How is this different from Status.net or Identi.ca?

http://status.net/product http://identi.ca/

Um, it's closed source with an API, and you get to pay for it to the tune of $50/yr assuring it's continued development...or something like that.

The whole spec is there on GitHub for your perusal and criticism, though. https://github.com/appdotnet/api-spec

> On Thursday, Instagram released an update in which the "find friends from Twitter" feature is broken. Instagram shows a warning message: “Twitter no longer allows its users to access this information in Instagram via the Twitter API.”

This passed QA? Users don't need to be aware of an implementation detail like this.

It might help them lobby to get it back. Or maybe they want to show that Twitter is responsible, not themselves.

You shouldn't pull your users into business/political battles like that. These are billion dollar companies fighting.

Why not?

---

That said, I think this is fair because Instagram didn't have time to deprecate the feature and now needs to explain why it isn't available.

Users should be aware of a detail like this if a feature they love is suddenly missing in an update.

Can somebody tell me why building a centralized service that stores messages is a good idea?

Because a distributed service would take longer to build and probably not get built?

Except it already exists in the form of StatusNet. You can already download the program, install it on your server and follow people from other servers (and vice-versa).

So I can read them from anywhere?

I can read web pages from everywhere, too. And emails, and XMPP messages, and RSS feeds.

True, but most people gravitate to a few large providers in each space anyway. Gmail, Blogger/Wordpress/Tumblr, and AIM/MSN/Yahoo.

Those services weren't big until they were. Gmail in particular got plenty of users who moved out of the big email services of the time.

Yeah. As inspiring as it sounds right now, it is not going to work. Your common user is not going to shell out cash for a service like this. It doesn't matter if he won't get ads or if his information won't be sold. This thing will build up a lot of hype, may probably get funded, but eventually will die out after hackers and tech blogs lose interest. Much like diaspora.

It's not for common users. It's for people who want to pay for this service. Developers will build federation out to Twitter to reach those who don't want to participate.

It may be good for developers, but what about it will convince users to switch from Twitter to using it?

Easy answer: the majority of users won't switch. This reminds me a bit of the Diaspora hype a few months ago.

That doesn't have to happen. Even though the conversation has barely begun, most of the people who are behind this are already concentrating on federation with Twitter. That's how the reach problem will be solved.

I don't understand why we all don't just install a copy of identi.ca and run with it..

I know nothing about Twitter's patents. Wouldn't something like this infringe upon them?

Why would it? Do you think twitter has a patent on the idea of status updates?

Hey, maybe they do, the patent system is pretty messed up after all, but I would guess not!

How will it get future funding for upkeep etc?

App.net is a subscription-based service. i.e. Users and developers pay a yearly fee.