I wrote a blogpost about my thinking behind this here: http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal
I wrote a blogpost about my thinking behind this here: http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal
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?
UPDATE I appreciate and agree with the feedback that we could explained things earlier and more clearly. Updates to our page coming soon.
I think you would be able to reach more people more powerfully if you spent more time talking about your vision for what Twitter could have been had they not gone the ad route. As a designer working in the web industry, I am just as excited as you are about the potential for this thing, but I think most people need it explained a bit further to really get on board.
Perhaps you could highlight some of the really cool stuff that was built with the Twitter API that they then squashed. Talk about the potential OUTCOMES of this system, not just the origins of it. Hell, maybe even take some proposals from excited designers/developers for what they would do with said API, then use those proposals as a demonstration of the system's potential.
You've got my money.
"We're building a real-time platform that allows developers to create social services where users come first, not advertisers.
Our team has spent the last 9 years building social services, developer platforms, mobile applications and more.
We believe that advertising-supported platforms are so consistently and inextricably at odds with the interests of users and developers that something must be done.
Help us create the platform we all wish existed."
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.
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.
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...]
"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"
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.
thank you for communicating in a constructive way :)
What other incentives would you suggest? Happy to take suggestions. Today is the "announcement" phase, we are going to be collaborating w/interested folks and fleshing things out considerably more over the next month.
(p.s. I have been awake for far too many hours, so I am not sure I can effectively keep replying to everyone at the moment)
Good luck, and get some sleep!