6 ms·

Wouldn't those apps just be App.net clients? If you're limited only to what types of media App.net provides, how can you make an innovative app?

dasil003 13y ago
Because you can have your own backend that does anything you want, and just uses App.net for the social graph.
- spullara 13y ago
  At that point wouldn't you be better off using a bigger social graph?
  - bigiain 13y ago
    Yes - if you could get access to "a bigger social graph" without risking the owners of those bigger graphs shutting down or limiting your api keys, competing with you directly after you've proved/developed a market, or any of the other "dirty tricks" Twitter/FaceBook et al. have pulled on developers. (Note: app.net might pull those dirty tricks in the future, but at least they've got a business model that doesn't _require_ them too)
  - neuroscr 13y ago
    Twitter only allows you access to 100k users or so (tokens), and your business is at risk of being turned off. or App.net providers you access to 150k+ users growing user base. Plus an a free sign up, access to hosting for file storage, and permissive messaging.
    - spullara 13y ago
      IMHO that is only true if you want to be a Twitter clone or otherwise be in the same business as Twitter.
  - terhechte 13y ago
    Not if you want to leverage an already existing social graph, so that people have to sign up for one service less.
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  You can have your own backend that does anything you want, and is completely opaque and invisible to that oh so valued social graph, because /their/ clients don't support your magic thing.
  - dasil003 13y ago
    The fact that you said "clients" instead of "apps" shows that you still don't understand the vision. App.net provides functionality that you can safely build an app on, and which is fundamentally more useful than the sandy foundations of Facebook or Twitter. That functionality is something which is non-trivial and which has potential network effects. You can use that functionality, you can extend it to something private to your own app, or you can mix and match with all the compatibility compromises that would entail. You can do all this safely without worrying that the rug will be pulled out from under you just when you figure out a magic formula that works. In short, App.net is something with the potential to build a business on, whereas anyone trying to build a serious business (as opposed to just doing something cool) on Twitter is an outright fool at this point.
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      apps are clients. what on earth makes you think they are not? I understand the vision. But I also understand, as someone who has used app.net, in actual fact, simply porting your social graph into a new app does you no good. You still have to convince all your friends to also get that same app before they can see what you post with it. The vision only works with basic media, like text, and photos, posted in a very straightforward twitter-like way. I'll give you a specific example: Group chat with photos. Yep, there's an app.net app that does that, and now, you can't see the photos unless you have that app. so what's the point? what's in the vision for this situation?
      - neuroscr 13y ago
        What group chat app is that? If you're talking about photos in patter chat, there's an established annotation for it that most clients can read and use.

dasil003 13y ago

Because you can have your own backend that does anything you want, and just uses App.net for the social graph.

spullara 13y ago
At that point wouldn't you be better off using a bigger social graph?
- bigiain 13y ago
  Yes - if you could get access to "a bigger social graph" without risking the owners of those bigger graphs shutting down or limiting your api keys, competing with you directly after you've proved/developed a market, or any of the other "dirty tricks" Twitter/FaceBook et al. have pulled on developers. (Note: app.net might pull those dirty tricks in the future, but at least they've got a business model that doesn't _require_ them too)
- neuroscr 13y ago
  Twitter only allows you access to 100k users or so (tokens), and your business is at risk of being turned off. or App.net providers you access to 150k+ users growing user base. Plus an a free sign up, access to hosting for file storage, and permissive messaging.
  - spullara 13y ago
    IMHO that is only true if you want to be a Twitter clone or otherwise be in the same business as Twitter.
- terhechte 13y ago
  Not if you want to leverage an already existing social graph, so that people have to sign up for one service less.
TheZenPsycho 13y ago
You can have your own backend that does anything you want, and is completely opaque and invisible to that oh so valued social graph, because /their/ clients don't support your magic thing.
- dasil003 13y ago
  The fact that you said "clients" instead of "apps" shows that you still don't understand the vision. App.net provides functionality that you can safely build an app on, and which is fundamentally more useful than the sandy foundations of Facebook or Twitter. That functionality is something which is non-trivial and which has potential network effects. You can use that functionality, you can extend it to something private to your own app, or you can mix and match with all the compatibility compromises that would entail. You can do all this safely without worrying that the rug will be pulled out from under you just when you figure out a magic formula that works. In short, App.net is something with the potential to build a business on, whereas anyone trying to build a serious business (as opposed to just doing something cool) on Twitter is an outright fool at this point.
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    apps are clients. what on earth makes you think they are not? I understand the vision. But I also understand, as someone who has used app.net, in actual fact, simply porting your social graph into a new app does you no good. You still have to convince all your friends to also get that same app before they can see what you post with it. The vision only works with basic media, like text, and photos, posted in a very straightforward twitter-like way. I'll give you a specific example: Group chat with photos. Yep, there's an app.net app that does that, and now, you can't see the photos unless you have that app. so what's the point? what's in the vision for this situation?
    - neuroscr 13y ago
      What group chat app is that? If you're talking about photos in patter chat, there's an established annotation for it that most clients can read and use.