3 ms·

Moving to closed protocols isn't the whole problem. Everyone used to use AIM, ICQ, MSN Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, which were all* closed protocols. And yet, t

by nandhp 10y ago

Moving to closed protocols isn't the whole problem. Everyone used to use AIM, ICQ, MSN Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, which were all* closed protocols. And yet, the developers of gAIM (now Pidgin) and Trillian both developed clients that interoperated with all of these services and others. Sure, we had five years when everyone was on XMPP. But given that rich history of protocol investigation, what's surprising to me is that progress on support for closed protocols is so much slower now than it was ten, fifteen years ago. Support for Skype, Facebook, Slack, Whatsapp, Signal, Telegram -- is poor or limited, and some of these are even open protocols. (Plus, there's still SMS to support, both natively on phones and via services like Pushbullet on the desktop.) Is there simply no call for unified messaging anymore? Do people enjoy having to use four different messaging apps now? Are the protocols so much harder to figure out? Or are there simply not enough volunteers? * AOL had two protocols: TOC was mostly open, but the closed OSCAR protocol offered many more features.

Freak_NL 10y ago
Most people use whatever is dominant. People who have contacts on more than one 'app' simply install those apps and mope about it a bit (but accept it nontheless). In the Netherlands (and a lot of other countries), the dominant player is Whatsapp, although some countries have their own dominant player, such as Kakao Talk in South Korea. Of course there is call for unified messaging; it just isn't in the interest of the companies behind the currently dominant messing apps to facilitate it. To monetize their product, they need you to use their software, on (or through) an operating system approved by them, following their rules (e.g., Whatsapp's requirement of a relatively high-value personal identifier in the form a phone number). Using anything else to access their protocol causes a devaluation of their product — whatever their eventual business model will be after the make-sure-everyone-uses-us phase will be (advertising, user tracking/marketing profiles, freemium model), users will need to interact with them on their terms, with their software.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  That was always the case, though. The problem with making a WhatsApp Pidgin adapter, for example, is that WhatsApp only allows a single client. I'm not sure why nobody has tried to make one that talks to the phone, like WhatsApp Web does (although that also only allows a single browser). Generally, we've taken a big step backwards where chat is concerned.
stinkytaco 10y ago
I think federation has largely moved to the device. I do most of my messaging on my phone, where which app I'm using isn't invisible, but it's also not really a hassle to switch (mostly it involves dragging down my notification shade and tapping on the message I received). Not perfect, but also not really requiring the cognitive overhead that switching between desktop clients seemed to have. My phone federates my contacts, email, calendars, etc without much input from me and I believe chat will go that direction as well.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Your phone federates your contacts, email, calendars, etc because those are all open protocols.

by nandhp 10y ago

Freak_NL 10y ago

Most people use whatever is dominant. People who have contacts on more than one 'app' simply install those apps and mope about it a bit (but accept it nontheless). In the Netherlands (and a lot of other countries), the dominant player is Whatsapp, although some countries have their own dominant player, such as Kakao Talk in South Korea. Of course there is call for unified messaging; it just isn't in the interest of the companies behind the currently dominant messing apps to facilitate it. To monetize their product, they need you to use their software, on (or through) an operating system approved by them, following their rules (e.g., Whatsapp's requirement of a relatively high-value personal identifier in the form a phone number). Using anything else to access their protocol causes a devaluation of their product — whatever their eventual business model will be after the make-sure-everyone-uses-us phase will be (advertising, user tracking/marketing profiles, freemium model), users will need to interact with them on their terms, with their software.

StavrosK 10y ago
That was always the case, though. The problem with making a WhatsApp Pidgin adapter, for example, is that WhatsApp only allows a single client. I'm not sure why nobody has tried to make one that talks to the phone, like WhatsApp Web does (although that also only allows a single browser). Generally, we've taken a big step backwards where chat is concerned.

stinkytaco 10y ago

I think federation has largely moved to the device. I do most of my messaging on my phone, where which app I'm using isn't invisible, but it's also not really a hassle to switch (mostly it involves dragging down my notification shade and tapping on the message I received). Not perfect, but also not really requiring the cognitive overhead that switching between desktop clients seemed to have. My phone federates my contacts, email, calendars, etc without much input from me and I believe chat will go that direction as well.

StavrosK 10y ago
Your phone federates your contacts, email, calendars, etc because those are all open protocols.