Hacker News Reader

Comment by simondlr | Hacker News Reader

You didn't read the next sentence. It is not inherently ads that are the problem, it is the fact from a company's perspective you have to cater to a) the advertisers who are paying you money vs b) your users who aren't.

Currently, I'm okay in paying $50 to get access to a great community of early adopters (lets admit, it is mostly tech people). I'm not naive to expect it won't change, but once killer apps start popping up on the ecosystem, more users will join which will bring back the value that the older social networks provided.

View on HN

To expand on simondlr's point, Twitter will optimize the site for maximum exposure of ads, not user's status updates.

The highest paying ads will surface to the top over the highest quality status updates.

This indicates that you think Twitter is stupid, and will make their product suck so much that people will stop using it. I don't see any evidence for that. Did the promise of ad revenue make Google destroy its search engine?

Twitter's success is a function of the emergent behaviour of users and applications built off the platform (including, but not limited to 3rd party clients).

They're now trying to freeze innovation and homogenise us. That's the real killer, not the ads (although the ads are shit too).

Sure, it'll be ok for many people in the future. But it probably won't be the Twitter that I and others want. What's wrong with trying an alternative?

There's nothing wrong with trying App.net. Quite the contrary. I just don't understand why this community doesn't seem to be applying its characteristic skepticism to this idea.

There's been plenty of skepticism, especially at the start (IMO). I think the successful funding is at least a signal that there might be something here.

I think that this really is going to reveal is that dichotomy between users as product and users as customer is a false one.

It's an interesting alternate perspective that has somehow gained the force of common wisdom without the evidence to support it. On a service like Twitter, the users are both customer and product, as five minutes of objectively clear thought would show.

App.Net make succeed or it may fail, but it won't be because of this issue.

I agree.

I hate adverts, but I think app.net is unlikely to topple FB or Twitter in the social sector.

Myspace is a warning to Twitter and FB, if you don't look after your users, improve your service and keep them happy then you the advertisers will leave too.

Sure the advertisers are a force that doesn't necessarily align with the users, but this is something the people running the network have to mitigate, because it isn't in their intrests to piss off their users.

That being said, I think advertising is in a bubble, so from that perspective app.net has an advantage.

Yes. Yes it did. I would easily pay $50 annually if I could get pure c.2010 Google with all the Boolean operators and none of the social bullshit. I deliberately stopped clicking on anything ad-related as soon as they screwed everything up after G+ launched (and stepped up my AdBlock+ filters), so I think they'd make more off of me by selling pure 'premium' search or something.

Sorry but that's crazy.

Twitter is NOT going to compromise the integrity of the entire site for ads. Google haven't. Facebook haven't. Microsoft haven't. And thousands of other sites haven't.

Google has. Facebook had nothing to compromise. Microsoft... now you're trolling.

As for Twitter... they've done better than most, so far. But at some point, they'll have more pressure to show revenue. And then... how do they make money, again?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com