App.net allows app developers to use app.net platform for a fee. App developers can integrate their user's app.net logins/profiles/network/photos etc. just like they do on facebook platform. App developers can also create users in the app.net platform. Users never see any ad. They also have good privacy settings. It's like win-win for both end-users and app developers. The only catch being app developers pay a nominal fee.
Why don't developers and users get a share of the business? Didn't the developers take on the most risk a year ago? Seriously, it's about time backers of crowd-sourced projects start demanding something tangible instead of just forking over cash to every salesman to come knocking.
Anyway, eventually the investors - and the rest of the bandwagon which is sure to follow - are going to want a return on their investment, so we know how this API-feel-good story ends.
Any developer building on top of App.net expecting long-term stability is kidding themselves.
I am a little concerned that a centralized silo with a sustainable business model is still a centralized silo and I personally would prefer a personal cloud/indieweb approach instead, but App.net is hardly some kind of Ponzi scheme.
It feels very much like "insiders solving very specific problems for other insiders" ... maybe insider isn't the right word, but my sense is they were born from frustrations with changes in the way Twitter handled the ecosystem ... i.e. 3rd party clients. So they said ok, we're going to build our own system that isn't trying going to restrict 3rd party clients.
So I (think) I get what they are on the periphery, but I still don't get the core product.
I'm sure it's good though - or at least good in spirit. Would love to hear more.
Can someone do an 'explain app.net to me like i'm 5 and have never used the internet'...?