3 ms·

There is still no replacement for email though. It still very much work today and is the only solution to send message over the Internet, regardless of the pers

by boudin 3y ago

There is still no replacement for email though. It still very much work today and is the only solution to send message over the Internet, regardless of the person you want to reach. Non federated networks will never reach the adoption of email.

anigbrowl 3y ago
You're missing the point; it did indeed succeed and is now embedded in our digital infrastructure because it got there first. But it does not follow that launching something else today using the same model will be able to get the same uptake, because there are many competing offerings.
- boudin 3y ago
  I don't see many competing offering. I can think of XMPP, Matrix, I'm sure there are a few others but it's definitely not many. You're right that the environment changed, but not for the best. Many people would jump on a federated messaging network, not because it's federated but because they won't need to use dozens of app and accounts to communicate. It is more the business incentives that are not there. Email surely has succeeded because SMTP was the de-facto communication protocol when Internet developed, but it is still successful and relevant because it is still the de-facto communication protocol.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Yes you do, you just aren't acknowledging them: centralized services like Whatsapp, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and so on. You are thinking of 'competing distributed technologies' but consumers are thinking of 'way to communicate with people' because most consumers do not care how the underlying technology works or what philosophical principles it is based on. First movers in a market or technology space have an advantage because the costs of switching to something else rise over time, creating economic inelasticity. Go read up on preferential attachment and consider the fact that success is accidental or lucky as much as merit-based.

by boudin 3y ago

anigbrowl 3y ago

You're missing the point; it did indeed succeed and is now embedded in our digital infrastructure because it got there first. But it does not follow that launching something else today using the same model will be able to get the same uptake, because there are many competing offerings.

boudin 3y ago
I don't see many competing offering. I can think of XMPP, Matrix, I'm sure there are a few others but it's definitely not many. You're right that the environment changed, but not for the best. Many people would jump on a federated messaging network, not because it's federated but because they won't need to use dozens of app and accounts to communicate. It is more the business incentives that are not there. Email surely has succeeded because SMTP was the de-facto communication protocol when Internet developed, but it is still successful and relevant because it is still the de-facto communication protocol.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Yes you do, you just aren't acknowledging them: centralized services like Whatsapp, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and so on. You are thinking of 'competing distributed technologies' but consumers are thinking of 'way to communicate with people' because most consumers do not care how the underlying technology works or what philosophical principles it is based on. First movers in a market or technology space have an advantage because the costs of switching to something else rise over time, creating economic inelasticity. Go read up on preferential attachment and consider the fact that success is accidental or lucky as much as merit-based.