????這些天來，有一家名不見經傳的小公司在社交媒體領域掀起了軒然大波。它就是App.net，硅谷創業家道爾頓?考德威爾的又一杰作。當Facebook與Twitter都在絞盡腦汁向用戶推銷廣告時，App.net卻反其道而行之。這家與Twitter十分類似的網站打算向用戶收取年費。完全不同的商業模式——更別提考德威爾發出的戰斗號令，引起了整個科技界對社交網絡現狀的大討論。我們最大的疑問是：一家社交網站能在滿足用戶需求和獲取收益兩方面實現完美平衡嗎？

????下面是關于App.net的詳細介紹，以及它的重大意義何在。

????App.net干什么的：App.net和Twitter很像，不過仍處于開發初期。用戶能使用256個字符進行更新，比Twitter的140個字符多出不少，而且App.net上完全沒有廣告。“我們在打造最受用戶和開發者青睞的實時社交服務，不歡迎廣告商，”App.net的主頁上有這么一句話。所有服務完全開放，所以第三方開發者能毫無顧慮地基于App.net開發新服務。長期來看，App.net有可能更進一步，成為影響廣泛的大眾化社交標準，開發者能在這個網站上任意使用用戶更新。

????考德威爾之前成立過兩家公司，一家是已經關閉的音樂網站iMeem，另一家是Picplz，它曾是圖片分享網站Instagram的競爭對手。考德威爾曾在博客上描繪了自己理想中的社交網絡，他抨擊Twitter為了控制內容，監控第三方開發者，同時還批評以營銷微博形式出現的廣告。考德威爾在本月初致信扎克伯格，據傳此前Facebook為了扼殺競爭，曾經打算收購App.net。

????App.net的用戶是誰：目前，只有前衛的技術駭客和早期使用者樂意花費50美元的年費使用App.net，因為它雖然沒有廣告，但也沒有經過完備的測試。考德威爾利用類似大眾集資平臺Kickstarter的募捐網站為App.net籌集資金，他原本打算在8月15日前籌集500,000美元，但最終金額一舉達到803,000美元。許多捐助和支持似乎都來自于硅谷。“感謝嘗試這么出色的東西，”約翰?格魯伯在Twitter上稱，他是Daring Fireball——一家頗具影響力的蘋果科技博客的作者。

????App.net的重大意義是什么：Facebook剛剛創建時，它似乎完全沒有任何私心。剛剛創建那幾年，扎克伯格一直強調Facebook是一項“社會福利事業”。此后，Facebook的用戶數迅速膨脹到8.45億之巨，而且成功上市。不過，如今Facebook已經不再是單純的“社會福利事業”。它成為了一門生意，要回報股東，要創造收益。正如考德威爾所詬病的，這種內在壓力迫使Facebook不得不將用戶和開發者拋在腦后。考德威爾指出：“我對付費服務如此樂觀的原因是，它使我們和用戶及開發者在經濟利益上保持一致。如果我推銷一項服務，那么客戶就是我們的用戶，我們的工作就是讓客戶滿意。如果我們的服務是免費但依賴于廣告的，那么廣告商就成了我們的客戶，而我們的工作就變成了讓他們滿意。”

????App.net的成功幾率如何：那得看你詢問的對象是誰。雖然輿論一致認為考德威爾在進行一項崇高的事業——將社交網絡的用戶體驗重新還給用戶，但人們似乎對App.net并不看好。803,000美元是一個不錯的開局，但與Facebook上季度11.8億美元的營收相比，它不過是不過九牛一毛。考慮到App.net的付費商業模式，它能否在和Facebook和Twitter的競爭中保住一席之地仍然是個問題。

????調研機構高德納（Garter）的研究總監布萊恩?布勞認為，App.net成功的機會微乎其微。他說：“除非出現一場‘完美風暴’，否則App.net難以有所作為。”Facebook和Twitter這樣的公司成立多年，在社交領域根深葉茂，而且營收還在不斷增長，作為后來者的考德威爾要想贏得足夠多的用戶，可能面臨極大的挑戰。不過，話說回來，考德威爾也許已經完成了一項非常重要的使命：他旗幟鮮明地表達了態度。

????譯者：項航

????These days, the company making the biggest waves in social media isn't likely one you've heard much about. It's App.net, the brainchild of serial entrepreneur Dalton Caldwell. Facebook and Twitter are currently trying to find ways to push more ads to users. In contrast, App.net, a Twitter-like service, relies on annual subscriptions. That fundamental difference in business model -- not to mention Caldwell's call to arms -- caused buzz in the tech world about the current state of social networking. The big question: Can a social site prioritize users' needs while still driving revenues?

????Here's a primer on what App.net is and why it matters.

????What it is: Still in the early stages, App.net is like Twitter. It lets users post updates with up to 256 characters, more than Twitter's 140, and the experience is totally ad-free. "We're building a real-time social service where users and developers come first, not advertisers," crows the Web site. The service is completely open so third-party developers are free to build new services on top of it. In the long-term, App.net could become something more: a widespread, democratized social standard where developers can use users' updates for what ever they see fit.

????Caldwell, who previously founded the defunct music site iMeem and Instagram competitor Picplz, first pitched his idealistic social network in a blog post criticizing Twitter for supposedly coming after third-party developers, trying to control the content, and for the ads that come in the form of sponsored tweets. Then, earlier this month, he lobbed a letter to Zuckerberg after Facebook (FB) allegedly tried to acquire his company in effort to squash competition.

????Who it's for: For now, just the avant-garde techies and early adopters willing to spend at least $50 a year on an unproven service, albeit one without ads. Caldwell was funding App.net with a Kickstarter-like donations page with plans of raising $500,000 by Aug. 15, but donations topped $803,000. Many of the donations and public endorsements appear to come from Silicon Valley. "Thanks for trying awesome," Tweeted John Gruber, author of the influential Apple-centric blogDaring Fireball.

????Why it matters: When Facebook first launched, it seemed entirely altruistic. In the early years, Zuckerberg was keen on emphasizing the service as a "social utility." Since then, its userbase has ballooned to over 845 million users and it's gone public. Facebook isn't just a "social utility," anymore. It's a business, with shareholders to answer to and sales to drive. That kind of intense pressure, Caldwell would argue, has pushed Facebook to put users and developers in the backseat. "The reason why I'm so optimistic about a paid opportunity is that it aligns our incentives economically with users and developers," Caldwell said. "If we're selling a service, our customers are our users, and our job is to make our users happy. If we have a free, ad-supported service, our customers are advertisers and our job is to make advertisers happy."

????Odds of success: Depends who you ask. While the general consensus is that Caldwell is doing a noble thing -- return the user experience of the social network back to the users -- people seem somewhat less optimistic about its future. The $803,000 is a good start, but that's just a small fraction of the $1.18 billion in revenues Facebook raked in last quarter. And given its pay-to-play-type business model, it remains to be seen whether it can compete in a space already dominated by Facebook and Twitter.

????Brian Blau, Research Director at Gartner, thinks it's a long shot for App.net. "It just seems like there has to be a perfect storm where this company can be positioned to make a difference," he says. With companies like Facebook and Twitter already long-established and deeply entrenched in the social space, backed by growing revenues, getting a critical mass of users could be a big challenge for Caldwell's effort this late in the game. But if anything, he may have already accomplished something very important. He's made a point.