App.net developer incentive programme
blog.app.net
blog.app.net
I bet they're going to love that. There's nothing people like more than filling out the same form over and over again, after all.
App.net will use some basic algorithms to put in “presets” as a proxy for how useful that particular app may have been to you. The member will then be free to move the sliders in any configuration that they wish.
So if you don't fill out the form, they probably just use whatever their algorithm tells them you think. But since Defaults Are Powerful my bet is that the vast majority of people who do bother to fill out the form will either just submit the presets or a mildly tweaked version of same, so the survey is skewed towards their algorithm's findings anyway.
The overall user base of App.net is constrained by financial limitations (pay to play yearly).
So if someone creates an app off of their platform, like the simple chess app, they also need to be a member of App.net to play it. So while you may see the benefits and be a member of App.net, if you want to convince your friend to play who isn't a member of App.net you also need to convince them to pay and join App.net.
App.net is arguing that their business model does not require lots of users to be sustainable. While that may be true, for network effects to take hold, you need users.
For example, you can see my cloud of what people talk about there:
I could use my developer credentials to allow people to exchange information via the app.net backend. Of course I'd be responsible for whatever gets posted, so that places obvious limits on the kinds of apps I could write.
Truth be told, that's not what they had in mind. No offense, all you're doing is data crunching.
"3rd party apps" are all about user interaction. This then drives engagement, new users and in turn makes App.net valuable.
But then again, best of luck to you if you can get money out of their developer incentive program by data crunching their own data set.
App.net is more or less an abstract title, it conjures no image in my mind, just a generic concept of software apps which has no particular generic image or symbol. So if they're going to stick with that name, they need to get some visual branding on the page to help keep user momentum. Because at the moment, press momentum is dying and they'll quickly become yesterdays news as people forget them.
All that paying for apps does is get uncommitted developers doing second-rate work. It sets the expectation that payments will continue as well.
I was bullish about ADN until I read this news. Now I fear it is doomed...
[1] http://ceklog.kindel.com/2012/09/26/paying-developers-is-a-b...
> It is designed to be similar to Twitter, but have no advertising, instead relying on user and developer subscriptions. They began directly crowd funding it on July 13, 2012, with a goal of $500,000 and about 10,000 backers. [They] exceeded the goal by August 13th, raising at least $750,000 with over 11,000 backers. The service is currently in alpha.
ADN has made explicit promises to try to align their own incentives with those of both users and developers.
"Developers are free to monetize their applications through their own mechanisms; this program should be thought of as a “bonus” for building software that App.net members use and love."
So developers can add advertisements and now no advertising feature of app.net is void?
What you are saying is acceptable if users are allowed use those developed apps freely(without app.net membership)but here first we need membership to access these apps!
This is akin to saying that Windows 8 is filled with advertisements because the Music and Video apps link to the appropriate store frontends.
Seems like there's some "low hanging fruit" problems that this app ecosystem could attempt to solve. First is search and discovery. Just do it better than Apple. Then there's the review process. Just scratch that entirely and use collaborative filtering to let the best apps bubble up to the top of the list. Of course have some flag for offensive, hate related etc apps.
How about partnering with Stripe and having an in-app-purchase system where developers get 100% of the revenue? Or perhaps 90%. Just being better than Apple is a great start.
One more thought: Apple's app ecosystem had the benefit of users' CC info pre-entered. Seems like app.net could benefit from the CC or other payment info already supplied by users when signing up.
On the other hand, I'm glad they're going to suspend developers who goad; I am sick of every app on my phone asking me to go give it five stars.
App companies will stop asking once the technique stops working, but it is super effective right now. If you dont ask people to rate, you mostly get ratings from people who dislike your app.
I think the logic behind the feedback system is pretty good too. A lot of users won't bother submitting feedback, but the ones that do are already motivated to submit feedback and therefore reward apps they like. So it's in the best interest of devs to create apps that delight their users. Win-win all around.
App.net, on the other hand, is just glue to connect applications together. Outside apps, there is no "there" there. So it suffers from a chicken-and-egg problem that Netflix does not -- they need users to attract developers, but to attract users, there have to be developers building attractive stuff.
Probably the easiest way out of this conundrum would be if they could entice some celebrities or other high-profile figures to ditch Twitter for App.net. They would create streams of content people want to read, which would attract their fans, which would attract developers. This seems a bit contrary to the App.net "we're just an API" philosophy, though.
I believe that next big social platform will be open, decentralized, interface-independent and wont be under direct control of a single company/organization. Something like an email, just an api...
I also don't think that this will be "tent.is". They are making the same mistake(like diaspora), they are creating an application instead of designing the unique platform/api/protocol/standart/whatever.
If I were google I would create that unique protocol, truly implement it to google plus. Advertise google+ as a open, easy-to-switch social platform. Then, they can easily put pressure on facebook to implement this new thing too. People don't want to be trapped in these social networks with their data. People want to feel that they own and can do whatever they want with their data.
If you are trying to create a something new, "looking at what users are used to" is a wrong way to go. If you create something unique, great, and something people find useful, I am sure It will grow quickly. Plus I don't think average joe knew how to use email or facebook when they were first introduced to the world.
Again like an email. People own their data. Companies own and create value with their APPs/interfaces. And protocol is open for anyone to implement.
Simple mail transfer protocol: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc821
Internet message format: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
A replacement for traditional communication (instant messaging) that is built into everything.
Flickr offers this and I have always enjoyed having the option.
Let's see how they behave once they actually have users.