On Sun, Aug 19, 2012, at 11:20 PM, Craig Burton wrote:To declare App.net as a closed proprietary silo at this point is naive, short sighted, and uninformed.cbI've read Dalton's original "audacious proposal" http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal, blog posts criticizing App.net (including Brennan Novak's https://social-igniter.com/blog/2012/08/why-we-support-app-dot-net), as well as Dalton's quite reasonable response at http://daltoncaldwell.com/a-response-to-brennan-novak. I've also backed App.net, signed up for the alpha, and picked up what I could in various different forums, from slashdot to hackernews. So, I'm not uninformed, nor am I naive or short sighted.In fact, I'd suggest its likely the other way around, but that's ok. You and I have different opinions about the value of "Open APIs". Folks see that term and think it solves all sort of problems. Yay! Online services open access via APIs. But I don't see it that way.What may be the worlds most successful Open API, Facebook's login/connect is first and foremost a way for Facebook to integrate itself into over a million websites and extend its user tracking to capture behavioral activity at all of those sites, even for people who aren't even logged in to--and may not even have--a Facebook account.Open API = proprietary service. No one uses that term for things like SMTP, POP, or IMAP. Nor for the core standards of the web. It's used when an otherwise closed system is opened up for limited access.App.net is playing an important role in exploring a pay-for-services model and I do think it'll change the game, whether it "works" or not.But if people are wondering if it will be as transformational as HTML and HTTP, SMTP/POP, or even XMPP, the answer is no. It's yet another proprietary codebase that supports an "open API" so that more and more people can get in.Yes, they are making a play in the right direction, but they'll need to be willing to give up their customers if we are to see it opening up the web like we've discussed in this group.
What they are offering is more akin to HBO in an age of ABC, CBS, and NBC than it is to Tim Berners Lee's interactive phone directory at CERN. The software behind that directory eventually transformed the Internet into a mass medium, just 16 years after Dire Straits' "I want my MTV" catalyzed a generation to demand "choice" on cable television.HBO was a huge step forward. So is App.net. But I'm still looking for that groundbreaking phone directory built on a simple open standard with formats and protocols that anyone can use, for free.-jp.s.You state "The other design must is to be distributed. If is not a silo and is a platform for everyone, it needs to be a distributed design to limit lock in."See the app.net web page:Why aren't you building a fully decentralized service?
The post that links to is the initial proposal at http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal . Read a few of Dalton's other blog posts (such as http://daltoncaldwell.com/fred-wilson-is-wrong-about-free) and you'll see he's not particularly into platforms or open standards except when they provide value to paying customers. That's not a bad approach, but I'm still rooting for more.On Sun, Aug 19, 2012, at 11:20 PM, Craig Burton wrote:Here is why I think App.net Rocks.When I look at a company--especially a new one--I look for the three D's.
- Disposition.
- Design
- Documentation
I think App.net meets my baseline in all three of these areas in spades. Caldwell's disposition is spot on. The organization has leadership that is listening and has a flexible plan. The design is still in the works. But it is clear that App.net is NOT silo oriented. A social platform ecosystem is the objective. One in which everyone can play. A key telling design result will be if there is an API that let's anyone and everyone play a part in this ecosystem. The other design must is to be distributed. If is not a silo and is a platform for everyone, it needs to be a distributed design to limit lock in. Finally the docs. If the docs are good enough that someone else could build a competitive system to App.net if needed, the it meets my requirements.My biggest complaint about App.net so far is that there is no RESTful interface. Hopefully this will be addressed.Clearly it is still early in the game.It is too early to know if the three D's are adequate. All early signals are very positive.To declare App.net as a closed proprietary silo at this point is naive, short sighted, and uninformed.cb
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Doc Searls < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
To Mark: really critical points, and amen to them. The "no ads" appeal is really, really pivotal. The tide isn't just turning now. It's starting to rush in the other direction. And it's doing it with the money of individuals who aren't just users. They're ready to be customers. This is a very big deal.To Joe: thanks for standing up for principles, and for shining a spotlight on what's missing and still coming.To Craig: I haven't seen you weigh in on the API topic yet, and I know it's an important one.To all: I know I'm a broken record on this, but again, it's still early. What everybody is doing today is bound to change, and the world we're building is a huge and open one.Doc
On Aug 19, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Joe Andrieu < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Yes and no. Kudos for building an ad-free business, but wearen't here just to deconstruct the advertising business. We'reHere to build tools of independence and engagement. Whileapp.net gets points for independence from advertisers, they failon the larger platform.They are playing an AOL game versus CompuServe. Yet anotherproprietary silo. Better in important ways... Ways that will helpmainstream attention to the new paradigm, but in the end,AOL lost out to the WWW. So will App.net if they stay ona proprietary path.I haven't seen the equivalent of the web for the personal dataecosystem, but it'll come.In the meantime, "Yay! For App.net!"Just realize we are still very early in this game...What they are doing actually is what this group should be applauding loudly. While there is much debate to be had about how they are technically trying to accomplish what they articulate - Whats lost in the discussions here is that they are going after - and beginning to succeed in gaining - the mind-share of the masses by touching on nerves that people of all ilk can relate to. Not using acronyms and opaque (in the mind of Jo public) descriptors to explain such constructs like VRM and calf cow - this will never elevate the widespread support and adoption of these issues.They have simply said to the world - NO MORE ADS. The world has responded with interest. If they were to say TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR DATA then you would have heard...crickets.I can tell you, as someone who has a start-up that is venture funded and falls on the intention VS attention half of the pitch (thats a field for the Americans) - convincing investors at large of the value of consumer control in the conversation is very difficult. When we use simple to understand explanations like - "once you are done with the conversation with the business, simply kill the communications channel (x out the chat) and the merchant cant reach you" - this begins to resonate.But getting beyond simple user stories of " i use this service because i dont want to see any ads" or "i use this service because I control the conversation path" is never going to gain mindshare with jo public.What these guys are doing is waving a big banner that can be seem from far around concepts we all subscribe too - whether they technically miss the ark or not - Jo public is reacting to "not seeing any more ads."Mark
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Mr. Jim Pasquale < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Agreed, however, when it comes to API's where is Lord Burton, and some musing when we need it?
