App.net II

Within writing about App.net appearing iffy all of a sudden it sounds much more appealing. Twitter I no longer letting third party apps like Tweetbot or Twitterific have unlimited users using the program.

While in the land of Facebook they have begun allowing companies to pay to have their advertising within a user’s newsfeed instead of appearing only on right side bar and after logging out they will be right smack dab between photos and posts. And as it has been said Facebook beta tests by tweaking the experience for people in different area, hence the slow rollout of Cover Photos, which will eventually take over everyone’s profiles like a virus.

A social network site that does not have a need for advertising in order to be a successful IPO or restrict how the service can be accessed by Apps and other websites. App.net is starting to seem very appealing now.

App.net

App.net sounds like a really cool idea, an open source social utility to connect individuals. Basically the main differentiating factor between this platform from the primary sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+ etc and the more fringe “copy” websites is that user’s pay in order to use and fund the site and it is open for individuals to build and provide new features to the program to tailor the experience to what the body wants vs. other companies who roll out updates whenever which may be minor or may drastically change the use or layout of the utility and experience.

It is the closest to Twitter at the 

moment, to the point where you have preference if you were a early backer and already have a Twitter account one could reserve their account handle used on Twitter to be used on App.net. Along with that where it is currently resembles one of the very early builds of Twitter, long pages of communicating individuals tagging each other in their posts in order to communicate. At this point in the game App.net is in essence is a paid version of Twitter and nothing more. Give the various developers some time and it could flourish into something different and better but for now they are very much the same. And the one differentiating factor between the two is the one redeeming value that Twitter has, and App.net does not.

That feature is the ever so proudly touted fact that there will be no advertising or companies on App.net. Twitter’s premier quality is its ability for one account to very simply and easily broadcast to a crowd of interested followers. A prime example of this is from early in Twitters life. Mobile food trucks began using the service to announce where they were parked so their Twitter followers could follow them around the city and know where to go for food. This kind of business-orientated service is where Twitter really shines. On the person-to-person side of things it is just falls to pieces with just due to the fact that individuals are in essence using status updates to communicate instead of using Wall posts/comments/message to communicate in Facebook terms.

Facebook vs Twitter

In my mind sites like Facebook and Google+ fall into one category while sites such as Twitter and the present incarnation of App.net fall into another. Facebook type sites users in essence create an electronic version of themselves that lives online. Not only can you have people over to talk or to view photos or videos but you can also explore the world. There are countless websites and games that use Facebook accounts as login methods as well as to use your Facebook friend list to find  people I know and now interact with in the game. Whereas Twitter is just like Aim or any other messaging service where beyond the confines of the website your account name means nothing.

One of the biggest drawbacks at this early stage of App.net is what will make it great in the future, the $50 dollar service fee.  I am 100% certain that no one I know who I would have any interest in communicating with regularly would be on App.net. Unlike with services such as Facebook when I made an account in 2007 and noticed none of my friends were using the service I just logged off and just went back to MySpace until I had people I knew using the service. There was no harm making the account and waiting for almost a year for Facebook to catch on at my school. The problem with the almost certain lag with App.net is that $50 dollars is just going down the drain. I’d rather use that money towards an infinite number of camera accessories/shoes/who know what and I’m sure many other people would as well.

What sounds so intriguing about the platform is the idea of it being what the current email experience is, a cross platform environment. Where you can communicate with any other user no matter if they are using Yahoo, Gmail, Aol, or a company email account. If App.net can grow beyond just being another Twitter and become a central Social media interaction hub it has great possibilities for use and user commitment, but only time will tell if it will takeoff or crash and burn.

Canon vs. Nikon Entry Full Frame

With Photokina coming up as well as the rumours of Nikon releasing a “entry level” full frame camera (backed up with leaked photos of a D600) naturally it has been assumed that Canon would do the same. Naturally there have been very many different ideas and thoughts of how this would be fit into the Canon lineup. Personally the idea of a 7D mkII being made an entry level full frame and the 70D taking the place of the current 7D while fixing the xxD family naming scheme that the 7D/60D messed up makes the most sense to me.

This makes a lot of sense for Nikon, for them to fill the hole left by the launch of the D800 in their camera lineup. The huge megapixel count combined with the equally large 3,500 price tag put it far out of the hands of those hobbyists and semi-pro who long for a full frame camera but don’t have the memory or need for such large files. The D700 is not as pretty of an option for the primary reason it was knocked down very early in it’s life by the 5D mkII, lack of video. At this point in time if someone shooting Nikon wished to film video with a full frame they would need to either get a D800 or a D4. This is where there is an open spot in their lineup for a sub-2000 dollar camera.

This move does not make as much sense for Canon on the other hand. With the introduction of the Canon 5D mk III the 5D line did not encounter a major leap forward in capability, it was more an act of refining the line. Receiving a focusing system from the 1D series and a body layout from the 7D. Unlike D700 a 5D mkII is quite capable of shooting exceptional HD footage. A used 5D mkII can be purchased refurbished from Canon for around 1,700 and from individuals a price around fifteen to sixteen hundred can be expected. Rumor has it that the Canon “entry level” full frame will be a more stripped down body with less pro features to keep it from interfering with the 5D market share with a sub $2000 price tag. The problem here is that the 5D mkII exists, which unless the new camera has some kind of new innovation or leap forward (use of STM enabled lenses is not one) it will not be able to preform better than the 5D mk II. In essence the problem is if the new camera is priced too low it will interfere with sales of the xxD and xxxD/Rebel series and if the price is too high it will not sell due to the existence of the 5D mkII, a problem not seen by Nikon.