Android Central

App.net has a short history of trying to be a viable alternative to Google+, Facebook and mostly directly Twitter. If you haven't heard much about it, the idea of App.net is to be a social network without advertisements -- which means developers and users both pay to enter. That's important to know, because today App.net is announcing a new pricing structure for users of the service.

There are two big parts to this announcement. First, App.net now has a monthly service signup (or "Member plan") for $5 per month, whereas previously there were only $50 yearly signups. Second, for those who choose the yearly Member plan, the cost has dropped quite a bit from $50 to $36. The monthly plan is very important for those who want to give App.net a try but don't want to drop a year's worth of subscription costs on it, but it's clear with the pricing structure that App.net would prefer if everyone moved towards signing up for a year at a time. With these pricing changes, current yearly members will be dropped down to the new prices, and additional months of service will be added to their plan.

Have you tried out App.net yet? There are currently three apps in the Google Play Store made for the service that are worth a look.

Source: App.net Company Blog

 
There are 10 comments

Dan29466 says:

WTF? Seriously? Why would anyone want to pay for this?

Garrett92C says:

So they don't have to deal with ads? Paying $3/month (if purchased by the year) seems well worth it!

mathiasjk says:

Isn't thats why we have ad blockers?

sensory says:

Exactly right.

But it's not just ads that people are hoping to get away from by using App.net. Since Twitter announced that it is cracking down on 3rd party applications, people have been soiling themselves repeatedly. App.net would allow 3rd party apps to exist happily without putting numerous constraints on the userbase or developers.

Still not worth the price.

Garrett92C says:

Ad blockers don't get rid of sponsored posts. Also, as sensory said above, App.net provides much better support for developers. I gotta disagree with him about it not being worth it though; $3 a month is pretty much pocket change. The only problem with App.net so far is that the userbase is extremely tiny compared to Twitter. I'm hoping most of the people I know make the switch.

rsa says:

Sound like spoiled children. . . . I want it free. . . .I want no ads. . . . I want. . . . . .I want . . . .I want

jean15paul says:

Sorry, I'd rather see ads. If they come up with some other killer feature(s) that's worth $3 a month, lemme know.

kara says:

I just cannot see how this will be successful. The name doesn't make any sense, I would think it has something to do with apps. Branding is an opportunity to advertise your services. This would be like starting a business called delicious bakery and selling plumbing supplies. And why do I want to pay for something that I can get for free (legally). If I don't like ads I can use adblock, and twitter and google+ are already pretty robust and with those being free there will always be more people that use it which is an advantage. If you want a personal chat group there are still plenty of other free options.

philbw says:

So I just wonder why they didn't offer two options. Free version with ads, paid version without plus maybe a few extra perks. Seems like a model that has worked well for a *lot* of companies. Heck I'm sure if twitter offered a paid version in addition to what they have now that simply had no ads and allowed any 3rd party apps that lot of people would jump on board.

jbrandonf says:

Good idea. You're bound to get the tech-savvy and privacy aware with an idea like this but to hit critical mass you need the general public which will never happen with the precedent set by all the free options out there.