Where Did App.net Go Wrong?

> If Dalton’s idea of the platform was really to create a Twitter-like messaging service he should have made it easier to access.

This is actually the complete opposite of what happened, and I think the key to where they went wrong.

Dalton created a Twitter-like messaging service as a way of showcasing what App.Net could do. But he seemed very intent on downplaying the service and focusing on App.Net as a platform. This is what caused all the confusion; most of the actual users of App.Net were primarily users of Alpha, and anyone who was creating a product with the App.Net platform were facing the confusion of people thinking that's like creating a product with Twitter. I believe the reason Dalton did this was because his dream was for him to solely care about the platform and for other developers to provide all the apps. But nobody else was going to provide an Alpha clone, nor should they.

What Dalton really should have done was immediately spun off Alpha into its own full-fledged product. Give it a snappy name (heck, Alpha isn't too bad, certainly better than App.Net), give it its own domain, and make it very clearly a distinct product from App.Net. Then he could brand it all he wants as "built on top of App.Net" or whatever, and having login, etc. go through the app.net domain, but ultimately it should have been immediately recognizable as what it was; a Twitter-like messaging service (with much better features), that was built on top of App.Net. Just like a third-party app would have been.

This would have made it much easier to understand. People talking about App.Net would be obviously talking about the platform, people talking about Alpha would be talking about the messaging service, and trying to encourage people to build new apps on top of the App.Net platform would have made far more sense than convincing people to build new apps on top of what they think is basically just a Twitter clone.

To me, it was two things:

1. As a Twitter replacement, it solved the wrong problem. They seemed to think that the flaw with Twitter is that it's free. In my opinion, the flaw with Twitter is that it's centralized.

2. Every time I mention how the Twitter replacement isn't compelling, people would talk about how that's not what it is, it's a general platform for Stuff that just happens to be something you can use to build a Twitter replacement. But they never really explained what it was, just that it wasn't merely a Twitter replacement.

Where did App.net go right? I generally like the vision that App.net was promoting, but when you are trying to build something that relies on network effects for success you need to remove every impediment to attracting users. They've had several glaring impediments since day 1.

App.net was born out of a visceral, snap reaction to Twitter's API decisions that, really, the mainstream didn't really care about. That's not enough to build a product on top of. What's more, while I sympathize with the developers who were negatively impacted by Twitter's decisions, one could argue the choices they made were _right_ for the product. If you believe that, App.net's decision, the inverse, was _wrong_ for the product (reducing quality and focus).

Or in short, most people just don't care.

The only thing that went wrong with App.net is that it felt like you had to be part of some inner circle to understand what they were actually doing. Their communication and marketing was, and still is, diabolical. I still have no idea what they are selling.

I think it really boiled down to the fact the market for "paid Twitter" was too small to support the kind of network effects required to create an entire ecosystem.

Site appears to be down, Google cache version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RxMTeUF...

App.net's problem was that it was a philosophy, not something that people would actually want to use.

I'm the first person to criticize free online media, but they should have remained free until gaining a critical mass of users and THEN charged them to stay on.

That's how Twitter should work...think Lady Gaga or Barack Obama are going to leave Twitter over a $200 annual fee now? Nope, but they're sure as hell not joining an unproven network with an upfront $20 annual fee.

Of course, you'd have to be clear about this in advance. Nobody likes an unexpected bait-and-switch.

Main problem was that Twitter wasn't quite bad enough for people to stop using it. Even if the website / official app was a mess, most of the App.net early adopters use third-party Twitter clients anyways.

If even the people who paid for App.net were still using both systems, and cross-posting, that wasn't really sustainable once the initial interest was gone.

I still don't know what it is...

At least part of the problem was the resentment that people felt about needing to sign up to paid service to keep their identity and follow their friends. Their was implied social proof in the very beginning but with a pretty big arm twist.

I still don't know what app.net is about after reading their About section. Seems like a mish mash of products. Their messaging is very confusing. I couldn't figure out why, me as a user, would ever download and use their app(s)?

Charging money. Centralized. Personal data stored in the clear.

It didn't solve the problem of centralized control.

Seems like a lot of beanplating around "it wasn't actually compelling to enough people to make money".

They just dont have a sustainable business model. That's all.

You really can tell when people have websites not meant for any significant traffic. Site is down.