I worry that this is one of those market sectors where the price customers are willing to pay to use a service is dwarfed by the price advertisers are willing to pay for access to the users --- and so the ad-supported version is (a) free, (b) more attractive to users, and (c) more lucrative.
In a network-effect dominated business, this doesn't seem like a recipe for success.
I'm not so sure. The network effect here is to have all apps sharing one messaging fabric. The value of access to that fabric should go up as the network grows, and the costs of moving a message should stay low. Things fall apart if one or two apps start to dominate the fabric, but if that's true the open fabric wasn't needed in the first place.
I'm not predicting success here, I'm not even sure what the exact product is beyond a general idea of a twitter-gone-the-API route.
I'm in favor of the project. We'll all learn from it and I admire his moxie in trying it. I'm getting out my credit now to give it a $ upvote.
I can see (a) and (c), but what part of this scenario leads to (b)? The fundamental assertion underlying the desire for a paid network is that ad-supported networks are inherently worse for users because the network is built with advertisers in mind instead of users in mind. A paid network may very well bring in less money than an ad-supported network, but as long as it brings in enough money to operate I don't see the problem.
One solution to the problem of "your users are the product" is allowing your users to buy their own ad space at a multiple of how much they are predicted to make you.
If a user makes you $1/mo in ads then you could charge that user a multiple based on the growth rate of that income.
So if they are pretty steadily using your app and clicking on ads just use a 1.5x multiplier which would be $18/yr.
If their usage is growing and they are clicking on more ads then use a larger multiple, like 10x and charge them $10/mo.
Once you consider these users who "buy their own ad space" as advertisers, in a way you'll start converging on making a better product for people that pay.
Of course, the issues with this system is that it doesn't scale. The more users that become paying users the less data you have to predict how much you would be making on ads per user. Eventually, you would have to start guessing at that price.
This downside could be averted if someone created an API that allowed companies like twitter or facebook to POST information about a user and the API would broker how much that user is worth either by algorithm or auction and the user would be given a chance to beat the top price.
True, and yet what if there's an opening for the other model? And what if the opening grows as the market matures? It's worth a fresh try, every few years.
Ad-supported mass-market audiovisual entertainment dominated for decades... but there's still a growing niche for audience-paid ad-unencumbered alternatives: Pandora, satellite radio, ITunes, NetFlix.
Wait, so the idea is that you're going to charge for Twitter, without the network that makes Twitter worth anything at all?
As far as I can tell from the video and FAQ, that's what it is. A twitter clone that costs $50 a year. If this is NOT what it is, you simply have to do a better job illustrating what this platform is supposed to deliver.
Your page copy and the first few minutes of your video that I could sit through just tell me you are nerd raging over advertising on the internet. I get that you want to do something differently, but WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU BUILDING?
What am I becoming a "member" of? What am I funding? App.net appears to be a way to get more installs of mobile apps. What the hell?
I think this is a marvellous idea, and I'm now an official backer. One thing that I'm worried about is that a "pay wall" sort of model might prevent casual users from signing up. Maybe a paid API / developer model might work better.
For instance, the vast majority of GitHub users don't pay a dime, since they only use open source projects (which are free to host). There are many people/companies that use the paid service (mine included), but we pay for the "added feature" of being able to keep the repo private.
I agree, I watched the video and read the FAQ and I'm still not 100% sure what you're building.
Edit: I hadn't read your original post at http://daltoncaldwell.com/what-twitter-could-have-been. I just read it and now it makes sense. I have a feeling your video will reach a much wider audience, so others might feel lost as well.
The pricing feels off to me if this is to penetrate the mass market.
While it might seem 'right' to us, who understand the effort this requires and appreciate the value it provides, especially over an ad funded service, $50/year just doesn't seem like it would appeal to the general public.
I suspect that even many of the savvy folks here would not lay out $50/yr for Twitter or Facebook if either were to switch to a directly funded model, and they have the advantage that they already have big networks.
I have no scientific basis to this, but I feel like for this to be a success, 99 cents a month, or $10/year, would be a price point to shoot for. I have no idea if it's plausible to run something like this at that price.
[I know, I sell a $10 iPhone app, so I perhaps am not the best person to make this comment...]
The video should start @ 3:00 exactly. It's a great pitch and gets me interested, THEN I'll listen to why you're building it, not the other way around.
