If Caldwell actually cared about making "a real-time social service where users and developers come first, not advertisers" he'd build something on status.net, or at least something open source.
I disagree.
When making a business, your paying customer is the one you serve. If App.net goes for charging users and developers, they'll (logically) focus on those exact people.
I'm more disagreeing with the notion that a product can't be for users/developers if he is charging them for it.
There is of course nothing wrong with making money :D
http://pmarca-archive.posterous.com/the-psychology-of-entrep...
This experiment provides a huge number of people a way to say "well, if there were actually X people on the service then sure, I'd also become a dedicated user". If they hit their goal, all those people will have paid enough that they feel emotionally attached to justifying their decision via using the service.
It just might work. A service doesn't need to have EVERYONE, it just has to have enough people to be more interesting for all its participants than the alternative.
Whereas without this fundraising period, the first people in are going to say "I'm the first person in, if I pay $50 there's nobody else to talk to", and... then nobody becomes the first to pay it. (Well not nobody, but few people.)
What am I supposed to be looking at?
(I'm also a backer of app.net)