As of today, App.net is a freemium service
blog.app.net
blog.app.net
1. They know that a lot of subscribers have abandoned the service and probably won't pay again, but they don't want to have to report that the number of users is declining once those subscriptions start to expire.
2. Acquiring new customers is not happening fast enough to keep critical mass or grow.
This move is to address those two problems. I also think it's a negative signal for the future of the company because I don't think a limited free account will get people to join. While they make clear that they are not a Twitter clone, the concept of following people is a Twitter concept, and you don't have those same limitations on a Twitter free account.
There's something in general that bothers me about App.net. In my career I've found that software engineers rarely are able to climb the org chart like business people are. The reason I've found is that engineers in general have a certain disdain for schmoozing and company politics, so they try to isolate themselves from it. App.net's marketing pitch I feel appeals to that isolationist desire and that's part of the reason it was such a hit.
This "goodwill" move seems to reinforce that. This smells like Second Life's PR all over again.
edit: OP changed #1. Used to say they had a ton of users.
http://blog.app.net/2012/10/01/app-net-pricing-changes/?utm_...
Then they make it free.
Then they die.
Everyone saw the writing on the wall about growth when it launched, and the best solution to drive new users (and encourage them to upgrade) is to offer a service at a model that allows them to "get their feet wet" without signing up with a credit card.
I had to go back and find that to make sure I wasn't misremembering. If the free tier includes a cap on the number of people you can follow, has the "we're not just a pay twitter" angle been abandoned?
I would like to see ADN become a fully armed and op.. err fully sustainable service (I paid up when they started), but I'm wondering if they should have went further with the free tier.
I don't disagree with the limit providing a great incentive to go paid, but when a free user joins, there is a point where the user decides this service is neat/useful enough that he wants to pay for it. I wonder if this limit might hinder people reaching that point.
The only people who care about platforms are people like us. The average user doesn't care about App.Net being a "more civilized" Twitter.
Anybody got one?
edit: All gone.
silentreign at gmail.com
Thanks!
Edit - got it, thanks a million!
gaurav [at] dadhania [dot] in
mcantelon at gm ail dot com
The price was extremely high in comparison to what it offered: Sure, Apple charges to develop for iOS, but iOS has a few hundred million credit-card enabled customers buying software. App.net had a bunch of already-paid developers using the service.
I tried to figure out the point through a few emails with the creator but ultimately it felt like a service for developers flush with spending money to join a sort of app vanity press.
I'm glad that it's opening up now and I'm suddenly starting to get interested in the project!
Like by having an account you're saying, hey, I'm rich enough to spend $5/month just because I don't like a company.
Give it to charity for goodness sake.
By moving to this free (with 40 people followed) model, they can allow users to try and thus get more that are likely to upgrade to the higher tier when they want more.
Developers (like @falcon_android) that have hit Twitter's token limit are also getting encouragement to move or support it - as it's not a small subset but a very large one of people who can use the service.
Like by having an account you're saying, hey, I'm rich enough to spend $7/mo just because I like a pretty UI.
Give it to charity for goodness sake.
But you get what out of App.net? Basically nothing.
Anyone else out there feel the same way? App.net's environment seems hostile (like following only up to 40 people), compared to the friendly environment and user experience with Twitter.
Obviously you are not alone in liking Twitter, but seriously, no reason whatsoever?
I don't doubt what you say. I just find it astonishing that Twitter behavior and service has been such an absolute match for you.
App.net also hasnt been successful enough to attract the majority of people I follow on Twitter. So their value proposition for me looks like this: Im paying for something that looks, functions, and feels like Twitter without the people to follow to create that content.
Build or use your own app without worrying about hitting a token/user limit.
This also impacts me as a user because the official Twitter apps have special privileges that third party apps do not. I believe this is why third party apps do not support push notifications.
This has pretty much no influence on users. It might slower the innovation a bit, but it's not like there's much innovation happening there to begin with..
I use Twitter a lot, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't jump at the first chance of a real alternative.
The number of sponsored ads don't seem high enough to make me feel like it's annoying.
As for Twitter clients. Eh, not sure I care so much. I just need a decent client which doesn't suck.
I think their recent decision sort of suck but as a user I don't know that I care too much.
They just joined Twitter, years after it was launched, because they wanted to see what interesting people & celebs were saying. Heck, the probably even heard about Twitter from an advert or some sort of marketing material, so adverts within Twitter won't bother them/me.
Communication should be controlled by the users. Think about all the companies who were screwed over by Facebook's "Likegate." Decentralization is why I prefer Tent and IRC. App.net seems acceptable as well because of the open nature, though it is centralized.
kwildfeuer@me.com
Cheers.
* What is the integral of "x + 2"?
* How would you implement coroutines with continuations? (Just a very brief description is fine) (edit, if nobody answers this in a few min I'll just invite people)
* What is memoization?
memoize (f): ->
cache = { }
() ->
h = hash arguments
cache [h] ? (cache [h] = (f arguments))
What email do you want me to use?
My email would be my username at most popular email service dot com.
Thanks.
So I'll give it to you. What email do you want?
def resume
callcc do |cc|
$current = self
@caller = cc
@resumer.call
end
end
def self.yield
callcc do |cc|
$current.resumer = cc
$current.caller.call(cc)
end
end
You need something to kick it off though. The simplest way is probably to use `(@resumer || @code).call`.