App.net will change social networking forever

App.net will change social networking forever

With $800,000 of crowd funding in place, the new social network App.net threatens the ad-supported business models of Facebook and Twitter, argues Jim Morrison

Remember today: 14 August 2012. Today might just be the day when the big four social networks started to lose their control over sharing content on the internet, when the micro-blogosphere started to open up ... when you heard about App.net and everything changed.

What it takes to build a social network

It takes a lot to build a social network to compete with a massive global platform like Twitter and a whole lot more – commercially and socially – to make a dent in its market share.

But Twitter may have actually precipitated its own decline by frightening developers like me into supporting the competition and into ensuring that our apps – like my social stock exchange twiDAQ – could be switched over to a different network if the worst happens. 

Biting that hand that feeds

Anyone who develops Twitter apps will be aware of Twitter’s recent announcement that it is clamping down on “how the Twitter API is used”, bringing in “stricter guidelines” that it will more “thoroughly enforce”.

And anyone who thinks the company is not serious about protecting this new, more “consistent experience” only needs to ask themselves why Twitter cut its API ties with LinkedIn in June and with Instagram last month.

Twitter means to reign in the API use that once contributed 90% of its traffic and led to its rise as the most popular place to share content, beating Facebook by almost five to one.

But Twitter is now biting off the hand that feeds.

The importance of a two-way API

As Google+ demonstrates, having lots of users does not a social network make. Despite Google’s best efforts, Google+ is a ghost town, in large part due to the one-sidedness of its API, which doesn’t yet allow third-party apps to push content into the network.

What makes a social network work isn’t just its users, but the enthusiasm of an army of third-party developers, on hand to build the tools to enable those users to consume – and more importantly, to create – content in the way they choose.

A new hope

App.net – a brand-new social network funded by subscriptions, not advertising, and built with a commitment to an open API – has, I believe, all the right ideas about how to engage this pivotal early-adopter developer audience from which a vibrant community can grow.

In just 31 days, App.net has raised over $800,000 from developers who, like me, would like to see a short-message social networking platform built and funded with API developers and their use cases at the heart of its mission statement. It already boasts a vibrant and engaged community – not to mention a growing list of third-party apps, despite the platform and API itself being only a few days old.

Introducing Buffer

One of those apps is Buffer, an awesome tool for sharing social media data. Before App.net has even officially launched, Buffer is amongst dozens of third-party applications, mobile clients and browser extensions allowing you to engage with the service in some way other than going to the App.net website. 

I believe that Buffer is one of those apps that holds the key to the paradigm shift in user behaviour that is about to take place, and which makes App.net’s launch so important.

The critical role of third-party apps

If you don’t know Buffer, it's a great, simple tool for creating and auto-scheduling posts. Better still, it works with more than one social network. As founder Joel Gascoigne explains:

“We started just with Twitter, but we've always also had a great focus on listening to users so we've expanded to support Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and App.net. People are becoming comfortable visiting multiple networks."

What is so significant about Buffer is that it has completely obviated Twitter’s decision to cut off LinkedIn. I simply added LinkedIn to my Buffer account. I still post to LinkedIn, something I wouldn't otherwise have done, and I’m going around Twitter in order to do that. 

Twitter loses out here, not LinkedIn.

Yesterday I added App.net to my Buffer account and now there’s nothing important that I post to Twitter or Facebook that I don’t also post to LinkedIn and App.net too. For those who value the articles and links I post, there is now no benefit following me on Twitter over following me at App.net.

The [App.net] proposition is truly exciting for many, many people: a platform where the focus is 100% on the experience,” Joel continues. “That's why people have backed App.net and they've gone far beyond their [funding] target.”

Building instant volume

Now consider that Buffer is responsible for over 250,000 folk creating 130,000 posts a day. For App.net, this is a source of real, valuable, curated content on which to build its network almost immediately. Already 200 Buffer users like me have added their App.net accounts: a significant portion of the App.net community.

