App.net developer incentive programme

http://blog.app.net/blog/2012/09/27/announcing-the-app-net-developer-incentive-program/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=announcing-the-app-net-developer-incentive-program

by anu_gupta • 14 years ago

97 45 14 years ago

blog.app.net

duked• 14 years ago

It's always easy to play nice and call for 3rd party developer when you need them to build your audience. I'm glad they do that but for now it's more geared towards their own benefit.

Let's see how they behave once they actually have users.

cheez2• 14 years ago

I swear I still have no idea what app.net is.

alanh2• 14 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net#App.net

> It is designed to be similar to Twitter, but have no advertising, instead relying on user and developer subscriptions. They began directly crowd funding it on July 13, 2012, with a goal of $500,000 and about 10,000 backers. [They] exceeded the goal by August 13th, raising at least $750,000 with over 11,000 backers. The service is currently in alpha.

ADN has made explicit promises to try to align their own incentives with those of both users and developers.

cheez2• 14 years ago

So another Twitter. I remember hearing something about an open application bus which was way more enticing to me.

Sharma2• 14 years ago

Yeah for that part, now somewhere in that developer program information it says :

"Developers are free to monetize their applications through their own mechanisms; this program should be thought of as a “bonus” for building software that App.net members use and love."

So developers can add advertisements and now no advertising feature of app.net is void?

Khao• 14 years ago

And you have to pay for it. Which means actually no social interaction ever because none of my friends would pay for such a thing.

whalesalad• 14 years ago

App.net really needs to work on a branding initiative sooner rather than later. This bootstrap++ styling is not going to work forever. A logo at least.

interg122• 14 years ago

Why is branding a priority right now?

RexRollman2• 14 years ago

I don't know if it is a priority, but the name is horrible. And alpha.app.net?? Not pretty.

RobAley• 14 years ago

You need something to stick in the users mind, a visual that they will remember. Although they can do better, at least with tent.io/tent.is you get the image of a tent in your mind which is something your subconcious can latch onto and remind you of when you are thinking about this kind of software. With Twitter in the early days the "tweet" and bird branding had a cognitive link with the product and helped keep it in your mind.

App.net is more or less an abstract title, it conjures no image in my mind, just a generic concept of software apps which has no particular generic image or symbol. So if they're going to stick with that name, they need to get some visual branding on the page to help keep user momentum. Because at the moment, press momentum is dying and they'll quickly become yesterdays news as people forget them.

jyap2• 14 years ago

The problem with 3rd party apps is that the participation will always be a subset of the overall user base of App.net.

The overall user base of App.net is constrained by financial limitations (pay to play yearly).

So if someone creates an app off of their platform, like the simple chess app, they also need to be a member of App.net to play it. So while you may see the benefits and be a member of App.net, if you want to convince your friend to play who isn't a member of App.net you also need to convince them to pay and join App.net.

App.net is arguing that their business model does not require lots of users to be sustainable. While that may be true, for network effects to take hold, you need users.

diego• 14 years ago

That is not true. You can create apps on top of app.net that can be used by non-members (as long as you respect their TOS).

For example, you can see my cloud of what people talk about there:

http://adn.loqix.com/

I could use my developer credentials to allow people to exchange information via the app.net backend. Of course I'd be responsible for whatever gets posted, so that places obvious limits on the kinds of apps I could write.

jyap2• 14 years ago

You can create apps on top of app.net that can be used by non-members

Truth be told, that's not what they had in mind. No offense, all you're doing is data crunching.

"3rd party apps" are all about user interaction. This then drives engagement, new users and in turn makes App.net valuable.

But then again, best of luck to you if you can get money out of their developer incentive program by data crunching their own data set.

jaredcwhite3• 14 years ago

If enough amazing apps come out that require an App.net account to use, people will get on it. Think about it like this: if Netflix came out with a developer program whereby devs could create new video-watching-related apps that required a Netflix account, guess what? They'd probably do just fine because millions of people already have Netflix accounts. App.net is starting from scratch, yes, but if they can build up to a few hundred thousand or over a million paying users who perceive value, this thing is frankly a no-brainer.

I think the logic behind the feedback system is pretty good too. A lot of users won't bother submitting feedback, but the ones that do are already motivated to submit feedback and therefore reward apps they like. So it's in the best interest of devs to create apps that delight their users. Win-win all around.

smacktoward3• 14 years ago

The difference is that apps aren't what attract users to Netflix. Movies attract users to Netflix. That lets Netflix build up a base of users, which then makes it an interesting platform for apps.

App.net, on the other hand, is just glue to connect applications together. Outside apps, there is no "there" there. So it suffers from a chicken-and-egg problem that Netflix does not -- they need users to attract developers, but to attract users, there have to be developers building attractive stuff.

Probably the easiest way out of this conundrum would be if they could entice some celebrities or other high-profile figures to ditch Twitter for App.net. They would create streams of content people want to read, which would attract their fans, which would attract developers. This seems a bit contrary to the App.net "we're just an API" philosophy, though.

jaredcwhite3• 14 years ago

I anticipated your response (not you personally, the point you're making). I agree App.net needs top-notch personalities with interesting content or discussion. I don't agree with the "no 'there' there" premise, however -- I've already found that in spades. But I'm of the tech crowd. If they can draw more people from the margins of the tech world who can pull their communities in, there were be a lot more "there" to go around.

cek• 14 years ago

It is never a good idea to pay developers to support a platform [1]. I struggle to find a single proof point of a successful platform where early dev adoption was kickstarted by the provider paying for apps.

