34 ms·

.. which is terrible. Apps like these (including Facebook) are breaking the Internet. Now it's up to the social network to decide how resources are located (wh

.. which is terrible. Apps like these (including Facebook) are breaking the Internet. Now it's up to the social network to decide how resources are located (what standards?), who can access them, and for how long, etc. Saw a good video in your Facebook timeline ? Good luck finding it again after you refresh the page. It's a pity how 'the crowd' is now dictating the direction in which technology evolves. By trying to please the users at all times, we the tech people have now created these golden cages for users - in which their identities are commodified and sold to the highest bidder. This is not the Internet we once dreamed about and 'social media' apps like these are getting it further and further for that vision every day.

gbog 10y ago
Agree that wechat and the like are going against the grain of the open nature of internet, but one positive side effect of wechat is that it will force many service and content to develop simple web apps instead of mobile apps, because it is the only way to exist there inside. Most mobile apps need to die and be replaced by web apps, then wechat will die too, or become a mobile os, which is the same.
- wtbob 10y ago
  I don't know if that's actually a good thing. In general, I prefer native apps (real apps) to web apps; in particular, I trust an open-source application I compiled myself far more than I do some random website. Unfortunately, I trust the random website more than I do a closed-source, 'free' mobile app. So it's a bit of a pickle. Long-long term, I'd like to see more free software on mobile devices, and more simple HTML web apps.
- inimino 10y ago
  People are developing Wechat apps exclusively for use inside Wechat, and using Wechat-specific APIs. There's no chance whatsoever of the built-for-Wechat app ecosystem somehow killing Wechat.
elorant 10y ago
As much as I dislike Facebook saying that they break the Internet is a bit of an overstretch. The Internet isn’t a static thing, a set of rules carved on stone that has to remain like that for an eternity. It’s an evolving medium constantly reinventing itself. And the ultimate ruler is users themselves. Facebook isn’t in the business of creating content that’s why they don’t care that much with discoverability of posts. They’re in the business of connecting people and finding their needs and habits. Why is it a pity that users (aka the crowd) is dictating how a technology should be used? It happens all the time. The iPhone wasn’t build with third party apps in mind, it was the demand of users that allowed that to happen. Twitter was invented as an sms service. Coca Cola was meant to be pharmaceutical product for stomach upset. This is exactly the Internet we once dreamed about. A widespread communication network with no central command where everyone and their dog can participate.
- delegate 10y ago
  I agree. It is an evolving medium which is reinventing itself. But saying that users are the ultimate ruler is not entirely accurate, to put it lightly. Technically, the ultimate ruler is the one (who controls the person) who can produce the private keys or passwords for the 'core systems'. When most of your personal information, friends, your communication and organisation tools are behind one single account, that account now becomes very valuable. If someone then decides to deny you access to your account - for whatever reason - you're practically excluded from the platform where everyone else is.. A digital outcast. This is very different from the 'widespread communication network with no central command where everyone and their dog can participate'. True, this system might be more convenient for users and advertisers right now, but in the long term this can have strange repercussions, like companies totally 'owning' people's lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAesMQ6VtK8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAesMQ6VtK8
- profeta 10y ago
  you probably defended Bell's monopoly in the past? If not, you are being very inconsistent now.
- xg15 10y ago
  The iPhone wasn’t build with third party apps in mind, it was the demand of users that allowed that to happen. Note though that before Apple allowed third-party apps, they took time to invent the concept and technology of the "app store" which allows then to strictly regulate all apps by their own (often arbitrary) standards. This is exactly the Internet we once dreamed about. A widespread communication network with no central command where everyone and their dog can participate. No one would complain if that were the case. But we do have central commands. Not a single one, but a handful of them. With the network controlled liked this, the huge participation rate could actually result in the opposite of the original vision of the internet: Not a network that allows people to grow and become more free but a network that enfoces conformity and enhances suppression. I think China's Sesame Credit system is a good example of that direction.
joosters 10y ago
So don't use it? I'm not sure how your comments reflect on WeChat; it's not like stores are insisting on you paying through the app, or that businesses are forcing you to use WeChat to contact them. It's an added convenience, and it seems people like that.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  You can't use Didi's black car (Uber-like) service without wechat/wepay.
  - joosters 10y ago
    You can pay in cash for Didi.
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      Only taxi, not for private cars.
- amelius 10y ago
  > So don't use it? That's an old argument which totally ignores the network effect.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - joosters 10y ago
    The original argument, and your reply, is also based on ignoring stuff - namely that people are using and liking these apps & services. The network effect that WeChat has is because it is popular. Would you prefer I use the other old argument, which is 'so build your own app then'? Equally frustrating and annoying, yet at the same time is probably the only other way to fight these walled garden apps. Short of banning popular apps & services that you disapprove of, I'm not sure what else there is to do...
thomasfl 10y ago
There really should be some standards that specified how chat bubbles can have the same set of functionality as FB Messenger, WeChat, Kik, Google's Allo and others. It's becoming more common to have "interactive" chat messages with buttons inside, or messages that makes buttons appear somewhere on the bottoms of the screen.
- amelius 10y ago
  It would be better if communication technology with more than (say) 1M users would be forced to obey open standards. This is the case for telephony, so why not enforce it for social media as well?
  - catdog 10y ago
    Would be an appropriate measure but I do not have too much hope at the moment for such a clear political move. Later there may come a point where it's too late.
    - amelius 10y ago
      This seems to be a good task for the EFF, https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/
catdog 10y ago
This development is backwards, it reverses everything what is great about the Internet and made it such superior and successful. Instead of a network of networks where everyone can freely share information and talk to anybody, even directly via standardized protocols it's going back to heavily centralized systems, to the last bit controlled by a a small set of commercial entities which even do not see the user as a customer. WeChat is a dystopia which is not unlikely to become also true in the rest of the wold. No matter how nicely your cage is decorated, it's still a cage.
- BoorishBears 10y ago
  What's outside this "cage" that consumers want?
  - millettjon 10y ago
    freedom
    - BoorishBears 10y ago
      As a thought experiment, imagine a bird cage that gets larger as a bird approaches its sides. Even if you put a bird that migrates in this cage, eventually the cage would reach some max size where cage size > maximum flight range of the bird. If the cage is so large that the bird doesn't try to escape it, does the bird care that it's in a cage? Is there really a difference between the cage and freedom? You can't get the average person to use other products by promising something like "freedom", there needs to be something concrete outside the cage to get them to leave it. Products like WeChat are like this imaginary cage, growing to encompass everything that the users want. From the point of view of the user it might as well not be a cage, because there's nothing left outside of it for them besides a benefit they haven't (not yet) seen value in. If you really want them to leave one monolithic service for a smattering of smaller ones there needs to be a seriously compelling reason that each of the smaller ones bring to the table, "freedom" isn't going to cut it
      - 10y ago
dingo_bat 10y ago
At least Facebook tries to support every platform (web, ios, windows, android, etc.). IMO, the bigger problem is all google services (android, chromeos, sometimes ios) and apple services (ios only).