But Buffer is just one app. There are dozens of others in development. Dalton Caldwell confirmed to me yesterday that the App.net team is also working on an IFTTT integration, which will hugely increase the potential of the platform.

So imagine what happens when your favourite non-Twitter-owned iPhone Twitter app adds App.net integration. Or you find that your preferred sharing widget for your blog also includes support for App.net – not to mention that bit of code you use to add a Twitter feed to your site. Suddenly the game has changed.

Most importantly of all: what happens to Twitter when the apps you use on your phone or desktop start to completely mask the channel through which the message is being delivered. How does Twitter commercialise its experience then?

The future role of networks

If you think Twitter is too big to fail, ask yourself this: when was the last time you considered what network your friend was on when you sent them a text message?

Social networks are changing. The apps growing up around them – like Buffer and twiDAQ – will have to evolve to be platform-agnostic and survive the loss of a single channel.

App.net may never make it to Twitter or Facebook’s scale. It may not even last the night. But what it has already done is to shift Twitter’s position in the market to ‘just another message delivery platform’ – and one that, I predict, will soon be one of a great many.

You can read Jim Morrison's full interview with Joel Gascoigne on the Deep Blue Sky blog.

7 comments

Comment: 1

App.net is going to do to Twitter what Diaspora did to Facebook. Sweet F.A.

So many fails in this article I'm not sure where to begin, apparent "Google+ is a Ghost Town", but App.net is going to change the face of social networking and has already make Twitter "Just another message delivery platform". Who is this joker?

Comment: 2

The only issue I see with this is you have to pay. As a Dev I will, but the average user who does not know the real difference between this and twitter will not pay. Fact. They will always use the free service.

Even when twitter do add advertising, unless it is more adverts than tweets, people will not care, as they do not pay.

Comment: 3

John, the ghost town comment comes from a recent study Mashable published - http://mashable.com/2012/08/08/infographic-google-plus-ghost-town/ - it wasn't just supposition.

As for App.net itself surviving or competing with Twitter that wasn't quite my point.

The argument is simply that because of the 3rd party app ecosystem which exists around Twitter and the ease with which many of these apps can be mapped to a new network, Twitter can be marginalised without the end user necessarily noticing or caring.

Seb, I agree with you on the payment front. I can only assume that once they hit a certain volume they will start charging only for API use (business users who're reselling access) and not for end users.

Expecting people to pay may well be App.net's undoing - it seems a little ideological and unrealistic - but then they're already looking at other use-cases beyond the standard Twitter model where a small subscription is expected.

Comment: 4

RE: The Mashable article.

Mashable lost all credibility years ago and the article in question is about as shonky as they come. Read the comments on that article to see what others thought of it. An even better idea would be to try using Google+ and circling some interesting pages yourself.

My favourite quote about Google+ - "People complaining about Google+ being a ghost town when they haven't circled a bunch of interesting people is like people complaining they don't like their iPod when they haven't put any music on it".

Next, "because of the 3rd party app ecosystem which exists around Twitter and the ease with which many of these apps can be mapped to a new network, Twitter can be marginalised without the end user necessarily noticing or caring."

This couldn't be more wrong. First of all, the stats show that over 90% of Twitter users do not user a third part app to interact with it, they do so through the website. Secondly, the remaining users may be using an app, but the relationships belong to Twitter and are with other Twitter users. If the app makers decide to switch to another network like app.net then their users will abandon them because their relationships won't carry over.

Comment: 5

John

I agree with you about Mashable but I did take the time last Friday to speak to the chap responsible for collating the data and building the infographic so as to understand how they had derived their data before I cited it. I think it is valid research and tells a valuable story about the way in which people use Google+.

The point that he is making is that Google+ is not used to nearly the same degree as Twitter as a means to share content from the web. The point that I was making in the piece above is that part of the reason for that is that because the API is one sided Google is restricting people's ability to add content into the network. People like me who have used Google+ since the day it was launched are still not as engaged as we might be if there wasn't such a barrier to creating content.

