6 ms·

> You mean the open web of ICQ, Skype, AOL's walled garden? I get your general point but i would point out that in regards to something as simple as messaging,

> You mean the open web of ICQ, Skype, AOL's walled garden? I get your general point but i would point out that in regards to something as simple as messaging, ICQ/AOL/MSN/GChat/Facebook. It wasn't that many years ago that I could have all those clients loaded up in one chat client. Noways i think ICQ is about all that's left that allows you to connect to their chat services outside of proprietary software.

pferde 8y ago
Not anymore. Sometimes in late December, ICQ users received following message: "We are discontinuing support of older ICQ versions and other unofficial clients. To continue chatting, you need: 1. Link a phone number to your account here https://icq.com/<redacted>/verifyphone?sc=<redacted> https://icq.com/<redacted>/verifyphone?sc=<redacted> 2. Log in using the official ICQ client which can be downloaded at https://icq.com" https://icq.com" I can still log in with an alternative client, see my contacts' status and receive text messages, but any message I send is either lost, or delayed by several days.
omnimus 8y ago
Also lets not forget that time when you could send messages between almost all of those prividers including Gchat and Facebook messenger because it was all federated XMPP.
- icebraining 8y ago
  From the big messenger networks, only Google and Facebook used XMPP, and Facebook's was never federated.
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    Even though WhatsApp is basically a hosted ejabberd fork.
skybrian 8y ago
It seems like a lot of communication services that started with open API's later abandoned them. Most famously, Twitter. Maybe we should think about why this happens? Bots and abuse, maybe? There are still multiple clients available for email, but it does have a bit of a spam problem.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  It's simple, and has nothing to do with bots and abuse (after all, a centralized service can handle this centrally, regardless of the client used). Communication services have inherent network effects, and network effect is how you make money in this space. So first, you need to build your userbase. At this point, interoperability is a feature, because people can try out your service without fully committing to it. Then, after your user base grows big enough, interoperability suddenly becomes your enemy - a way for your competitors to pull on you what you just pulled on your predecessors. So you need to get rid of it, to secure your network. This pattern keeps happening again and again in any space that has network effects. TL;DR: Embrace, extend, extinguish.
  - another-dave 8y ago
    I wonder is there a route for an open/free competitor to then start with interoperability (e.g. pull your posts from FB or Twitter onto their service, allow log-in via FB OAuth) and then, after your user base grows big enough, create an open protocol that your would-be competitors adopt. If you had 5 or 6 players who were all using the same protocol for social (similar to email), you might be able to remove the vendor lock-in completely as users might start looking for platforms using the protocol as a feature? Feels a bit of a pipedream, but seems like the main way that we could transition to social as a 'free' medium (as in, à la email, I can post something and you recieve a notification, or I can send you a message without knowing or caring which platform you consume your social content on.)
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Two big roadblocks: 1) How do you fund it? One of the reasons tech companies end up on the path from interop to lock-in is their funding model. If you take investor money, you may find yourself having no choice but to become user-hostile when the investors come back asking for their returns. 2) Legal barriers. Vendor lock-in isn't just about technical hurdles; a big part is use and abuse of intellectual property rights. It may not be legally possible for you to interop with Twitter and FB unless they allow you, and they will stop allowing you access the moment they realize you're a potential competitor. There's an inherent asymmetry here. It's easy for a commercial competitor to take over an open network. It's very difficult to do the reverse.
icebraining 8y ago
> It wasn't that many years ago that I could have all those clients loaded up in one chat client. Pidgin supports FB Messenger, Whatsapp and Hangouts. Those plugins are based on reverse engineering the proprietary protocols, but that was also true of the messengers of yore.

pferde 8y ago

Not anymore. Sometimes in late December, ICQ users received following message: "We are discontinuing support of older ICQ versions and other unofficial clients. To continue chatting, you need: 1. Link a phone number to your account here https://icq.com/<redacted>/verifyphone?sc=<redacted> https://icq.com/<redacted>/verifyphone?sc=<redacted> 2. Log in using the official ICQ client which can be downloaded at https://icq.com" https://icq.com" I can still log in with an alternative client, see my contacts' status and receive text messages, but any message I send is either lost, or delayed by several days.

omnimus 8y ago

Also lets not forget that time when you could send messages between almost all of those prividers including Gchat and Facebook messenger because it was all federated XMPP.

icebraining 8y ago
From the big messenger networks, only Google and Facebook used XMPP, and Facebook's was never federated.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  Even though WhatsApp is basically a hosted ejabberd fork.

skybrian 8y ago

It seems like a lot of communication services that started with open API's later abandoned them. Most famously, Twitter. Maybe we should think about why this happens? Bots and abuse, maybe? There are still multiple clients available for email, but it does have a bit of a spam problem.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
It's simple, and has nothing to do with bots and abuse (after all, a centralized service can handle this centrally, regardless of the client used). Communication services have inherent network effects, and network effect is how you make money in this space. So first, you need to build your userbase. At this point, interoperability is a feature, because people can try out your service without fully committing to it. Then, after your user base grows big enough, interoperability suddenly becomes your enemy - a way for your competitors to pull on you what you just pulled on your predecessors. So you need to get rid of it, to secure your network. This pattern keeps happening again and again in any space that has network effects. TL;DR: Embrace, extend, extinguish.
- another-dave 8y ago
  I wonder is there a route for an open/free competitor to then start with interoperability (e.g. pull your posts from FB or Twitter onto their service, allow log-in via FB OAuth) and then, after your user base grows big enough, create an open protocol that your would-be competitors adopt. If you had 5 or 6 players who were all using the same protocol for social (similar to email), you might be able to remove the vendor lock-in completely as users might start looking for platforms using the protocol as a feature? Feels a bit of a pipedream, but seems like the main way that we could transition to social as a 'free' medium (as in, à la email, I can post something and you recieve a notification, or I can send you a message without knowing or caring which platform you consume your social content on.)
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Two big roadblocks: 1) How do you fund it? One of the reasons tech companies end up on the path from interop to lock-in is their funding model. If you take investor money, you may find yourself having no choice but to become user-hostile when the investors come back asking for their returns. 2) Legal barriers. Vendor lock-in isn't just about technical hurdles; a big part is use and abuse of intellectual property rights. It may not be legally possible for you to interop with Twitter and FB unless they allow you, and they will stop allowing you access the moment they realize you're a potential competitor. There's an inherent asymmetry here. It's easy for a commercial competitor to take over an open network. It's very difficult to do the reverse.

icebraining 8y ago

> It wasn't that many years ago that I could have all those clients loaded up in one chat client. Pidgin supports FB Messenger, Whatsapp and Hangouts. Those plugins are based on reverse engineering the proprietary protocols, but that was also true of the messengers of yore.