Netbot: An App.net Client from Tweetbot Creators | Hacker News Reader

Netbot: An App.net Client from Tweetbot Creators

thenextweb.com

96 pointsdcope58 comments

This. I don't think App.net would have worked a year ago, maybe even not six months ago. But now, with Twitter actively attacking their developers, I imagine we'll be seeing a ton of ports from Twitter to App.net.

Twitter definitely considered the risk of cutting off their development community, but I don't think they intended to hand those developers off to a competing platform. Good timing from App.net.

App.net will get lots of hackers and people in our community, but in terms of reaching critical mass ... I don't think it will work.

People join twitter now out of societal pressure. "What is this thing? What is this ad on the subway that says I should follow them on twitter? Who's this athlete that is now Kobe Bryant with a strange @username at the end of his name?"

Developers, techy individuals, and people who consume twitter at a high level are more inclined to pay for it.

People who casually use it to help trend the latest hashtag about #whatmenreallywantfromawoman could care less. They're not going to pay a yearly fee for this, especially when the line between this and twitter is very blurry.

p.s. I am an app.net user and own a copy of netbot.

That's like saying that John Deere won't be a successful company because most people won't buy tractors.

Sort of. The perception is that app.net is going up against Twitter. In your comparison, that's like saying that John Deere can outsell Ford.

However, the more realistic view is that app.net will remain a niche service, but one that suits techies very well. So, yes, John Deere will corner the market in tractors, but never branch out to cars.

Your perception and inference are both wrong. App.net isn't just going up against twitter, but rather the entire social networking paradigm where I have multiple signups and not enough use. If we use app.net to login to most major services and post, like I have to do with twitter, facebook and linkedin right now, I get away with a single login.

What'll drive adoption? The developer incentive program. This also answers your John Deere example... There will be a lot of offsprings from App.net. In a rudimentary tone - a fb-clone, an instagram clone, comments systems (bit.ly/qbdebut)etc...

I talked about Twitter specifically because the OP talked about Twitter specifically.

I don't doubt that there will be lots of offsprings from app.net, I'm just dubious about whether they'll gain any traction. "You only have to use one username/password!" isn't enough to get people to spend $5 a month.

I don't think that app.net is selling an identity service that will take off or be worthwhile, but I strenuously disagree with the assertion that people won't pay for single sign in on the Internet.

It is, in my opinion, the number one pain point on the web today. It affects users of all technical levels and the more you have invested in the web the worse it gets.

Ah, single sign-in... also offered by Twitter, Facebook, Google, Firefox, my email address...

I don't disagree that people might pay for it, but why would it by App.net I'd pay? Why would they even pay though? You can trust the App.net developers? No more than those listed, realistically.

Sounds like an opportunity to charge people to set up their OpenID and use your revenue to get more companies to implement it.

Disclaimer: I don't know much about building websites and I don't understand why OpenID hasn't got more traction.

If OpenID was a tractor, we would need to have a PHD in astrophysics to understand how to drive it successfully.

No, it's like saying that John Deere won't be successful because a competitor is giving out Nascar tractors for free.

That's like saying app.net makes similar revenue per user as John Deere from a sale of a tractor.

A tractor is useful to a person just from buying it… app.net is only useful to a person if enough other people also buy it.

Your vehicle analogy completely falls apart and really on Hacker News do we have to simplify tech products down to car analogies…

The crux is how you define "critical mass". Dalton originally defined it as 10k users. He basically said that with 10k users you can have an interesting Twitter-like service.

Others are quick to point out that it will never reach Twitter-scale. There will never be a point where 90% or probably even 50% of the people you think matter on Twitter today are on ADN.

It's pretty clearly destined to be somewhere in between, and the question becomes what utility can you get out of that? Obviously the breadth of Twitter's firehose data is off the table, but you also have a lot higher signal to noise ratio, the benefits of a smaller community, and a practical means to fend off the Eternal September.

Can ADN be useful without ubiquity? I'm hoping to test the theory that finding the right 200 people to follow on ADN will give me everything I got from Twitter and more, even if they are not the 200 most interesting people on Twitter.

So, because Dalton defined it as 10k, then it must be so?

Go back and re-read my comment and explain to me how you got that conclusion from what I said.

I'm not saying App.Net is going to reach critical mass but your argument is pretty much the same thing people said about Twitter back in 2007.

Twitter is free. App.net is not.

NO WAY! Whoa, mind blowing insights.

It's also what people said about the hundreds of services that failed in 2007.

The App.net reward program probably motivated them as well: http://blog.app.net/blog/2012/09/27/announcing-the-app-net-d....

I think the App.net guys made an astute observation that the biggest hurdle to attracting developers was doing away with the perception as the platform as a gamble for developers.

It doesn't hurt that the Tapbots guys used the Tweetbot apps to piggyback on, of course.