I love the quote about the iPod but I think its rather more the case that Google+ is like launching the iPod without also launching iTunes. That's all I'm saying.

Regarding Twitter. Where did you get your stats?

I've just run a quick analysis of the sources of tweets from 1 minute of the firehose sample stream. ~1800 tweets in all. This sample suggests the API still contributes almost 80% of tweets with the twitter.com website & mobile website contributing 21% and 2% respectively.

My results are here: http://twidaq.com/static/stream-stats/

You're welcome to the 1-liner I used to produce this if you'd like to test the result. I will probably re-run it once the US is awake to see if it shifts. I'm surprised to see TweetDeck at only 2% for example.

You'll notice that Twitter's official channels do now account for around 70% of tweets but many of those channels are acquisitions - what was Tweetie for example in second place at 19% - which is presumably partly why these channels were chosen for acquisition.

In any case I'm not suggesting that app developers would ever switch to another network. What I'm suggesting is that app developers will become more accustomed to including multiple networks (much like TweetDeck still does with Facebook) and that it is this diversification that will begin to degrade Twitter's position and open up a broader market for what are effectively just message-queue networks.

The ability to transcribe your social graph from one network to another will play a key role in how much the market opens up and Twitter is obviously concerned with protecting its social graph data ( which I assume is why they cut off Instagram's "Find a friend" functionality ) but they do not currently protect this data from everyone.

Thus I already App.net-follow a great many of the people I follow on Twitter who are already on App.net because someone's automated that process. Google+ conversely does not (as far as I recall) provide a way for me to find all of my Facebook & Twitter friends on Google+ and this is one of its many shortcomings.

Comment: 6

Really don't want to sound negative (too late), but I don't buy it, especially when things are touted as changing everything forever. It's like when some band is gong to 'change rock n roll forever' and then they're a one hit wonder. App.net may create a big vibrant community of designers and developers passionate about an open api, ux focused social network, etc., but the general populace is fine with using a free service and actively ignoring advertising. I'm not saying it won't be a success on some plane (niche market), but the exuberance of the article and wide prognostic assumptions are totally flawed. I mean, hell, I have no idea what happens in the future, so you could be right, I just doubt it from your argument. I'll feel better about app.net when it's not just people from the industry on it (which is an assumption I make based on the alpha feed). I have UX designer humility these days as time and time again the things that me and my colleagues think are awesome/hot/best approach completely aren't in sync with what real, non-live-on-the-computer people value or do.

Did app.net get any funding from regular people? Or just industry people? That would be interesting to know. Looking at that alpha feed...

The social network (or what have u) is hands that feed the third party devs, not the other way around. Even with all the good intentions of app.net, a third party dev will always be in a compromised position in some way, it's the nature of the relationship-- a lack of full control of a core component.

Comment: 7

Twitter are following FB's past ideal in tightening up third party interruption of the users experience.
If users leave because third party have made the experience un-wieldly, then said third-parties and, indeed, the origin platform, do not benefit, until the ultimately the service collapses and the bubble bursts.

Sure you might not like the API tightening, but service providers have to strike a balance and draw the line somewhere. Stop complaining about it and adapt.

As much as some services like to divorce from it, the truth is that they cant exist without a certain amount of users An earlier poster is correct, Twitter has that certain amount of users, is working to keep it exactly so that competing services like app.net have no way to offer any benefit with a paid user model.

What app.net has failed to see is that third-party developers ARE advertisers! They want people to use their product so they can generate money, they attract users through "space" on a social network -- That's advertising!! What else would you call an item in your news feed that tells you X friend has just gained Y imaginary reward on, or is using, Z service that you have no interest in and haven't explicitly signed up to receive items about?? Whether its in the way the app or interface is designed or something more conventionally injected into or beside the stream of content that you are receiving from the core service, this is advertising!
June issue on sale now!

The Week in Web Design

Sign up to our 'Week in Web Design' newsletter!

Hosting Directory
.net digital edition
Treat yourself to our geeky merchandise!
site stat collection