> It is designed to be similar to Twitter, but have no advertising, instead relying on user and developer subscriptions. They began directly crowd funding it on July 13, 2012, with a goal of $500,000 and about 10,000 backers. [They] exceeded the goal by August 13th, raising at least $750,000 with over 11,000 backers. The service is currently in alpha.
ADN has made explicit promises to try to align their own incentives with those of both users and developers.
Yeah for that part, now somewhere in that developer program information it says :
"Developers are free to monetize their applications through their own mechanisms; this program should be thought of as a “bonus” for building software that App.net members use and love."
So developers can add advertisements and now no advertising feature of app.net is void?
No.Utilization is fine but application utilizing platform should not invalidate platform's one of the main reason it was supported by many!
What you are saying is acceptable if users are allowed use those developed apps freely(without app.net membership)but here first we need membership to access these apps!
IMO this is really what this developer payment scheme is all about (based on the discussions with Caldwell, et al on app.net). As a twitter clone it is sufficient (minus the network effect), but it is really a messaging and identity platform waiting to be defined by the applications written on top of it. Caldwell alludes to this near the end of the OP.
> It is designed to be similar to Twitter, but have no advertising, instead relying on user and developer subscriptions. They began directly crowd funding it on July 13, 2012, with a goal of $500,000 and about 10,000 backers. [They] exceeded the goal by August 13th, raising at least $750,000 with over 11,000 backers. The service is currently in alpha.
ADN has made explicit promises to try to align their own incentives with those of both users and developers.