3 ms·
> absolute feature-parity over what is being pushed by the companies that have time, money and marketing teams Signal started as any other startup. And yet ;)
by dmitriid 6y ago
> absolute feature-parity over what is being pushed by the companies that have time, money and marketing teams
Signal started as any other startup. And yet ;)
> while willing to learn and emulate what they do right, then we will at the very least be in a state of steady progress
In total agreement with you
- rglullis 6y ago> Signal started as any other startup. And yet Not sure what you mean here. To me Signal is just another startup that wants to keep control over the market and uses excuses such as "federation leads to fragmentation and bad UX" in order to put its own interests ahead of the users. To me they are no different than FB or Google.
- dmitriid 6y agoThey also started "with no money and recognition" and ended up defining what e2e means for consumers.
- rglullis 6y agoForgive me for being dense, but I still don't get the point you are trying to make. Do you think Signal is worthy of some praise that the alternatives are not? Was their software ready to compete with the status quo of the time in features?
- dmitriid 6y agoWhat was the point of this statement: "If we keep expecting underfunded and under-resourced parties to come up with software ready and with absolute feature-parity over what is being pushed by the companies that have time, money and marketing teams"? My counterpoint is: Signal started as any startup. Now it basically defines e2e encryption. Why can't other "underfunded and under-resourced parties" do similar things?
- rglullis 6y agoBecause "defining e2e encryption" is the case of building a feature and not a product, and a startup creating a novel feature is a lot easier than bringing a whole product with feature-parity against the dominant market leader?