gbog 10y ago

Agree that wechat and the like are going against the grain of the open nature of internet, but one positive side effect of wechat is that it will force many service and content to develop simple web apps instead of mobile apps, because it is the only way to exist there inside. Most mobile apps need to die and be replaced by web apps, then wechat will die too, or become a mobile os, which is the same.

wtbob 10y ago
I don't know if that's actually a good thing. In general, I prefer native apps (real apps) to web apps; in particular, I trust an open-source application I compiled myself far more than I do some random website. Unfortunately, I trust the random website more than I do a closed-source, 'free' mobile app. So it's a bit of a pickle. Long-long term, I'd like to see more free software on mobile devices, and more simple HTML web apps.
inimino 10y ago
People are developing Wechat apps exclusively for use inside Wechat, and using Wechat-specific APIs. There's no chance whatsoever of the built-for-Wechat app ecosystem somehow killing Wechat.

elorant 10y ago

As much as I dislike Facebook saying that they break the Internet is a bit of an overstretch. The Internet isn’t a static thing, a set of rules carved on stone that has to remain like that for an eternity. It’s an evolving medium constantly reinventing itself. And the ultimate ruler is users themselves. Facebook isn’t in the business of creating content that’s why they don’t care that much with discoverability of posts. They’re in the business of connecting people and finding their needs and habits. Why is it a pity that users (aka the crowd) is dictating how a technology should be used? It happens all the time. The iPhone wasn’t build with third party apps in mind, it was the demand of users that allowed that to happen. Twitter was invented as an sms service. Coca Cola was meant to be pharmaceutical product for stomach upset. This is exactly the Internet we once dreamed about. A widespread communication network with no central command where everyone and their dog can participate.

