoning off any potential revenue for them you are dead in the water. Obviously Facebook is not quite as outwardly belligerent to it's developers, but the same rule applies. App.net addresses this by aligning it's business goals with the apps on its platform making money.
Now obviously App.net doesn't have enough users yet for it to provide the value that developers get out of major social networks. However App.net has a lot more traction—especially with developers—than the majority of attempted stand-alone social networks. What they need are a few wedge apps to create a virtuous cycle that attracts the attention of more and more serious commercially-oriented developers. It's a tough row to hoe to be sure, but they've been putting one foot in front of the other and I don't see them as being anywhere near failure yet.
I am not sure if this business decision by Marco was made for the same reason I am speculating but I am doing it anyway - they recently opened the door for free users(invite only) and some usage limit which IMHO is the limit most of the paying users would be practically exercising unintentionally, because there just not many people to interact with. So, they just needed more users and instead of opening the sluice gate they made a crack in it; of course lowering the cost was another crack!
Besides, everybody who is on App.net is on Twitter/Fb and posts whatever they post on either sns.
In the Facebook era, I think people have a hard time seeing the value of paying for ad-free models like App.net where free alternatives are available. Even Wikipedia has a hard time raising enough money through through their "just beg for it" revenue model, and they generate a significant amount of user ire in the process. 99% of their users would much rather see ads than put up with their invasive virtual panhandling.
While the motivation behind such models may be noble in the eyes of their developers, the whole "ads are evil" notion simply doesn't make sense to most of the general population. Accordingly, most of these models are doomed for failure. If my goal is maximum distribution, I will always choose to develop for a free platform.
Making end users pay is a huge barrier to entry for startups. Not all can afford it. And App.net is there to play zookeeper, and could shut them down if they do anything out of bounds. For users this is great but for startups it's hugely dangerous. So app.net has a marketplace problem : to overcome this they need to be huge (think Apple App Store huge) and to be App Store huge they need the startups and users.
Disclaimer : We build hull.io. we think that developers need stay in control of the data and responsible for themselves for this to work.
The value prop for App.net (in my opinion) relates to User Privacy. This all ties back to the "You are the Product" model of existing Social Networks that leverage the Advertising Industry as their core (or secondary) revenue model. The implication here is that the User's Privacy is being subverted during the process of collecting and storing User Related information/data for 3rd party entities, which are usually Advertising related. This information is then commonly used to provide more personal or relevant Ad's, which in theory should increase ROI / Conversion. Not everyone will agree with the implication stated above, as a Privacy Policy does explain this process, and thus it is assumed that the User is Aware of this (and therefore must agree with it to be using the Service).
With this said, the Value Prop for App.net is to build your App on a Platform that leverages a Business Model that does not relate to User Privacy in any way. In theory, this should allow you to build your App in an Ecosystem that provides more respect to User Privacy. Furthermore, the User Experience should be better because there are no Ad's interrupting the consumption of content and/or taking up screen real estate.
But here's the Kicker; Even though I do see this as a positive thing, and I believe I do understand the value prop, I still don't see it as a viable alternative to App Development in a world where the Freemium Distribution Model has skewed the User's Perception of "worth". So while the App.net Model does provide some cool and interesting alternatives relating to User Privacy and User Experience, it also (on the flip side) makes it impossible to release a "Free" version of your App, simply because Users must pay to use the Platform it's built on. And for me this is a big deal, because most of the feedback I get during customer surveys and validation indicates that they want a 'Try before you Buy' type of Model. Most Users simply won't pay for something when there are free alternatives available. The end result being, if you Develop on App.net, you are Developing specifically for App.net, as your ability to acquire new organic users outside of the App.net ecosystem is greatly compromised.
Even with this said, I commend Dalton Caldwell for taking a stand and building something new that provides alternatives to other Platforms. If I ever find myself developing a Paid App targeted towards a curated User-base of Users that don't mind paying for stuff, then I'll definitely be looking at App.net
On HN, those 2 sites are roughly equal, or possibly PostHaven gets a little bit more attention. Why is that?
Both sites offer micro-blogging. App.net has been around longer and has devoted more resources to building an API that will allow 3rd party developers to do interesting things with its micro-blogging service.
You can post images to App.net.
You can post long-form essays to App.net.
You can post short tweets to App.net.
App.net has over 20 3rd party apps already, which offers a kind of social proof from 3rd party developers that PostHaven does not yet have.
So why is it that people are willing to talk about PostHaven, and give its model some serious consideration, while dismissing App.net?
