4 ms·

One of the better examples still seeing widespread mainstream use is email, and this even applies to multiple stages throughout the email ecosystem: sending mai

One of the better examples still seeing widespread mainstream use is email, and this even applies to multiple stages throughout the email ecosystem: sending mail, receiving mail, managing mailboxes. Imagine if email wasn't cross provider compatible

TeMPOraL 6y ago
The surviving open protocols are like libraries: they were created before the space got commercialized. They got grandfathered in. If libraries didn't exist for centuries already, there is no way they could have been created under current intellectual property laws and IP economy. Similarly, new open protocols don't generally gain widespread adoption - and in the rare case they do, that's only because some companies are using them to gain adoption; once those companies gain the market share they want, they switch to proprietary protocols and the open one dies. See e.g. Google and XMPP or RSS.
- texasbigdata 6y ago
  What about, tangentially, cellphone standards or HTML standard that have iterated and are now at version X? Your point stands and a simultaneous coevolution of the standard, the userbase, and the (app/thing) functionality does seem possible.
- chrisweekly 6y ago
  Great points -- w caveat that RSS isn't dead! :)
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Technically. Neither is XMPP :). It's just increasingly rare to see in the wild.
mbreese 6y ago
Email is only useful because it is cross platform compatible. Otherwise, we’d all be back to writing to some friends in AOL, others in MSN, maybe some back in Compuserve. Some people like to send messages only in Facebook and others via Twitter DMs. None of these are/were interoperable which is why they aren’t ubiquitously used. Email is only useful because each server can send and receive with other servers. But we all know this, so what the point here? I would say that my point is that if interoperability becomes more useful than the walled garden approach, then we will see something like this posts call for BYO client. Email is an example. We have interoperable email because it is was more useful than service specific inboxes. Until interoperability is necessary for Word, we won’t see an opening for other Word “clients”. Aside: you could argue that Google built Gmail to make a dent in the ubiquity that was Exchange for corporate messaging. It exploited the openness/interoperability of email in order to do this. If you accept that argument, then maybe they should take a page from that playbook and work to make Google Docs as open as possible. Allow for more interaction with external clients. Let a more open ecosystem develop. That might have the potential to diminish the position of Office for document creation. Or maybe email is just so old, the owners got established before it could be commercialized... it might happen again, but I’m not hopeful. For example, I don’t expect Twitter to care about federating their system with other messaging applications. There is too much to be gained (selling ads) by keeping people on their site.
- lupire 6y ago
  Gmail was Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. You can't read your own email using you own email client anymore.
kjrose 6y ago
Absolutely, however a major problem occurs, and email is a great example of this. When there is a fundamental need to change the protocol for reasons of privacy, security, authentication, etc. It becomes almost impossible to do when it is as wide spread as email, or it takes a very very long time to spread enough. When one person controls the whole system, it's easy to pivot rapidly. I guess that's another argument against having widely used protocols (even though I disagree with it.)
- gmfawcett 6y ago
  I think that's a great argument for keeping widely used protocols. I don't want any one person, or one entity, to rapidly pivot my critical infrastructure (whether it is "broken" or not). The slowness of change is a feature.
- lupire 6y ago
  What's insecure or frozen about email? We have SPF and all that jazz.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

The surviving open protocols are like libraries: they were created before the space got commercialized. They got grandfathered in. If libraries didn't exist for centuries already, there is no way they could have been created under current intellectual property laws and IP economy. Similarly, new open protocols don't generally gain widespread adoption - and in the rare case they do, that's only because some companies are using them to gain adoption; once those companies gain the market share they want, they switch to proprietary protocols and the open one dies. See e.g. Google and XMPP or RSS.

texasbigdata 6y ago
What about, tangentially, cellphone standards or HTML standard that have iterated and are now at version X? Your point stands and a simultaneous coevolution of the standard, the userbase, and the (app/thing) functionality does seem possible.
chrisweekly 6y ago
Great points -- w caveat that RSS isn't dead! :)
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Technically. Neither is XMPP :). It's just increasingly rare to see in the wild.

mbreese 6y ago

Email is only useful because it is cross platform compatible. Otherwise, we’d all be back to writing to some friends in AOL, others in MSN, maybe some back in Compuserve. Some people like to send messages only in Facebook and others via Twitter DMs. None of these are/were interoperable which is why they aren’t ubiquitously used. Email is only useful because each server can send and receive with other servers. But we all know this, so what the point here? I would say that my point is that if interoperability becomes more useful than the walled garden approach, then we will see something like this posts call for BYO client. Email is an example. We have interoperable email because it is was more useful than service specific inboxes. Until interoperability is necessary for Word, we won’t see an opening for other Word “clients”. Aside: you could argue that Google built Gmail to make a dent in the ubiquity that was Exchange for corporate messaging. It exploited the openness/interoperability of email in order to do this. If you accept that argument, then maybe they should take a page from that playbook and work to make Google Docs as open as possible. Allow for more interaction with external clients. Let a more open ecosystem develop. That might have the potential to diminish the position of Office for document creation. Or maybe email is just so old, the owners got established before it could be commercialized... it might happen again, but I’m not hopeful. For example, I don’t expect Twitter to care about federating their system with other messaging applications. There is too much to be gained (selling ads) by keeping people on their site.

lupire 6y ago
Gmail was Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. You can't read your own email using you own email client anymore.

kjrose 6y ago

Absolutely, however a major problem occurs, and email is a great example of this. When there is a fundamental need to change the protocol for reasons of privacy, security, authentication, etc. It becomes almost impossible to do when it is as wide spread as email, or it takes a very very long time to spread enough. When one person controls the whole system, it's easy to pivot rapidly. I guess that's another argument against having widely used protocols (even though I disagree with it.)

gmfawcett 6y ago
I think that's a great argument for keeping widely used protocols. I don't want any one person, or one entity, to rapidly pivot my critical infrastructure (whether it is "broken" or not). The slowness of change is a feature.
lupire 6y ago
What's insecure or frozen about email? We have SPF and all that jazz.