delegate 10y ago
I agree. It is an evolving medium which is reinventing itself. But saying that users are the ultimate ruler is not entirely accurate, to put it lightly. Technically, the ultimate ruler is the one (who controls the person) who can produce the private keys or passwords for the 'core systems'. When most of your personal information, friends, your communication and organisation tools are behind one single account, that account now becomes very valuable. If someone then decides to deny you access to your account - for whatever reason - you're practically excluded from the platform where everyone else is.. A digital outcast. This is very different from the 'widespread communication network with no central command where everyone and their dog can participate'. True, this system might be more convenient for users and advertisers right now, but in the long term this can have strange repercussions, like companies totally 'owning' people's lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAesMQ6VtK8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAesMQ6VtK8
profeta 10y ago
you probably defended Bell's monopoly in the past? If not, you are being very inconsistent now.
xg15 10y ago
The iPhone wasn’t build with third party apps in mind, it was the demand of users that allowed that to happen. Note though that before Apple allowed third-party apps, they took time to invent the concept and technology of the "app store" which allows then to strictly regulate all apps by their own (often arbitrary) standards. This is exactly the Internet we once dreamed about. A widespread communication network with no central command where everyone and their dog can participate. No one would complain if that were the case. But we do have central commands. Not a single one, but a handful of them. With the network controlled liked this, the huge participation rate could actually result in the opposite of the original vision of the internet: Not a network that allows people to grow and become more free but a network that enfoces conformity and enhances suppression. I think China's Sesame Credit system is a good example of that direction.

joosters 10y ago

So don't use it? I'm not sure how your comments reflect on WeChat; it's not like stores are insisting on you paying through the app, or that businesses are forcing you to use WeChat to contact them. It's an added convenience, and it seems people like that.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
You can't use Didi's black car (Uber-like) service without wechat/wepay.
- joosters 10y ago
  You can pay in cash for Didi.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    Only taxi, not for private cars.
amelius 10y ago
> So don't use it? That's an old argument which totally ignores the network effect.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- joosters 10y ago
  The original argument, and your reply, is also based on ignoring stuff - namely that people are using and liking these apps & services. The network effect that WeChat has is because it is popular. Would you prefer I use the other old argument, which is 'so build your own app then'? Equally frustrating and annoying, yet at the same time is probably the only other way to fight these walled garden apps. Short of banning popular apps & services that you disapprove of, I'm not sure what else there is to do...

thomasfl 10y ago

There really should be some standards that specified how chat bubbles can have the same set of functionality as FB Messenger, WeChat, Kik, Google's Allo and others. It's becoming more common to have "interactive" chat messages with buttons inside, or messages that makes buttons appear somewhere on the bottoms of the screen.

amelius 10y ago
It would be better if communication technology with more than (say) 1M users would be forced to obey open standards. This is the case for telephony, so why not enforce it for social media as well?
- catdog 10y ago
  Would be an appropriate measure but I do not have too much hope at the moment for such a clear political move. Later there may come a point where it's too late.
  - amelius 10y ago
    This seems to be a good task for the EFF, https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/

catdog 10y ago

This development is backwards, it reverses everything what is great about the Internet and made it such superior and successful. Instead of a network of networks where everyone can freely share information and talk to anybody, even directly via standardized protocols it's going back to heavily centralized systems, to the last bit controlled by a a small set of commercial entities which even do not see the user as a customer. WeChat is a dystopia which is not unlikely to become also true in the rest of the wold. No matter how nicely your cage is decorated, it's still a cage.

BoorishBears 10y ago
What's outside this "cage" that consumers want?
- millettjon 10y ago
  freedom
  - BoorishBears 10y ago
    As a thought experiment, imagine a bird cage that gets larger as a bird approaches its sides. Even if you put a bird that migrates in this cage, eventually the cage would reach some max size where cage size > maximum flight range of the bird. If the cage is so large that the bird doesn't try to escape it, does the bird care that it's in a cage? Is there really a difference between the cage and freedom? You can't get the average person to use other products by promising something like "freedom", there needs to be something concrete outside the cage to get them to leave it. Products like WeChat are like this imaginary cage, growing to encompass everything that the users want. From the point of view of the user it might as well not be a cage, because there's nothing left outside of it for them besides a benefit they haven't (not yet) seen value in. If you really want them to leave one monolithic service for a smattering of smaller ones there needs to be a seriously compelling reason that each of the smaller ones bring to the table, "freedom" isn't going to cut it
    - 10y ago

dingo_bat 10y ago

At least Facebook tries to support every platform (web, ios, windows, android, etc.). IMO, the bigger problem is all google services (android, chromeos, sometimes ios) and apple services (ios only).