That there is the question!

Did I read that headline right?

I only asked for the most basic permissions as detailed on extensionizr.com

The only reason I need "change data on LinkedIn" and "view browsing history" is so we can redirect you to the right profile page.

Fair enough, just a bit wary of "new apps" permissions, but often will add extensions without reading permissions if it is known app. Note to self reassess criteria for reading permissions.

LinkedIn is awesome, except when you land on a user's profile and it's full of holes. There's too much information that's hidden from the public, even though it's actually publicly available.

LinkedIn Reveal changes that. It's a smart Google Chrome extension that shows you what's hidden on LinkedIn user profiles.

I made it, so check it out and ask me what ever you want to about it! :)

The best part of that is that if the cost decreases further, you don't lose your money, you get more membership time.

To what, exactly?

People can post from Netbot to both twitter and App.net. Twitter's TOS doesn't allow the twitter app to post to anything else...

Your perception and inference are both wrong. App.net isn't just going up against twitter, but rather the entire social networking paradigm where I have multiple signups and not enough use. If we use app.net to login to most major services and post, like I have to do with twitter, facebook and linkedin right now, I get away with a single login.

What'll drive adoption? The developer incentive program. This also answers your John Deere example... There will be a lot of offsprings from App.net. In a rudimentary tone - a fb-clone, an instagram clone, comments systems (bit.ly/qbdebut)etc...

I talked about Twitter specifically because the OP talked about Twitter specifically.

I don't doubt that there will be lots of offsprings from app.net, I'm just dubious about whether they'll gain any traction. "You only have to use one username/password!" isn't enough to get people to spend $5 a month.

I don't think that app.net is selling an identity service that will take off or be worthwhile, but I strenuously disagree with the assertion that people won't pay for single sign in on the Internet.

It is, in my opinion, the number one pain point on the web today. It affects users of all technical levels and the more you have invested in the web the worse it gets.

Ah, single sign-in... also offered by Twitter, Facebook, Google, Firefox, my email address...

I don't disagree that people might pay for it, but why would it by App.net I'd pay? Why would they even pay though? You can trust the App.net developers? No more than those listed, realistically.

Sounds like an opportunity to charge people to set up their OpenID and use your revenue to get more companies to implement it.

Disclaimer: I don't know much about building websites and I don't understand why OpenID hasn't got more traction.

If OpenID was a tractor, we would need to have a PHD in astrophysics to understand how to drive it successfully.

And then Fox sued Dish for ad-skipping.

My response to this, including how file systems and file explorers will never die -> http://blog.nitinkhanna.com/why-the-file-system-will-never-d...

Now all they have to do is release the API and someone will Port it to iOS :)