Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There are a lot of users & developers who've been burned in the past by Twitter's moves, one way or another. The problem with requiring cash is that it does very little to encourage people to try on the service without being committed to it.

By moving to this free (with 40 people followed) model, they can allow users to try and thus get more that are likely to upgrade to the higher tier when they want more.

Developers (like @falcon_android) that have hit Twitter's token limit are also getting encouragement to move or support it - as it's not a small subset but a very large one of people who can use the service.




App.net is not open source. Developers are building on top of a proprietary system and could get burned again.


This is entirely true, but App.net's model relies on a healthy third party app ecosystem to drive new users & keep existing ones. The Twitter API limitations aren't a point that can be paid for or anything of the sort. As far as we've seen, once a client hits the magical 100,000 token limit, no client has come out of the process with more tokens.


You could have said the exact same thing about Twitter years ago.


100,000 user cap sucks, but is it possible on App.net to get 100,000 using your app?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: