2 ms·
> why aren't they "here" in popular adoption? I think, although it is perfectly technically feasible in a vacuum it is not in real life. HN is likely not the b
by lucideer 6y ago
> why aren't they "here" in popular adoption? I think, although it is perfectly technically feasible in a vacuum it is not in real life.
HN is likely not the best forum for this argument, but I'd have two answers to this:
1. Email is popularly adopted. It's difficult to add improvements because it's a federated protocol from the 60s, but it is still popular.
2. The reason we haven't had popular adoption since is because: (a) email was publicly developed, whereas most newer tech is private; the market favours easy (cheap) over better (hard, expensive) and federated is harder to do (with worthwhile benefits); and (b) the major downside of centralisation -vs- federated is vendor lock-in, which is bad for users but good for shareholders.
- ipodopt 6y agoEmail is good example of something that lasted. I think piecing it apart in more detail picking another few cases could let me clarify and solidify my arguments but like you HN is probably not the place for a detailed analysis. Long term, I would hope that if Signal gets large enough market-share and stabilizes they would make the signal protocol federated.