5 ms·

>Install. Accept permissions. Choose a PIN. I can send you messages. You can see your friends who already use Signal. Well done! Sure but that does not in any

>Install. Accept permissions. Choose a PIN. I can send you messages. You can see your friends who already use Signal. Well done! Sure but that does not in any way take away from the point that siloed messengers are a bad idea. If the XMPP/Matrix people wanted to they could set up a trusted third party server to link identities to phone numbers just like Signal does. They could even claim to use some sort of hardware enclave to do it. You could at that point create clients that were functionally identical to Signal but that worked on the respective federated networks. Heck you could probably do that with encrypted email and no one would much mind any added latency. When people are talking about messaging systems that do not interoperate they are complaining about the underlying protocols. Client useability is a whole other discussion. I think there is a tendency to confuse the two in this sort of discussion.

mixedCase 6y ago
> Sure but that does not in any way take away from the point that siloed messengers are a bad idea. Well, too bad! Usability trumps idealism when network effects are at play. > If the XMPP/Matrix people wanted to they could set up a trusted third party server to link identities to phone numbers just like Signal does Usability is so bad that you're defending Matrix and don't even know this is already available, just has terrible UX. Chat protocols don't matter at all if the final product isn't something grandma can easily use. Element has many of the pieces in place, but it needs go further. I say this as I use Matrix. I've set-up Matrix for my SO and family just to talk to me, you know, like a bastard. I want Matrix to succeed. But it's not going to happen unless it can match tit-for-tat the usability of things like WhatsApp or Telegram, even if that means having defaults that geeks find "icky", like railroading the user into a single instance (and hiding non-matrix homeservers in a corner), defaulting to using the phone number as an account without passwords, and auto-joining to an identity server.
- sceox 6y ago
  Because Matrix allows any number of clients to be made, it's entirely possible for one client to do the things you list at the same time as other clients don't for the reasons you mention. If I had to guess, it won't be Element, it will be a new client preconfigured to some (not matrix.org) server.
  - sanderjd 6y ago
    But why would anyone do it? What is the incentive to invest the resources into building an application with a good UX? This is why businesses win: aligned incentives.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Same reason. You can build a business on top of the Matrix protocol. You could create a slick UI and charge $5-$10 for it. You could insert ads. You could add micropayments, crypto, etc... whatever the market wants.
      - forgotmypw17 6y ago
        Here's an idea, for anyone reading this to run with. Sell account packs, say 50 accounts for 10 bucks. Or maybe 10 accounts for 5 bucks. Or maybe 20 accounts for $30 a year? Adjust it for both sustainability with your tech model, I dunno about that. But the idea is to minimize the number of payments required per account and per network, and allow one person to pay for their entire group.
        kitkat_new 6y ago
        Doesn't Element do this already? https://element.io/plans-and-pricing/pro https://element.io/plans-and-pricing/pro
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        Thanks! It looks like it does. This is validating, and cheaper than I estimated.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    But they don't exist. "Someday, there will be a client that will make the signup process simple" is not a great argument for my mom when I'm trying to text her my holiday plans.
- sorunome 6y ago
  Have you tried other clients than Element yet? For phone, you could e.g. try FluffyChat or Ditto, and for Desktop you could try e.g. nheko or mirage
  - mixedCase 6y ago
    Thanks for the suggestions, I wasn't aware of either of them. Ditto has a dead website and it's not on the Play store, there's a link on its repo but it's dead. APKs are not viable for mainstream use. And I just tried onboarding someone on FluffyChat, and as of right now, it's non-viable as well. During the process I have to go back and forth between web browser and application which completely went over my mother's head despite the textual instructions, and when it's set-up it defaults to Matrix usernames instead of doing automatic contact resolution using an identity server. On the other hand, the UI is pretty nice and fits in well with native apps, if the app had a more serious, bland branding and a tamer color palette it would be up to task UI-wise.
rakoo 6y ago
> If the XMPP/Matrix people wanted to they could set up a trusted third party server to link identities to phone numbers just like Signal does Signal is even simpler: they use the phone number as the identifier. So you could have an XMPP server with a given domain, and your phone number as your login. The whole SMS dance for making sure you own the number. That already exists: https://quicksy.im/ https://quicksy.im/. And yet it doesn't seem to have attracted that many people. I don't think it was an issue of usability though, it is not so far from Signal, but a publicity one.

