This service costs $50/year more than Craigslist! This service costs $50/year mo...

redslazer · on Aug 9, 2012

I'm really not sure why people are down voting you. It is absolutely true. Most people are not prepared to take out their credit card for something like this. app.net becomes valuable once it has data but it needs users for data.

Most users of twitter are not developers, they get their value from the free frontend. Developers are complaining because they don't have access to the data. So they want non-developers to pay so they can have data for free. These non-developers dont really see any value in giving data to developers.

app.net wants to sell a story, but it wants people to pay for it. Duckduckgo is also selling a story but for free which is why its doing so well. If DDG pitch was pay us money for a privacy concerned SE then it to would have miserably failed.

(this is not a prediction that app.net will fail, I really hope it works)

dannyr · on Aug 9, 2012

Ok. I downvoted all the posts this thread up to the parent because I feel posts like these make the HN community stink.

If a startup raise a massive amount of funding with no revenue model, a lot of people here scream bubble.

Now you have a startup that has a revenue model and not seeking additional funding, people still keep leaving snarky comments.

There is a big difference if a company makes money from users vs advertisers.

Companies focus on what gives them revenue and I'm excited to see what App.Net can create if they focus just on the users.

jmduke · on Aug 9, 2012

I'm sorry if you interpreted my comment as nothing else than snarky. Truth be told, I want app.net to succeed, but as pretty much one of its target members (young, vaguely hip, and I love reading tech blogs) I still haven't found the answer to the following question:

What advantage does app.net have over the mainstream options if I don't care about privacy/'dickishness' and how is that worth $50 to me?

jopt · on Aug 9, 2012

Probably none. What advantage does a house have over a trailer if I don't care about space/heating and how is that worth $n to me?

redslazer · on Aug 9, 2012

I really hope my parent comment wasn't snarky (or at least it was not intended to be) and I totally agree with you on HN stink and the like.

Though I think you misunderstand daltons focus. You say it isnt about "what gives them revenue" but actually that's exactly what it is. The only difference is he is not taking it from the developers, advertisers or selling data but directly from the user. That is not focusing on the user for me. That's raising revenue from the user.

The reason I want app.net to succeed is because I want to live in a world where facebook is free (so everyone i know is on it) but I can choose to pay them $50 (or any reasonable amount) per year so I dont see ads and they don't sell my data. I want to be able to interact with people who don't want to pay $50 per year, otherwise its just a walled garden like every other.

dannyr · on Aug 9, 2012

I'm highly skeptical if a freemium model would work.

If App.Net does that, they have to optimize the site for both ad-based and subscription revenue models.