Unlikely (read: impossible). Even if they could have ported it in the 6 days since that announcement, there's no way they rammed a new app through App Store approval that fast. They'd probably already have had to have submitted it before the announcement given current wait times.

That's a good point. I didn't even consider the approval process in the App Store.

The reward program was announced a week before Netbot was released (that is, today). Doesn't seem like the reward program was around when they decided to port over Tweetbot.

Pay money to view a feed from people who paid money to view each others' feeds, with conversation about the feed? It all seems so meta.

Just because it's money? You're also spending your time, effort, attention, and opportunity cost.

Is college meta because you spend money to work for free with people who also spend money, while learning from people who get paid money to teach you?

You're probably more used to services that monetize with ads, and encourage quantity of accounts at the expense of quality because it's good for their numbers. Nothing meta about one or the other.

No, just because it's a recursive service. A feed where the feed is full of people talking about the feed. At least, last time I checked.

Edit: And, suspicions are confirmed: http://adn.loqix.com/appwords.17:00-03.10.2012.png

Netbot is causing quite a stir at app.net. Here's a word cloud of the past hour's global timeline:

http://adn.loqix.com/appwords.17:00-03.10.2012.png

Check out the client stats: http://appnetizens.com/clientstats

What are they talking about other than netbot though?

Before netbot that did they ever talk about anything other than "When can we get a good native client"

Tapbots link: http://tapbots.com/software/netbot/

App Store link: http://itunes.apple.com/app/netbot-for-iphone-app.net/id5635...

I'm curious as to why they created a completely separate app. Why not just integrate App.net functionality into Tweetbot? I'd certainly be much more likely to use it that way... and I even paid the $100 developer fee for app.net.

I'm pretty sure the newer TOS for Twitter precludes that.

The TOS just forbids mixing Twitter updates with updates from other social networks in the same stream, I think.

Yeah they're essentially identical platforms in terms of interaction. Reading a stream, replying, retweeting/reposting etc...

They already have multi-user support, I'd rather interact with one app in this way. Or better, have the client merge your two accounts so that app.net/twitter become seamless and instead of thinking about who is on where, you simply enjoy it through the window of your client and none of that matters.

But.. I'm sure it took some good work to develop this and by simply updating Tweetbot they might not get reimbursed for that dev time. Rather, the new app must've been required.

I look forward to an integrated client down the road.

People can post from Netbot to both twitter and App.net. Twitter's TOS doesn't allow the twitter app to post to anything else...

Two apps = two purchases.

If nothing else, the extra revenue can't hurt.

Still not sure why I'm supposed to care about app.net enough to pay $5/mo.

I cannot tell you a good reason ... and I signed up during the announcement period. lol

For me, it came down to wanting to be part of something being built from the ground up. Heck, I am not even a big Twitter user.

What about $3/mo? They just introduced a $36/year plan.

The best part of that is that if the cost decreases further, you don't lose your money, you get more membership time.

To what, exactly?

This looks awesome! I was wondering how long it would take for companies with Twitter clients to port over to App.net. The App.net platform looks like it may give Twitter a run for its money.

My favorite client in the new frame... I wonder how much time did take to port the network code to App.net? And if using a different key for crossposting.

I'm an AppNet user, but pretty limited in frequency. The primary reason is that I want proper posts to facebook and don't want to post in two places. I would like to see apps like this have the option to cross-post to facebook and twitter.

Ifttt fails because it does not allow proper link posts to facebook, and going through twitter to facebook results in truncated messages.

Now they have my attention. It is an incredible client.

I would sign up for app.net if they supported open standards such as OStatus.

They have committed to supporting open standards like Activity Streams, PubSubHubBub, and Webfinger. While not OStatus explicitly, it looks like the majority of OStatus will be supported.

http://daltoncaldwell.com/a-response-to-brennan-novak

It's important to note the careful hedging in that response. Specifically:

* Activity Streams will be read-only, except through their (non-ostatus) API.

* No subscribing through pubsubhubbub "initially." It implies but does not promise eventually subscribing.

* Similar to streams, webfinger will be published but not consumed.

* From context, the final clause about inbound and outbound syndication is through some non-ostatus mechanism.

How can something that just launched be labeled 'mature'?

The idea is that much of the code from Tapbot's mature Twitter client (Tweetbot) was reused.

Bought it, have it sitting right above my Tweetbot app.

That said, it really hides the Global stream, and I'm not really cool with that. There's all kinds of good stuff in there.

I find my HackerNode app is a much more fulfilling experience.

serious yet seemingly silly question: What do i call tweeting in app.net? apping?

posting? Like every other website out there except twitter. I posted on HN, I redditted this cat picture?

My point was probably more around branding. Posting is generic; you mean a blog post? Status Update? Tweets are known to be just 140 chars.

Twapp.neting

Reply on news.ycombinator.com