3 ms·

It doesn't have to be "you can't replace SMS" because that would be stifling to innovation. It could simply be "messaging protocols should be open and/or inter

by nerdix 2y ago

It doesn't have to be "you can't replace SMS" because that would be stifling to innovation. It could simply be "messaging protocols should be open and/or interoperable". The web is what it is today because its open. The telephone network is what it is today because its interoperable. Imagine if the web was bifurcated based on the operating system you wanted to use (that was Microsoft's vision in the late 90s and early 00s: to create a large section of the web that required Windows). Imagine if a Verizon customer had a limited feature set when calling an AT&T customer (like the inability to leave a voicemail for instance). No one would tolerate these things. But yet people will argue in favor of this with messaging (as long as its Apple doing it)

edanm 2y ago
> It doesn't have to be "you can't replace SMS" because that would be stifling to innovation. It could simply be "messaging protocols should be open and/or interoperable". It doesn't seem the same, but that's effectively also stifling to innovation. For one thing, if the whole reason something like iMessage got created was to ensure an Apple monopoly, if they couldn't use it to do that, they just wouldn't build it, not build it open instead. For another, what does "open and interoperable" even mean? There isn't necessarily a defined protocol for these things already. So who would come up with one? Almost certainly, the big companies would have to be involved, and they could steer the standard to benefit themselves, even just by making it closer to something they've already built (which makes total technical sense too - of course you want to base the protocol on existing tech!). But that means that compliance is much harder for smaller companies, which would mean you're giving a huge advantage to a big player anyway. As opposed to the no-regulation world, in which Whatsapp was a startup that could do whatever it wanted, and ended up being the default messaging platform that half the world uses.

by nerdix 2y ago

edanm 2y ago

> It doesn't have to be "you can't replace SMS" because that would be stifling to innovation. It could simply be "messaging protocols should be open and/or interoperable". It doesn't seem the same, but that's effectively also stifling to innovation. For one thing, if the whole reason something like iMessage got created was to ensure an Apple monopoly, if they couldn't use it to do that, they just wouldn't build it, not build it open instead. For another, what does "open and interoperable" even mean? There isn't necessarily a defined protocol for these things already. So who would come up with one? Almost certainly, the big companies would have to be involved, and they could steer the standard to benefit themselves, even just by making it closer to something they've already built (which makes total technical sense too - of course you want to base the protocol on existing tech!). But that means that compliance is much harder for smaller companies, which would mean you're giving a huge advantage to a big player anyway. As opposed to the no-regulation world, in which Whatsapp was a startup that could do whatever it wanted, and ended up being the default messaging platform that half the world uses.