On Aug 13, 2012, at 11:23 PM, Doc Searls wrote:
Nice summary, Joe. That's my take as well, from what I gather so far.Doc
On Aug 13, 2012, at 10:46 PM, Joe Andrieu < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Jim,App.net isn't open sourcing its codebase, nor is their API an open standard. It's an open API, but it's theirs, not one that is available for widespread licensing or collaborative development. They are using standards like Activity Streams where it makes sense, but they are not making those standards the backbone of their API.In theory, anyone else that launches with the same API can work together. However, App.net is NOT open source. So, there won't be an open codebase for other services to launch on. That $500,000+ is going to build a proprietary system that isn't beholden to advertisers (yay!), but is only going to be used for one service, controlled by a single entity (boo!).Kudos for them to go direct to the market for their "angel" round of funding. I'm a backer and I wish them luck. It'll be interesting to see where it goes. But, at the end of the day, it's not even as distributed as the web, which we all realize suffers from calf/cow disease.In fact, although I like their commitment to data exportability, it will be surprising if they really enable full substitutability, the kind one finds with LAMP stack applications that can be moved from web host to web host. Will everything work seamlessly when I move my contacts from their service? Or will I just be able to extract the posts and uploads I've made?We'll see. Any way it goes, it's good to have another entrepreneur putting marketing and code into services that are truly acting in the individual's interest.-jOn Mon, Aug 13, 2012, at 04:08 PM, Jim Bursch wrote:There's a logic problem I'm having.
"app.net is still based on a centralized model"
If a hundred -- a thousand -- app.nets were launched, they would all be guilty of being based on a centralized model. But if they all supported cross-posting and portability of user data, wouldn't we then have a distributed network?
The logic of ad-supported media is the logic of economy of scale and network effects, which is very attractive to advertisers and attracts their dollars, and supports sickening anti-competitive behavior. Not to be an apologist, but my understanding of the premise of app.net (and my reason for supporting it) is that it aligns the financial interest of the service with its customers who pay for the service (as opposed to exploiting the content/data of users for the sake of advertisers). App.netis operating on a very different premise, and giving us an opportunity to test that premise, and if it is successful, it will be a model that will spawn copiers and competitors. The app.net originators won't get grossly rich in this model, but a lot more people will be making a living serving the market that app.net showed was possible.
By the way, one of the features in the alpha is a data export function (one of the very few functions currently available).
Jim Bursch 310-869-5340 " target="_blank"> Headspace.info: Video Arts and Entertainment Directory http://headspace.info Producer NoHo20 presents: "Critic's Dilemma" http://noho20.comOn 8/13/2012 10:06 AM, Doc Searls wrote:See Dave Winer on this: http://scripting.com/stories/2012/08/13/anotherUseFor50.html Specifically,app.net is still based on a centralized model, and I happen to believe that a decentralized approach is the only one that works long-term. It's the only way to preserve freedom of speech, and to allocate costs fairly to the people who use the most resources. And to provide a variety of tools and environments to satisfy a wide variety of use-cases. So I'd like to put an alternate idea out there. A microblogging server that's a simple install on EC2 or Rackspace or any other easy cloud-based server.Would that be Status.net? Doc On Aug 13, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Jim Bursch " target="_blank">< > wrote:When I logged in this morning I saw that App.net has well exceeded its goal to raise $500k from 10k users. It will be interesting to see what comes next. I'm on board as a developer. Any other VRMites out there who are members? Perhaps we can get organized and see what we can do to bring VRM principles and practices to the App.net community/platform. I have posted the #VRM hashtag on the alpha stream: https://alpha.app.net/ For more info on this App.net thing, go to http://join.app.net -- Jim Bursch 310-869-5340 " target="_blank"> Headspace.info: Video Arts and Entertainment Directory http://headspace.info Producer NoHo20 presents: "Critic's Dilemma" http://noho20.com----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5197 - Release Date: 08/13/12--Joe AndrieuSwitchBook
--
CEO, Pingup
--
Craig Burton
Principal
Burtonian
2032 E. La Tour Cir.
Salt Lake City, UT 84121
801-369-5974
http://www.schmap.me/craigburton
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.