4 ms·

> mail became Gmail, usenet became reddit, blog replies became facebook and Medium, pingbacks became twitter, squid became Cloudflare, even gnutella became The

by mankyd 7y ago

> mail became Gmail, usenet became reddit, blog replies became facebook and Medium, pingbacks became twitter, squid became Cloudflare, even gnutella became The Pirate Bay. Centralization exists because there is a need to manage spam, griefing, and sockpuppet/sybil attacks. No, centralization exists because users don't care about the protocol. Users care about the brand. It's way easier to use FB than it is to say "choose your hosting provider. Each one has a slightly different set of features. Then link with other people you care about, all of whom may be using different providers that you need to pay special attention to." With FB, I click "send a friend request" and then move on with my day. And that's just one example.

iamnothere 7y ago
> No, centralization exists because users don't care about the protocol. Users care about the brand. Brand is a proxy for the level of functionality delivered by that brand. People didn't switch to GMail because it was a "cool" brand, they switched because the spam filtering worked, Google gives you a ton of free space (a problem at the time), and it didn't have obtrusive banner ads. This was passed on by word of mouth, and now GMail is popular. > It's way easier to use FB than it is to say "choose your hosting provider. Each one has a slightly different set of features. Then link with other people you care about, all of whom may be using different providers that you need to pay special attention to." With FB, I click "send a friend request" and then move on with my day. And that's just one example. Exactly my point, the UX is better and the network effect ensures that many/most of your friends are already there. It's not about branding, it's about ease of use.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  > People didn't switch to GMail because it was a "cool" brand In the early days of gmail when you needed an invite code, it definitely was a status symbol to have that @gmail.com on your email address. And at the time, the actual functionality of gmail was far less significant than the fact it was free and decoupled from your internet provider, although you're right the storage capacity on a free email was unheard of at the time.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Gmail invites were at some point a joke. Everyone had them and I wouldn't be able to give them out quickly enough. Maybe at the very beginning they were exclusive a bit, but soon anyone interested could post online and get an invite in minutes.
  - Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
    > And at the time, the actual functionality of gmail was far less significant than the fact it was free and decoupled from your internet provider If that was the real draw, then people would have just stuck with Hotmail, Yahoo, and the dozen other e-mail providers.
    - stubish 7y ago
      Hotmail and to a lesser extent Yahoo were perceived as toxic, due to spam mostly. There is still a website I frequent which requests customers email to be 'preferably not a @hotmail.com address'. All the other email providers were either restricted (companies, universities, clubs/guilds etc.), poorly run, or tied you to fees (ISP provided, paid email providers, AOL).
- mankyd 7y ago
  > Brand is a proxy for the level of functionality delivered by that brand. 100% agreed. > People didn't switch to GMail because it was a "cool" brand, Less agreed on this. Brand is also a proxy for PR, marketing, and the general image of the company. Gmail had an awesome feature set - better than its competitors at the time, but also spread wildly by word of mouth. At that time, Google was an exciting company for most people (it still is by and large, but that's another discussion). Gmail's "invite-only" onboarding was done well and made it exclusive. FB did the same thing when they rolled out to one school at a time. Ultimately, I think we're on the same page. People want good UX; they want a product/company that their friends recommend; they want something that just works.

by mankyd 7y ago

iamnothere 7y ago

> No, centralization exists because users don't care about the protocol. Users care about the brand. Brand is a proxy for the level of functionality delivered by that brand. People didn't switch to GMail because it was a "cool" brand, they switched because the spam filtering worked, Google gives you a ton of free space (a problem at the time), and it didn't have obtrusive banner ads. This was passed on by word of mouth, and now GMail is popular. > It's way easier to use FB than it is to say "choose your hosting provider. Each one has a slightly different set of features. Then link with other people you care about, all of whom may be using different providers that you need to pay special attention to." With FB, I click "send a friend request" and then move on with my day. And that's just one example. Exactly my point, the UX is better and the network effect ensures that many/most of your friends are already there. It's not about branding, it's about ease of use.

unlinked_dll 7y ago
> People didn't switch to GMail because it was a "cool" brand In the early days of gmail when you needed an invite code, it definitely was a status symbol to have that @gmail.com on your email address. And at the time, the actual functionality of gmail was far less significant than the fact it was free and decoupled from your internet provider, although you're right the storage capacity on a free email was unheard of at the time.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Gmail invites were at some point a joke. Everyone had them and I wouldn't be able to give them out quickly enough. Maybe at the very beginning they were exclusive a bit, but soon anyone interested could post online and get an invite in minutes.
- Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
  > And at the time, the actual functionality of gmail was far less significant than the fact it was free and decoupled from your internet provider If that was the real draw, then people would have just stuck with Hotmail, Yahoo, and the dozen other e-mail providers.
  - stubish 7y ago
    Hotmail and to a lesser extent Yahoo were perceived as toxic, due to spam mostly. There is still a website I frequent which requests customers email to be 'preferably not a @hotmail.com address'. All the other email providers were either restricted (companies, universities, clubs/guilds etc.), poorly run, or tied you to fees (ISP provided, paid email providers, AOL).
mankyd 7y ago
> Brand is a proxy for the level of functionality delivered by that brand. 100% agreed. > People didn't switch to GMail because it was a "cool" brand, Less agreed on this. Brand is also a proxy for PR, marketing, and the general image of the company. Gmail had an awesome feature set - better than its competitors at the time, but also spread wildly by word of mouth. At that time, Google was an exciting company for most people (it still is by and large, but that's another discussion). Gmail's "invite-only" onboarding was done well and made it exclusive. FB did the same thing when they rolled out to one school at a time. Ultimately, I think we're on the same page. People want good UX; they want a product/company that their friends recommend; they want something that just works.