mixedCase 6y ago

> Sure but that does not in any way take away from the point that siloed messengers are a bad idea. Well, too bad! Usability trumps idealism when network effects are at play. > If the XMPP/Matrix people wanted to they could set up a trusted third party server to link identities to phone numbers just like Signal does Usability is so bad that you're defending Matrix and don't even know this is already available, just has terrible UX. Chat protocols don't matter at all if the final product isn't something grandma can easily use. Element has many of the pieces in place, but it needs go further. I say this as I use Matrix. I've set-up Matrix for my SO and family just to talk to me, you know, like a bastard. I want Matrix to succeed. But it's not going to happen unless it can match tit-for-tat the usability of things like WhatsApp or Telegram, even if that means having defaults that geeks find "icky", like railroading the user into a single instance (and hiding non-matrix homeservers in a corner), defaulting to using the phone number as an account without passwords, and auto-joining to an identity server.

sceox 6y ago
Because Matrix allows any number of clients to be made, it's entirely possible for one client to do the things you list at the same time as other clients don't for the reasons you mention. If I had to guess, it won't be Element, it will be a new client preconfigured to some (not matrix.org) server.
- sanderjd 6y ago
  But why would anyone do it? What is the incentive to invest the resources into building an application with a good UX? This is why businesses win: aligned incentives.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Same reason. You can build a business on top of the Matrix protocol. You could create a slick UI and charge $5-$10 for it. You could insert ads. You could add micropayments, crypto, etc... whatever the market wants.
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      Here's an idea, for anyone reading this to run with. Sell account packs, say 50 accounts for 10 bucks. Or maybe 10 accounts for 5 bucks. Or maybe 20 accounts for $30 a year? Adjust it for both sustainability with your tech model, I dunno about that. But the idea is to minimize the number of payments required per account and per network, and allow one person to pay for their entire group.
      - kitkat_new 6y ago
        Doesn't Element do this already? https://element.io/plans-and-pricing/pro https://element.io/plans-and-pricing/pro
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        Thanks! It looks like it does. This is validating, and cheaper than I estimated.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  But they don't exist. "Someday, there will be a client that will make the signup process simple" is not a great argument for my mom when I'm trying to text her my holiday plans.
sorunome 6y ago
Have you tried other clients than Element yet? For phone, you could e.g. try FluffyChat or Ditto, and for Desktop you could try e.g. nheko or mirage
- mixedCase 6y ago
  Thanks for the suggestions, I wasn't aware of either of them. Ditto has a dead website and it's not on the Play store, there's a link on its repo but it's dead. APKs are not viable for mainstream use. And I just tried onboarding someone on FluffyChat, and as of right now, it's non-viable as well. During the process I have to go back and forth between web browser and application which completely went over my mother's head despite the textual instructions, and when it's set-up it defaults to Matrix usernames instead of doing automatic contact resolution using an identity server. On the other hand, the UI is pretty nice and fits in well with native apps, if the app had a more serious, bland branding and a tamer color palette it would be up to task UI-wise.

rakoo 6y ago

> If the XMPP/Matrix people wanted to they could set up a trusted third party server to link identities to phone numbers just like Signal does Signal is even simpler: they use the phone number as the identifier. So you could have an XMPP server with a given domain, and your phone number as your login. The whole SMS dance for making sure you own the number. That already exists: https://quicksy.im/ https://quicksy.im/. And yet it doesn't seem to have attracted that many people. I don't think it was an issue of usability though, it is not so far from Signal, but a publicity one.