"I've been inspired to build exactly the service that I want manifested. And that service is called App.net and this video is announcing this project... what is actually is is a real time feed and API, and rather than being a free and add supported service with no clear business model, we are actually going to be paid, and the reason I am so optimistic with a paid opportunity is that it aligns the incentives... etc. etc"
dalton, i saw a dear friend support you over my twitter and I clicked but have NO IDEA what this does? Seriously, I am pretty internet savvy but all I read was "feed platform" and how you weren't going to sell my data-- but what data? What is it? you might want to update the landing page a bit :)
Why aren't you offering an incentive to early backers? I can't see any reason to donate now, or within the 30 days, rather than wait and see how things develop.
Aside from the "what exactly is this?" reaction, I just can't seem to get over the fact that I'm being asked to pay someone to build a service I will then have to pay for. This just seems absurd to me.
Either build it and I'll pay to use it or I pay you to build it and I use it for free. Can't have it both ways.
My left-brain says it's doomed. My right-brain says it's brilliant, and alpha geeks will lead the way in a mass secession from today's feudally-managed parasitic platforms.
So entirely separate from any quibbling about the likelihood of success, I'm backing this project at the developer level ($100).
I find it amusing that people are rediscovering the age-old concept of running business that directly charges a customer for a product or service that nets a profit.
This post strikes me as a "gee whiz" rediscovery of that fact through the conflation of:
1. Web 2.0 companies that "won" were really media companies. To win you need lots of eye balls.
2. A person can charge more for a product than it costs and get profit, which can be reinvested back into the product.
3. Instead of waiting for "profit" in said point above (which is risk to you and your company), you can instead reallocate that risk on future customers (and gauge interest at the same time).
I believe that the people running Web2.0 companies publicly and privately refuse to admit they are running media companies. ie "Twitter CEO Dick Costolo: We’re Not a Media Company" (source: http://allthingsd.com/20120130/live-at-dive-twitters-dick-co... )
Some music and visuals would go a long way towards selling the product. I think we've all been spoiled by Kickstarter, but it's 2012, and we've come to expect incredible experiences when we watch videos of people asking us for money: just having an HD camera doesn't do it anymore.
As it is, I watched the first minute, and I still had no idea what benefit this would provide me as a developer or a user (only that Dalton clearly doesn't like Facebook), so I went back to my own coding.
Hypothetically let's say you reach the $500K goal. That is enough for a small team to survive for 12-18 months. Ongoing, will I have to pay $50 per year to use this service at the member level?
The reason I am happy to pay Github $25/month is because I want access to all my old projects. What is your thesis around whether people really want access to their old "feed" data (is that a proper way to describe it)?
My belief is that this sort of service will enable new/interesting applications and real value that could have been unlocked if Twitter took a different direction: http://daltoncaldwell.com/what-twitter-could-have-been
A lot of my other opinions have already been brought up so I won't restate them, but I further don't understand why you didn't use KickStarter? I dont know enough about your funding system to trust it with my money or info. KS has built a reputation and I trust I won't be charged in case the project goes under (not to mention you miss out on any network effects).
Not sure if this is supposed to be a paid Twitter, or if it is a paid platform for developers who need a real time feed infrastructure. If it is the latter, who owns the data? If it is the paying developer, be assured that they will sometimes offset that cost with ads.
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
In a network-effect dominated business, this doesn't seem like a recipe for success.
[+] [-] paulsutter|13 years ago|reply
I'm not predicting success here, I'm not even sure what the exact product is beyond a general idea of a twitter-gone-the-API route.
I'm in favor of the project. We'll all learn from it and I admire his moxie in trying it. I'm getting out my credit now to give it a $ upvote.
[+] [-] eridius|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ljd|13 years ago|reply
If a user makes you $1/mo in ads then you could charge that user a multiple based on the growth rate of that income.
So if they are pretty steadily using your app and clicking on ads just use a 1.5x multiplier which would be $18/yr.
If their usage is growing and they are clicking on more ads then use a larger multiple, like 10x and charge them $10/mo.
Once you consider these users who "buy their own ad space" as advertisers, in a way you'll start converging on making a better product for people that pay.
Of course, the issues with this system is that it doesn't scale. The more users that become paying users the less data you have to predict how much you would be making on ads per user. Eventually, you would have to start guessing at that price.
This downside could be averted if someone created an API that allowed companies like twitter or facebook to POST information about a user and the API would broker how much that user is worth either by algorithm or auction and the user would be given a chance to beat the top price.
Just a thought.
