4 ms·

> Sadly, open standards also slow down the development of new features, as everybody needs to be "on board" for new features to roll out. Capability negotiatio

> Sadly, open standards also slow down the development of new features, as everybody needs to be "on board" for new features to roll out. Capability negotiation is a thing. It's perfectly fine to support some baseline feature set (one-to-one text messages) and build more optional features on top of it. But, yes, it's important that the protocol is designed to be extensible in the first place.

8fingerlouie 5y ago
> It's perfectly fine to support some baseline feature set (one-to-one text messages) and build more optional features on top of it. So keep the status quo (SMS/MMS) and build more features on top of that ?
- madsbuch 5y ago
  Those are not extensible enough as they are bound to the transport layer.
- rolisz 5y ago
  In the EU (at least in Romania), MMS is not a thing, and even SMS is not the status quo. Everyone talks using WhatsApp mostly.
  - NotOscarWilde 5y ago
    SMS stopped to be status quo here (central Europe) because it still costs money to send each single text. It made sense when no other mobile communication option was available (early 2000s) but not anymore. WhatsApp or any other messaging platform is strictly better as long as your phone is connected to the internet.
- grishka 5y ago
  > the status quo (SMS/MMS) There are countries that aren't the US. I honestly don't remember when was the last time I've actually sent an SMS. 99% of SMS messages I receive are notifications and 2fa codes. If anything, "status quo" over here is Telegram and VKontakte. Besides, the issue with SMS/MMS is that it's a closed system tightly controlled by carriers. The internet is an open system.
- kmlx 5y ago
  > So keep the status quo (SMS/MMS) and build more features on top of that ? what you are describing can be called "iMessage" :)
dchftcs 5y ago
If one side supports a feature, the other side doesn't, they're not interoperable.
- grishka 5y ago
  If one side supports a feature and the other doesn't, they're still interoperable, just without that feature.
  - kmlx 5y ago
    how are they interoperable when one side uses a feature and the other doesn't support it? that's just degrading the experience... and this is just one small reason why the industry decided against moving forward with this decades ago. it simply didn't make any sense then, certainly doesn't make sense now.
    - grishka 5y ago
      > that's just degrading the experience... Uhhh yes? That's the point? The alternative to this degraded experience is no experience at all.
    - kmlx 5y ago
      > > that's just degrading the experience... > Uhhh yes? That's the point? The alternative to this degraded experience is no experience at all. so basically it's either degraded experience but w/ interoperability or great experience but w/o interoperability? that doesn't really make sense. why not a third way with great experience and great interoperability? i'm asking because i can guarantee that no one will use clients that provide a degraded experience when you've got the established players providing a great experience.
      - grishka 5y ago
        It's important for the capability to be there. The issue is that currently "established players" control that experience. In a saner world, experience needs to be decoupled from infrastructure. Somehow, ICQ worked wonderfully despite everyone I knew using an unofficial client. The official client (at least Windows one) was a terrible mess. It had ads and all those features no one ever asked for, like games and and news and an entire picture-based language (I'm not joking). But QIP, the client I used, only did the things I needed an ICQ client to do, and nothing more. It also had no ads.

8fingerlouie 5y ago

> It's perfectly fine to support some baseline feature set (one-to-one text messages) and build more optional features on top of it. So keep the status quo (SMS/MMS) and build more features on top of that ?

madsbuch 5y ago
Those are not extensible enough as they are bound to the transport layer.
rolisz 5y ago
In the EU (at least in Romania), MMS is not a thing, and even SMS is not the status quo. Everyone talks using WhatsApp mostly.
- NotOscarWilde 5y ago
  SMS stopped to be status quo here (central Europe) because it still costs money to send each single text. It made sense when no other mobile communication option was available (early 2000s) but not anymore. WhatsApp or any other messaging platform is strictly better as long as your phone is connected to the internet.
grishka 5y ago
> the status quo (SMS/MMS) There are countries that aren't the US. I honestly don't remember when was the last time I've actually sent an SMS. 99% of SMS messages I receive are notifications and 2fa codes. If anything, "status quo" over here is Telegram and VKontakte. Besides, the issue with SMS/MMS is that it's a closed system tightly controlled by carriers. The internet is an open system.
kmlx 5y ago
> So keep the status quo (SMS/MMS) and build more features on top of that ? what you are describing can be called "iMessage" :)

dchftcs 5y ago

If one side supports a feature, the other side doesn't, they're not interoperable.

grishka 5y ago
If one side supports a feature and the other doesn't, they're still interoperable, just without that feature.
- kmlx 5y ago
  how are they interoperable when one side uses a feature and the other doesn't support it? that's just degrading the experience... and this is just one small reason why the industry decided against moving forward with this decades ago. it simply didn't make any sense then, certainly doesn't make sense now.
  - grishka 5y ago
    > that's just degrading the experience... Uhhh yes? That's the point? The alternative to this degraded experience is no experience at all.
  - kmlx 5y ago
    > > that's just degrading the experience... > Uhhh yes? That's the point? The alternative to this degraded experience is no experience at all. so basically it's either degraded experience but w/ interoperability or great experience but w/o interoperability? that doesn't really make sense. why not a third way with great experience and great interoperability? i'm asking because i can guarantee that no one will use clients that provide a degraded experience when you've got the established players providing a great experience.
    - grishka 5y ago
      It's important for the capability to be there. The issue is that currently "established players" control that experience. In a saner world, experience needs to be decoupled from infrastructure. Somehow, ICQ worked wonderfully despite everyone I knew using an unofficial client. The official client (at least Windows one) was a terrible mess. It had ads and all those features no one ever asked for, like games and and news and an entire picture-based language (I'm not joking). But QIP, the client I used, only did the things I needed an ICQ client to do, and nothing more. It also had no ads.