App.net offers everything that PostHaven offers, but App.net is much further developed.
On the contrary, my memory is that while Posthaven had a few front page posts as it launched and has since been mostly left alone, app.net has had a constant barrage of them during its "kickstarting" and afterward. Your own Google link seems to bear that out. There are certainly commenters in every thread dismissive of app.net - probably more than of Posthaven, since where Posthaven's entire reason for existence is to have a modest and obviously sustainable business model, app.net's goals are somewhat unfocused but extremely lofty - but there are many praising it in every thread.
What does Posthaven even have to do with this article?
I'd recommend you do a Custom Search starting from 2/18/13, the date Posthaven was announced, in order to do a fair apples-to-apples comparison. The results are much different. :)
Although app.net has the advantage of time, including the launch hype about Posthaven but not app.net is quite unfair :)
Anyway, I think number of Google results is a bad measure, since it counts posts and comments equally, and seems somewhat arbitrary in its choice of comments.
PostHaven's value proposition is much clearer (to me). They are focusing on content creators and are building a site that will remain around for sometime. I don't see a potential user even wanting apps on it. The site is ready today.
App.net's value proposition is just not clear. I can't think of a reason to sign up for other that the face that it will be great someday.
Posthaven came out of the ashes of Posterous, which a lot of people on HN used (including me). Right now I switched to Posthaven from Posterous because the transition was seamless. Add to the fact Garry Tan is obviously well-known in the YC community, so that gets the discussion a little more attention.
App.net started with a certain positioning, not as a similar product to the Posterous or Posthavens of the world, but as a mission in how it would treat its customers (at least that's how Dalton Caldwell framed it in the intro videos). Although app.net has changed over time, I think a lot of people on HN view it with skepticism because of the lofty goal of moving users away from Twitter or Facebook. I think people couldn't bet on the fact that a critical mass of people would move from those sites simply because they make their money off of advertising dollars.
Because Posthaven has the Posterous branding and endorsement of the Posterous founder.
Brand identity and switching cost is a hard thing for most people to overcome. It's why Blogger still exists. And then there's the chicken-and-egg problem that the former Posterous had already solved.
There's a bit of a chicken and egg problem here: If app.net was already well established among users then it'd be great to tap into that userbase, and users would be looking for more apps. Unfortunately, before that happens it's pretty hard to imagine that an app developer would be able or want to introduce their users to both 1) their app, and 2) that they need to pay for a separate service in addition. Sounds like it'd be complicated and confusing to users. Perhaps if alpha.app.net were to take off that would solve the problem, but since they're focusing on a platform and not the app, that doesn't seem as likely.
I realized why I want App.net or something like it (tent.io?). Maybe my answer can help someone else wrap their head around why they want it.
I have been kicking around this idea for a utility to help people communicate in cooperatives and other small organizations. (Yes, I'm planning groupware. Forgive me.) These organizations tend to need much less immediate communication, and much more broadcasting. They also tend to be susceptible to stress because house business is personal sometimes.
People broadcast policy proposals, ask for rides, ask questions about specific topics like kitchen maintenance, etc. One thing that people seem to prefer, also, is the ability to organize, sort, filter on their end.
I was a junior in HS with dialup when Twitter debuted at SXSW, so I didn't get it then; now, though, I see that just about all asynchronous communication is tantamount to merging, filtering, accumulating, and transforming lists / streams. Thanks to optional metadata, you can use the same transport to allow applications to communicate. Or let applications read the human data. Etc.
And App.net is that from what I gather. Maybe it was obvious to everyone but infrastructure like this is potentially a valuable commodity. It's not just about micro-blogging. There will, hopefully, be many awesome applications of sending data and queries out into the ether and things getting to where they need to be.
I think the point is that it's not like Facebook; with facebook, you, the user, are the product. With app.net, the platform is the product, and you pay for it.
Facebook makes decisions about its system based on maximizing its ad revenue, not maximizing your ability to do the things you want with it. A product not relying on advertising can focus entirely on the users, ideally.
People scream about paying 0.99 for an app on the App Store yet App.net thinks all of the free-chasers are going to want to pay for yet another social network and one that has no ubiquity? Good luck to them.
They were building a social network, then it became an ecosystem - I just can't see any economy out of it other than paying users paying for it to tweet each other in more than 140 chars. Oh, and now some free users too(which includes yours truly; I tweeted there once).
That's what I don't get. Seems app.net wants to be something to everybody. Not that I haven't done that very same mistake myself. But you you have to start small/scrappy and build up features. It's the only way.