[+] [-] gojomo|13 years ago|reply
Ad-supported mass-market audiovisual entertainment dominated for decades... but there's still a growing niche for audience-paid ad-unencumbered alternatives: Pandora, satellite radio, ITunes, NetFlix.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gergles|13 years ago|reply
As far as I can tell from the video and FAQ, that's what it is. A twitter clone that costs $50 a year. If this is NOT what it is, you simply have to do a better job illustrating what this platform is supposed to deliver.
[+] [-] dalton|13 years ago|reply
I wrote a blogpost about my thinking behind this here: http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal
[+] [-] dsl|13 years ago|reply
What am I becoming a "member" of? What am I funding? App.net appears to be a way to get more installs of mobile apps. What the hell?
[+] [-] amackera|13 years ago|reply
For instance, the vast majority of GitHub users don't pay a dime, since they only use open source projects (which are free to host). There are many people/companies that use the paid service (mine included), but we pay for the "added feature" of being able to keep the repo private.
Good luck with the cause! There's potential here.
[+] [-] petedoyle|13 years ago|reply
Edit: I hadn't read your original post at http://daltoncaldwell.com/what-twitter-could-have-been. I just read it and now it makes sense. I have a feeling your video will reach a much wider audience, so others might feel lost as well.
[+] [-] jrmg|13 years ago|reply
While it might seem 'right' to us, who understand the effort this requires and appreciate the value it provides, especially over an ad funded service, $50/year just doesn't seem like it would appeal to the general public.
I suspect that even many of the savvy folks here would not lay out $50/yr for Twitter or Facebook if either were to switch to a directly funded model, and they have the advantage that they already have big networks.
I have no scientific basis to this, but I feel like for this to be a success, 99 cents a month, or $10/year, would be a price point to shoot for. I have no idea if it's plausible to run something like this at that price.
[I know, I sell a $10 iPhone app, so I perhaps am not the best person to make this comment...]
[+] [-] callil|13 years ago|reply
"I've been inspired to build exactly the service that I want manifested. And that service is called App.net and this video is announcing this project... what is actually is is a real time feed and API, and rather than being a free and add supported service with no clear business model, we are actually going to be paid, and the reason I am so optimistic with a paid opportunity is that it aligns the incentives... etc. etc"
[+] [-] brianwhitman|13 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/fascinated/status/223906673457238016
edit: I see i am not the only one. Sorry for the noise, but maybe take it as another vote for more clarity.
[+] [-] stbullard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zimbatm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Maascamp|13 years ago|reply
Either build it and I'll pay to use it or I pay you to build it and I use it for free. Can't have it both ways.
[+] [-] lukifer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gojomo|13 years ago|reply
So entirely separate from any quibbling about the likelihood of success, I'm backing this project at the developer level ($100).
[+] [-] badclient|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradgessler|13 years ago|reply
This post strikes me as a "gee whiz" rediscovery of that fact through the conflation of:
1. Web 2.0 companies that "won" were really media companies. To win you need lots of eye balls.
2. A person can charge more for a product than it costs and get profit, which can be reinvested back into the product.
3. Instead of waiting for "profit" in said point above (which is risk to you and your company), you can instead reallocate that risk on future customers (and gauge interest at the same time).
That said, I do admire Dalton's efforts.
[+] [-] dalton|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gordonbowman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stanislavb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebabchick|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smalter|13 years ago|reply
That said, I hope it succeeds and I'll be contributing some of my hard-earned cash.
[+] [-] btown|13 years ago|reply
As it is, I watched the first minute, and I still had no idea what benefit this would provide me as a developer or a user (only that Dalton clearly doesn't like Facebook), so I went back to my own coding.
[+] [-] inmygarage|13 years ago|reply
The reason I am happy to pay Github $25/month is because I want access to all my old projects. What is your thesis around whether people really want access to their old "feed" data (is that a proper way to describe it)?
[+] [-] dalton|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arpit|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlongster|13 years ago|reply
"Why aren't you using Kickstarter?
We wish we could, we <3 Kickstarter. Unfortunately, the Kickstarter Terms Of Service explicitly prohibits raising money for this kind of service. "
[+] [-] salman89|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukeholder|13 years ago|reply
If he could reproduce the twitter API so it would be easy to switch any current twitter client, I say go for it.
[+] [-] propercoil|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duncan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dinkumthinkum|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bc1323|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SudarshanP|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zizee|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rudiger|13 years ago|reply