4 ms·
> great, just like in the mid-00's! funnily enough i was working on apps that did this back in the mid 00s. it was horrible. the standards simply couldn’t keep
by kmlx 4y ago
> great, just like in the mid-00's!
funnily enough i was working on apps that did this back in the mid 00s. it was horrible. the standards simply couldn’t keep up. the clients couldn’t keep up. in the end it was better for the end user not use those standards and instead we rolled our own.
could be different story today but i don’t think so. just the video call feature would be an absolute mess to standardise. hell, even emojis would open up a can of worms. payments between contacts? contacts themselves? i fear this would end up being the mid 00s again.
- tchocky 4y agoEmojis are just Unicode characters, why would it be so hard?
- 3836293648 4y agoThat's just emoji. Think about Apple's animoji
- Mikeb85 4y agoThere's lots of non-standard emojis used by various messaging apps.
- toyg 4y ago> the standards simply couldn’t keep up Or rather: developers were so up their own backsides that effectively refused to cooperate. Obviously you go faster if you don't have to talk to anyone, and everybody loves lock-in. Which is why this legislation is welcome.
- weberer 4y ago>it was horrible. the standards simply couldn’t keep up. the clients couldn’t keep up. The best chat application I ever used was Pidgin circa 2008. It was so easy to be able to talk to all my friends across several different protocols in a single program.
- giantrobot 4y agoPidgin existed not because IM services provided interoperability but because someone wrote libgaim and equivalents for other protocols. Keeping those up to date was a massive effort.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y agoIt was still awesome that it was possible to exist, and allowed to exist.