Well I'm sure that plenty could be done to improve Twitter, but I'd ask whether app.net does any of those things. Last time I looked it is pretty much exactly the same.

Thats exactly how I feel as well. I would pay for a social network if it created a new/better experience for me, but App.net is a twitter clone. What can I do on app.net that I cant do on twitter? What part of the experience do they beat Twitter on?

App.net also hasnt been successful enough to attract the majority of people I follow on Twitter. So their value proposition for me looks like this: Im paying for something that looks, functions, and feels like Twitter without the people to follow to create that content.

> What can I do on app.net that I cant do on twitter? What part of the experience do they beat Twitter on?

Build or use your own app without worrying about hitting a token/user limit.

That's a limitation for people who build apps, not for the users. And it's not even that, it's a limitation for people who build apps and expect to scale them quite a bit, which, given the crowded space, doesn't really happen by accident.

This has pretty much no influence on users. It might slower the innovation a bit, but it's not like there's much innovation happening there to begin with..

But Im not planning on building my own app. So the value I get for paying 50/year is empowering app developers?

I also said use. The primary thing I dislike about Twitter is that they now limit apps to 100K tokens. This past weekend Falcon Pro, the Twitter client I use, reached the limit and is now unable to offer it to additional users.

This also impacts me as a user because the official Twitter apps have special privileges that third party apps do not. I believe this is why third party apps do not support push notifications.

So now you have your own app with which you can follow nobody.