I'm really trying to understand app.net, I used it for a little while and browsed the apps people had made for it but they all just seemed like mobile and desktop clients to send status updates to alpha. It also seems as though you need an app.net account to use an app built with their API which seems very limiting to me in terms of the type of markets you can reach. What's the incentive for someone to use app.net's API over something such as hull.io?
The value of the App.net from a developer perspective is that it’s an out-of-the-box social network, platform, and API that allows developers to quickly bring their ideas to life. I think that if App.net is going to be successful, they need to sell this vision apart from Alpha, and make it clear that App.net is where startup founders should build their next world-changing product, whether it’s built on the web, on Android, or iOS.
When pitching developers, App.net needs to focus on making it clear that they are offering a development platform for applications, providing much of the foundation required to build apps like Foursquare, Instagram, and Path. The built-in community also helps to decrease the barriers for rapid user adoption.
What the heck does that mean? I still have no idea what App.net is apart from a paid alternative to free social networks that frees users from ads. I think their marketing efforts should start by not speaking in such vague terms that offer no insight into what benefits might be derived and just come clean. If crafting that message is exceedingly difficult to do, I think that speaks volumes about the value proposition.
The value proposition is that if you develop an app on App.net and start making money, App.net will not pull the rug out from under you. Furthermore, you don't have to trust their word on this as their business structure is designed to ensure this.
I sort of understand the reasoning behind App.net, but I'm worried that its developer focus will prevent many average users from joining the service and prevent it from really providing the social layer that's necessary to actually build something network-driven out of it.
The reason Facebook and Twitter are popular platforms are not necessarily because of their particular features or user data but because of the massive networks they represent. By tying our products to their ecosystem, you're able to leverage their technologies and data while still having a large enough addressable market. This is definitely not the case with App.net (at least so far).
I think what App.net might have that's unique is an active developer community (as opposed to a mass of average users), so perhaps it can standalone as a developer-friendly social platform, but I'm questionable as to whether anything of mass market value can come out of it, especially on the B2C side.
Even if they could have pulled some stunning and innovative UI, sparkling apps on all the platforms(at least major ones; by this I mean Android included), it could have been an irresistible platform. Sth that was useful to people other than being a paid Twitter replacement - mostly.
It seems that he is suggesting app.net to build two-sided market for social apps: users on one side and developers on the other side.
Sounds great - once they build a successful marketplace. But until then, the value proposition is not currently compelling. As a user - ad-free is not in itself compelling enough (yes, ad-free with a user base similar to twitter or facebooks is compelling), and as a developer their user base is again too small to matter.
They likely need to figure out which group is more important. If it is users, they likely need to focus on a killer app, or a killer community (perhaps by focusing the group they are targeting). If developers are more important, and they don't have a user base that is large enough to be compelling, perhaps they need to pith a different pricing model to developers (something to the effect of free to build apps and $1/user with these 100 social features).
It's more like Salesforce.com than it is like Twitter in terms of business model -- that's interesting.
Will it work though?
SFDC started out with a product that had clear enough value to sell seats at $60+ a month and then there was a large market for apps built on top of their platform. And note that if you sell somebody an app in Salesforce, you're adding something to their recurring bill.
App.net sounds like an "all you can eat" service in terms of back-end hardware and software, a bit like cable TV, in fact, it's at the low end of that price range.
It may be very possible to build something interesting on here but so far all I see are a number of instant messaging clients, particularly for the Mac.
Show me a tool that can be used to build a social system that gets people to do something that they otherwise don't do then I'll be impressed!
Your Salesforce analogy also reminds me of Heroku - they sell you on the core product, which is hosting, but they have a large enough market that they can invite 3rd parties to develop apps (Add-ons in Heroku's parlance) for their users.
I think App.net is missing that "Killer App" that brings people to the platform in the first place. Perhaps they were thinking that would be Alpha, but it doesn't seem to be working so well.
If you still don't get what it's about, just take a few minutes to join and explore the different applications that are available. At the risk of appearing spammy, here are some invites to the free tier:
* For startups, user acquisition often remains the biggest hurdle to success. Here they have to sting the user for a monthly subscription even to try the app. Asking people to open their wallets is going to massively reduce the people a startup get through the doors.
* There are billions of active users on Facebook. It is the de-facto platform for interaction for most people. Why does the user want to change? Saying "but now you won't be the product, the platform will be" won't make clear to most users what advantage their might be. They'll respond "so I have to pay to be connected to less friends?".
* The two above problems are cyclical and exasperate one another.
I like the idea, I just think there are a lot of problems that are going to get in its way.