5 ms·
I have not yet tried Bluesky, but paradoxically, I think the "success" that currently everybody wants to try Bluesky might be an indicator that it will fail. I
by mg 3y ago
I have not yet tried Bluesky, but paradoxically, I think the "success" that currently everybody wants to try Bluesky might be an indicator that it will fail.
If there is so much demand, why does nobody offer a free and open client? This might be a sign that it is hard to write and/or run one.
I tried Nostr and it was extremely easy. Because it is so easy to write and run a client, there are plenty already.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- brundolf 3y agoPeople have released multiple open-source alt clients (mostly in beta states, because it hasn't been very long). I've played with the API myself and it's really quite easy to use, especially with an SDK (there's an official one in typescript and community ones are sprouting up in almost every major language). I'm in a discord for people doing stuff with the API that has almost 1k members
- mg 3y agoI tried Nostr on a web client. It was pretty easy. Just going to the website was enough. I have not seen such a thing for Bluesky yet. Is there a client online that one can simply use by visiting a website?
- brundolf 3y agoYou could definitely build a read-only one; only account creation and the things that go with it are invite-only, the rest is already public and distributed. I don't know of a client like you describe existing yet, but I could use the API endpoints I've already worked with to build one if I wanted to take the time. Edit: here's one https://skypulse.dvy.io/ https://skypulse.dvy.io/
- mg 3y agoThe invite-only aspect is part of the protocol?
- brundolf 3y agoThere's an underlying protocol (AT protocol), and then there's the Bluesky app that's built on top of it (and has its own public API, etc). Only the Bluesky layer requires authentication (and is therefore gated behind closed signups for now). My understanding is it's mainly gated because they're a tiny team experiencing explosive growth, so they have to make sure it doesn't take down the whole system (they recently had to migrate DBs because users doubled in 24 hours) High-level explanation of the protocol: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35822267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35822267
- mg 3y agoBut why are there no other public webclients that let you create an identity and communicate via the AT protocol?
- brundolf 3y agoThere's a layer of data and interaction that exists at the application level right now. I don't know exactly where the line is drawn between the two, but I think eg. likes might be at the bsky level right now (while posts themselves are at the AT Protocol level) I believe the team plans to move as many things as possible down to the AT level over time
- tedunangst 3y agoBecause currently nobody communicates via AT. There's nobody to talk to.
- thinkmassive 3y agoYes, staging.bsky.app was the web client all along. They finally acknowledged it’s really a prod site, so now they’re moving it to bsky.app
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lapcat 3y ago> If there is so much demand, why does nobody release a free and open client? This might be a sign that it is hard to write one. It's invitation-only, with a total of ~50K users, many of whom are non-technical celebrities. That's why.
- brundolf 3y agoHere's a living list of clients and other projects: https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto-ecosystem https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto-ecosystem
- xxpor 3y agoThe vast majority of people moving to Bluesky do not care about decentralization or open clients or any of that. Like, at all. https://twitter.com/ryxcommar/status/1651704456088518656 https://twitter.com/ryxcommar/status/1651704456088518656
- brundolf 3y agoWhich is why it might succeed: regular people want to use it, not just enthusiasts
- jacooper 3y agoRegular people don't want to deal with invite codes.