4 ms·

Are we super sure about this premise: a vendor builds a centralized solution on top of (or evolved from) a federated protocol in order to be able to adapt with

• moxie 10y ago
  I'm writing from the perspective of Signal, which is not a business, so it's definitely not about monetizing users for us.
  • ge0rg 10y ago
    It would be interesting to know how you do see Signal, then. After reading your comments on the LibreSignal tracker, my impression was that you are very much writing with your business hat on, as you are framing alternative clients as "products" and trying to protect the Signal brand, as well as preventing third-party clients from using your service - all typical business moves. I can see how federation breaks the phone-number-based identity and discoverability, so I accept your position in that regard. However, opening up the service to community-developed clients would be A Good Thing. You have to maintain backward compatibility to a certain degree for the official client anyway. If community clients fail to roll out a new protocol version, it will be a valid move to lock them out together with outdated official installations. You wrote that maintaining servers is difficult, but I am sure that it is possible to find a scheme where your additional financial burden of accepting (but not providing support for) third-party clients is compensated for.
  • dlmetcalf 10y ago
    Good to hear that's remained the case @moxie.