Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Aug 2012 23:54 UTC
Permalink for comment 532139
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-09-04
I think a lot of people are very uneasy about the similarity of App.net (including the devs themselves). They are even using Bootstrap (open source, created by Twitter) to make this thing.
One reason many would give is that Twitter is changing from Twitter used to be to something else. App.net is then more of a clone of what Twitter-used to be, not what it is. (Weak argument, I know.)
The most important point however is that app.net is intentionally a "dumb pipe". That is, the most important function is to hold data, and app.net is completely ok with you not using their website. Normally it’s horribly economically to be a dumb pipe, but since people pay for app.net it actually works out.
I also think you can look at app.net more as this data-pipe, and that the Twitter-like thing they are building now just happens to be an example that runs on it. The dream of the devs is to create this plattform people can build apps that use it for plumbing (sort of like Heroku, but on a much higher level). Being a plumb this way is very much opposite of what Twitter is today.