All that paying for apps does is get uncommitted developers doing second-rate work. It sets the expectation that payments will continue as well.

I was bullish about ADN until I read this news. Now I fear it is doomed...

[1] http://ceklog.kindel.com/2012/09/26/paying-developers-is-a-b...

vailripper• 14 years ago

If payment is based on the ratings user give to the applications, wouldn't the "second rate" applications not make any income? Also, it's opt-in - nobody says a developer has to participate.

johns• 14 years ago

They're not writing them checks before they start on something, like MS would in the article you wrote. You built something, you can sell it, and if lots of people use it you get a bonus. It's closer to the App Store's commission on sales than buying a developer's time to build an app.

fusiongyro2• 14 years ago

What a strange idea. I wonder if it will work. We used to kid that the app store turned development into a popularity contest. Well, this is exactly a popularity contest, no metaphor.

On the other hand, I'm glad they're going to suspend developers who goad; I am sick of every app on my phone asking me to go give it five stars.

mdonahoe• 14 years ago

Do you rate them 0 stars instead?

App companies will stop asking once the technique stops working, but it is super effective right now. If you dont ask people to rate, you mostly get ratings from people who dislike your app.

fusiongyro2• 14 years ago

That's a great point. I'll start doing that.

spaghetti• 14 years ago

This sounds pretty cool! Are there any screenshots of the chess app available to non app.net members? I'd like to see what using an app in app.net looks like. If it looks good I'll sign up for app.net and start developing apps immediately.

Seems like there's some "low hanging fruit" problems that this app ecosystem could attempt to solve. First is search and discovery. Just do it better than Apple. Then there's the review process. Just scratch that entirely and use collaborative filtering to let the best apps bubble up to the top of the list. Of course have some flag for offensive, hate related etc apps.

How about partnering with Stripe and having an in-app-purchase system where developers get 100% of the revenue? Or perhaps 90%. Just being better than Apple is a great start.

One more thought: Apple's app ecosystem had the benefit of users' CC info pre-entered. Seems like app.net could benefit from the CC or other payment info already supplied by users when signing up.

obilgic2• 14 years ago

I dont think app.net is revolutionary enough to be next big social network.

I believe that next big social platform will be open, decentralized, interface-independent and wont be under direct control of a single company/organization. Something like an email, just an api...

jaredcwhite3• 14 years ago

Nice, but I haven't seen it. (No, tent.is isn't it.) It's not a technology problem, it's a user problem. Users aren't used to social networking being decentralized. You tell someone "Friend me on Facebook" or "Follow me on Twitter" and they know what to do. If a social network has no "brand" and it's like email where you can be whatever@whatever.whatever, finding you on that network will not be easy for the average Joe or Jane Doe.

obilgic2• 14 years ago

Well you think like that because there is no such a system/protocol/concept yet. User adoption has nothing to with being centralized. Imagine few "big" social players, implementing that new protocol, and/or forcing each other to implement that as well.

I also don't think that this will be "tent.is". They are making the same mistake(like diaspora), they are creating an application instead of designing the unique platform/api/protocol/standart/whatever.

If I were google I would create that unique protocol, truly implement it to google plus. Advertise google+ as a open, easy-to-switch social platform. Then, they can easily put pressure on facebook to implement this new thing too. People don't want to be trapped in these social networks with their data. People want to feel that they own and can do whatever they want with their data.

If you are trying to create a something new, "looking at what users are used to" is a wrong way to go. If you create something unique, great, and something people find useful, I am sure It will grow quickly. Plus I don't think average joe knew how to use email or facebook when they were first introduced to the world.

Again like an email. People own their data. Companies own and create value with their APPs/interfaces. And protocol is open for anyone to implement.

Simple mail transfer protocol: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc821

Internet message format: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322

smacktoward3• 14 years ago

Once a month App.net members will receive an email asking them to give feedback on the App.net apps they have used that month

I bet they're going to love that. There's nothing people like more than filling out the same form over and over again, after all.

alanh2• 14 years ago

Hmm, yeah, what happens when people ignore the survey? Does it default to 1/n or perhaps weight by some calculation of usage frequency?

smacktoward3• 14 years ago

The post says

App.net will use some basic algorithms to put in “presets” as a proxy for how useful that particular app may have been to you. The member will then be free to move the sliders in any configuration that they wish.

So if you don't fill out the form, they probably just use whatever their algorithm tells them you think. But since Defaults Are Powerful my bet is that the vast majority of people who do bother to fill out the form will either just submit the presets or a mildly tweaked version of same, so the survey is skewed towards their algorithm's findings anyway.

teawithcarl• 14 years ago

Way to go, Dalton. Disruptive approach to "target" innovation sharper. Ballsy idea - I like it.

EGreg• 14 years ago

I think we are building something more ambitious.

http://myownstream.com

interg122• 14 years ago

What specific points make your project more ambitious? I'm genuinely curious.

JosephRedfern• 14 years ago

Looks interesting. I know that this, in the grand scheme of the project, is a minor thing - but I think that the site could do with some more polish. Looks a bit 2005!

mikeknoop• 14 years ago

I came up with a good explanation for the "vision" of app.net:

A replacement for traditional communication (instant messaging) that is built into everything.

uptown• 14 years ago

...that will never get built into everything if everybody has to pay to use it.

RexRollman2• 14 years ago

I personally think Twitter is missing the boat by not offering a tiered model, whereby members can pay to avoid ads (and perhaps other things, such as access to their complete tweet history).

Flickr offers this and I have always enjoyed having the option.

App.net developer incentive programme

Related Stories