jharrier

After getting fooled by the Te'o hoax, they include another hoax in their report on the first hoax. When will the madness end?

When will the media learn their lesson?

Looks like two great bloggers jumped the gun.

This looks like a challenge to other companies that Facebook wishes to acquire.

A much more positive experience than has previously been reported.

The Touch Cover should have been included or been $50 or less. $100-120 is way too much to spend on something most people think is included.

Exactly, there's no reason for this to be an app, other than the new business model. It's just a blog in an app, not a magazine. In fact, the content will either be from already-free web archives, or will be published later on the web for free. It is just a way to generate revenue from new/old blog posts on top of the web revenue.

I could see a business model for Daring Fireball and others where the linked list stays the same, but feature articles are published to their app blogs first ($1.99 subscription) and then after 3 days to the sites.

Very true. If I were them, I'd wait a while and make some ads before launching their app.

Google is clever by linking to their maps web app, which is much better than Apple's latest native maps app.

Actually, when dragging a disk to the trash in OSX the trash can turns into an eject button.

Agreed. Not a lot to brag about, but I'd at least mention that it is retina.

What about Google Hangouts (preloaded) and Skype (going to be preloaded in Windows Phone 8)? Why single out FaceTime on the iPhone?

Good point. But remember, the 8% is presumably using third-party apps and not seeing ads now anyways. They would be willing to pay to continue to use the third-party apps ad-free.

Why do you think Twitter won't even make the option available for users to pay for the service?

Especially a bad policy because some of the business data associated with the photos is wrong. So, just because I don't want to associate a photo with a restaurant means the location data is deleted.

They should do it to make users happy. I'd like to be able to more easily use apps like Sparrow and Chrome, but it's tough when they can't be set as the default.

Developers will need to be paid somehow. Absent revenue sharing directly from App.net, that means it will have to come directly from users or from ads. Unfortunately, users usually choose ads.

Haha, very true. That's why it isn't working. The initial price needs to be much lower to reach their goal. Over time, as the service grows, I think $50 is eventually a fair price. But, way too much for a fledgling service with unclear benefits to the user.

I think better marketing towards regular users instead of developers would help to explain many of these questions. They really need to explain to people what value app.net is going to add and why it is better than the free, ad-funded, alternatives. They have not done a very good job of that and marketing the correct message can help.

I think $50 is fair for a yearly subscription to a service such as Twitter, which has no other source of revenue. I spend way more time on Twitter per day than watching Netflix and Netflix costs almost twice as much per year.

The article addresses the price with a number of different solutions to lower it, in one case to $1, initially, as to gain critical mass.

It’s a shame people are so averse to paying for anything online. For $2-4 a month, they could ultimately get a much better experience on a social network over the long term. Mind you, people spend lots of time, sometimes hours a day, on these networks. You’d think they wouldn’t mind a small fee for them considering how much people pay for cable, Netflix, etc.

True. I think it is probably too expensive for most people, especially since it isn't built yet.

I was really hoping this would really gain traction. Can you think of any other reasons for the slow campaign?

I think the article said the 140 character limit is only removed for DMs. Regular tweets stay the same.

That's true. It doesn't have to be Twitter. join.app.net would be a better alternative if it could pick up some momentum.

How is Twitter offering a shorter, simpler, socially-integrated version of email any different than Gmail or Hotmail?

It's a good replacement for personal email. Corporate email would probably need to stay the same.

Shorter, easy to remember, identity. No need to build social integration into email because it's already there?

Marco's follow-up post is only technically correct because he uses words like "most", "many", "probably", and "nearly". In fact, do a Google search for "most many probably nearly" and his post is #6!

He should have just stood by his words. From his follow-up post (quotes from original post):

I’ve gotten a lot of feedback on my Mac App Store post this morning, and I’d like to clarify some points and respond. I did not say or intend to suggest any of these:

1. I will not buy anything from the Mac App Store again.

"But now, I’ve lost all confidence that the apps I buy in the App Store today will still be there next month or next year. The advantages of buying from the App Store are mostly gone now. My confidence in the App Store, as a customer, has evaporated.

Next time I buy an app that’s available both in and out of the Store, I’ll probably choose to buy it directly from the vendor."

2. Most Mac users will stop shopping in the Mac App Store.

"And nearly everyone who’s been burned by sandboxing exclusions — not just the affected apps’ developers, but all of their customers — will make the same choice with their future purchases. To most of these customers, the App Store is no longer a reliable place to buy software."

3. Most developers will stop putting apps in the Mac App Store.

"And with reduced buyer confidence, fewer developers can afford to make their software App Store-only. This even may reduce the long-term success of iCloud and the platform lock-in it could bring for Apple. Only App Store apps can use iCloud, but many Mac developers can’t or won’t use it because of the App Store’s political instability."