Pay-to-Tweet Twitter Clone Plans to Beat Real Twitter

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Pay-to-Tweet Twitter Clone Plans to Beat Real Twitter



Caldwell's ad-free App.net service is intended as an answer to panicked social network CEOs.

I Tweet, you Tweet, half the world Twitters away like there's nothing else to do all day but type 140 characters into a gnomic bite-sized message. None of us pay for it, but Dalton Caldwell - a San Francisco based independent developer - thinks people are willing to pay for a Twitter clone so long as it promises never to include advertising. So far he's been proven right, as over $500,000 has been raised to take his App.net from alpha all the way to finished product.

"We believe that advertising-supported social services are so consistently and inextricably at odds with the interests of users and developers that something must be done," said Caldwell on his blog post outlining the App.net credo. It's basically a pay-to-Tweet system - or pay-to-App, though that doesn't have the same zing - intended as a riposte to what Caldwell sees as a terrified grab for revenue on the part of social network management. In an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, Caldwell said that falling stock prices were causing management at Facebook and other sites to freak out. "Your company, and Twitter, have demonstrably proven that they are willing to screw with users and 3rd-party developer ecosystems, all in the name of ad revenue. Once you start down the slippery-slope of messing with developers and users, I don't have any confidence that you will stop."

Caldwell's generated a lot of third party interest from developers who want to work with App.net [https://github.com/appdotnet/api-spec/wiki/Directory-of-third-party-devs-and-apps], and now he has the funding. Caldwell, in his blog, thanked his backers as he started preparing for the move from alpha to beta. "Thank you for believing," he said. App.net still has a very small user base - only about 10,000 - but Caldwell thinks this is enough provided that the right people are in the network. Only time will tell whether he's right on the money, or not.

Source: Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2012/aug/13/app-net-paid-twitter-rival]

Permalink
 

TheScottishFella

The Know-it all Detective
Nov 9, 2009
613
0
0
Sad, very sad. Why would people pay for something that you can get for free just with advertisements? (He says paying over for another year of publisher club)
 

Sizzle Montyjing

Pronouns - Slam/Slammed/Slammin'
Apr 5, 2011
2,213
0
0
Lolwut?
Who in their right mind would pay to do something like that?
Are ads that much of an inconvenience to you?

No wonder it only got it's funding from third parties...

Money money money...
 

snowfi6916

New member
Nov 22, 2010
336
0
0
What exactly is wrong with Twitter that we need a service that we have to PAY for?

Are the ads on Twitter really that bad? All you do is type your 140 characters and are done in two seconds. It's not like the free Angry Birds app on Android where you have ads blocking the actual gameplay.

Of course the way I got around that is turning my Internet off on my phone, but still.
 

Magnalian

New member
Dec 10, 2009
969
0
0
Anthony Couture said:
Wait... there are ads on twitter? REALLY? Show me.
The only ones I can think of are some promotional tweets I get very rarely, once a month at most. Those are the only thing close to advertisement I have ever seen on Twitter..
 

teqrevisited

New member
Mar 17, 2010
2,343
0
0
Ad-free? What's that curious smell? Oh yeah: bullshit. They'll find a way to sneak adverts in there eventually.

Pay to use that service or use the free alternative. I wonder what the majority will choose.
 

AdamRBi

New member
Feb 7, 2010
528
0
0
Yeah, the only times I've seen ads while using Twitter are ones made USING Twitter and ones in client side, 3rd part apps on my android; Which is something Twitter has no control over.

Even if it has supporters now, I don't see this panning out.
 

Micalas

New member
Mar 5, 2011
793
0
0
I've spent months wracking my brain, trying to figure out a way to make Twitter even dumber. This man did it in no time. I guess that's why I'm not rich. I don't have dem ideas :(
 

Two-A

New member
Aug 1, 2012
247
0
0
"I have an idea!. We will release a service that is an exact clone of twitter, but you have to pay to join!"'

"Why would anyone want to use that?"

"Because it will be ad-free, silly"

"Twitter has ads?"

The thing is, people are not going to pay for a service that is an exact clone of one that is already free unless you add some attractive features. Ad-free service isn't a really attractive one if you have to pay 10$ for it.
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
Free service where I can post what I had for lunch or payed service where I can post what I had for lunch?

Hmm... I wonder what people are going to use?
 

Rainforce

New member
Apr 20, 2009
693
0
0
so here we come full circle again, huh.
first we needed to pay for products,
then we were promised said products for "free" as long as we accept ads,
and now...this.
well, it sure will work, but we will always have the
"free and annoyed" vs "paid and...also annoyed" camps, no matter what happens, so : /

(fucking ads and fucking price, why can't I get everything I want, and for free at that? :D )
[small]/sarcasm[/small]
 

ThePS1Fan

New member
Dec 22, 2011
635
0
0
"You're doing your free service wrong, me making people pay for it is right"
Ok a couple things we need to get clear; first, there is a right way to do ads and a wrong way. If it's true that current social media site are doing it wrong the solution is not drop ads completely. Businesses will change based on results, unless you're EA, but Twitter isn't EA so moving on, you get nowhere if you try one thing and drop the whole idea if it doesn't work. Second, anyone who doesn't want to deal with ads isn't dealing with ads. As opposed to adlock as I am in a lot of cases it doesn't change the fact that others are fine with it. And if they wont deal with a little box on the site or wait 15-30 seconds for a video ad to play they aren't going to pay for the same service they get for free.
 

MPerce

New member
May 29, 2011
434
0
0
Wait wait wait wait wait......he got FUNDING???

Are there really people out there who would pay money to not have ads on Twitter, when they can just....you know, not look at the ads?

(disclaimer: I don't tweet, so I have no clue what the ads are like on Twitter. But they can't be that bad, can they?)
 

Tumedus

New member
Jul 13, 2010
215
0
0
The "value" of any social networking is in the size of its user base. How many people joined facebook or twitter because everyone else was already there? And would those people have bothered to try it if they had to enter their credit card info?

I don't care what other incentives you offer, you will never get as many friends, followers, unique visitors, or whatever else if you have to pay for it.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
It sounds like I'm the only person so far who actually likes the sound of this. I don't know about Twitter specifically since I don't use it, but advertising of all sorts is trashy, it's noise that disrupts your experience to pump false beliefs and desires into your head.

Advertising is the enemy of free thought and the free market, which depends of buyers judging products objectively based on their quality, not the cartoon animal in a banner on a website. It's a bit of a stretch to call it brainwashing, but corporations wouldn't use adds if they didn't work on us to some degree; which should bother people way more than it does.
Advertising is the reason politicians need to make lots of money if they want to go anywhere, thus infusing money into politics and opening the stage to all kinds of trouble. It creates a barrier to entry for smaller/newer businesses and just generally makes the world look like a great big shopping mall.

So yes, I'd be willing to pay a reasonable fee for a service that respects me enough not to shove adds in my face for using it. Then again there's also [a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb"]this[/a] (which I'm using right now).

To be clear: I don't have issues with sites that need to use advertising as a source of revenue, that's just how the internet works today sadly, I just think there could be a better way.