4 ms·

This is a purely business perspective, completely dropping the interests of the user. All older communication companies (providing e.g. phone calls, fax, SMS)

by Argorak 13y ago

This is a purely business perspective, completely dropping the interests of the user. All older communication companies (providing e.g. phone calls, fax, SMS) have working, interoperable systems that work on a global scale for _any customer of one company to any customer of another company_. By using a globally unique number. It is, quite frankly, a disgrace that we now run around and find excuses for companies to re-introduce closed networks on a medium that provides working low-level routing on a global scale for almost all connected parties already. We're talking short messages here. I went back to SMS because of all this bull. Not even iMessage. It works. With everyone. Everywhere. Without installing something. From a users perspective, the current situation is horrible and a huge step back. I couldn't care less about what the benefit for Google or Facebook is.

MichaelGG 13y ago
>This is a purely business perspective Yep, pretty much. Do you expect multi-billion dollar companies to do something just because it sounded nice? Acting like that only works if they can get enough users onboard to commoditize the service. IM is far from that point (see the rise of new messenger apps/networks, decades after the first ones). These companies want their users inside their apps as much as possible. Not to mention, allowing federation doesn't help the vast majority of their users, who are on other closed networks. So for it to be relevant, two networks need to interconnect. Without any solid reason or threat, why would they do that? SMS BTW is a rather crappy example; I don't think I've ever used any other service that was so unreliable, slow, and expensive. And the only reason you have competition in many companies is due to the government coming in and breaking things up or allowing competition. Even today on phones, various companies are still doing their best to create lock-in or jam users, by, say, charging ridiculously high prices to call into their networks.
- Argorak 13y ago
  If SMS is crappy for you, just take phone calls. There is still jam-in, yes, but you can mostly find a cheap phone connection from any place in the world to any other. I regularly call cross-continent and with some googling, you get a decent rate. The point being: the system is there and there is competition that drives the prices down. Also, I don't believe that for a "vast majority of users", federation doesn't matter. Everyone I know uses multiple messenger apps on their phone _or just use SMS_. SMS is the base line. This is a failure of a model. Sure, Google has no interest of federating with Facebook. What this leads to is the aforementioned silos of peoples communications. "How do I contact this person? WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter DM, Jabber, Google Talk, jadajadajada? The only thing that comes close is email. No, I don't expect multi-billion dollar companies to do something that sounds nice. Which still makes the model as a whole a failure. Obviously, multi-billion dollar companies cannot be trusted with providing reliable and easy reach-ability on a global scale.
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    >The point being: the system is there and there is competition that drives the prices down. Eh, not really. Many countries still use the state-run monopoly. Connecting to them has a specific price. The demand for calls into their country is more-or-less fixed, and will remain so no matter the price. If you're seeing a price much below the actual price, then it's due to someone doing some illegal maneuver, such as sticking their cell phone on a VoIP system. (Despite it being illegal, I applaud such efforts.) Even for countries that aren't run like that (Europe?), prices can be well in excess of $0.20 a minute. The price to the receiver of the call is $0.00 so perhaps that limits competition. Some places even put an international tax on all calls, so that calls from outside the area are forced to pay more. Some places do the inverse. Do you have info on people that use SMS across countries? For many countries I've seen, the price-per-message makes it a true last resort. (Inside the US or inside EU, this may not be an issue.) This makes WhatsApp so useful. Do you have a real proposal, or is this a "it'd be nice if our government helped some companies build and run an IM infrastructure for very low cost for us"?
gcb0 13y ago
When telephone started it was like that. until regulation... which allowed Bell to buy everyone else and integrate everything. So? pick your poison?
- Argorak 13y ago
  Sure, pick your poison. (although I couldn't care less about Bell, being from Europe and all) But be aware that said regulation allows us to make emergency calls reliably in the case of an accident and then quickly talk to loved ones on the other side of the globe by hitting 10 buttons on a device everyone understands. Also, the same regulation enables TCP to work on a global scale, allowing me to post this very message on a message board hosted somewhere on another continent, probably passing through the infrastructure of more than 3 multi-million dollar companies actually being in the business of compatibility. Given the choice between all instant messaging services closing shop or the a breakdown of the phone system, I know which one I would pick.
  - gcb0 13y ago
    TCP is a good point... anyone have more information on how that worked? I always assumed it was free market.
    - Argorak 13y ago
      ARPA used TCP and the whole thing got build from that. Non-TCP for local network was quite usual for a while (eg. IPX). But to connect to the existing internet, you had to speak TCP. After the internet "won", switching to TCP for local networks as well just made things easier.

by Argorak 13y ago

MichaelGG 13y ago

>This is a purely business perspective Yep, pretty much. Do you expect multi-billion dollar companies to do something just because it sounded nice? Acting like that only works if they can get enough users onboard to commoditize the service. IM is far from that point (see the rise of new messenger apps/networks, decades after the first ones). These companies want their users inside their apps as much as possible. Not to mention, allowing federation doesn't help the vast majority of their users, who are on other closed networks. So for it to be relevant, two networks need to interconnect. Without any solid reason or threat, why would they do that? SMS BTW is a rather crappy example; I don't think I've ever used any other service that was so unreliable, slow, and expensive. And the only reason you have competition in many companies is due to the government coming in and breaking things up or allowing competition. Even today on phones, various companies are still doing their best to create lock-in or jam users, by, say, charging ridiculously high prices to call into their networks.

Argorak 13y ago
If SMS is crappy for you, just take phone calls. There is still jam-in, yes, but you can mostly find a cheap phone connection from any place in the world to any other. I regularly call cross-continent and with some googling, you get a decent rate. The point being: the system is there and there is competition that drives the prices down. Also, I don't believe that for a "vast majority of users", federation doesn't matter. Everyone I know uses multiple messenger apps on their phone _or just use SMS_. SMS is the base line. This is a failure of a model. Sure, Google has no interest of federating with Facebook. What this leads to is the aforementioned silos of peoples communications. "How do I contact this person? WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter DM, Jabber, Google Talk, jadajadajada? The only thing that comes close is email. No, I don't expect multi-billion dollar companies to do something that sounds nice. Which still makes the model as a whole a failure. Obviously, multi-billion dollar companies cannot be trusted with providing reliable and easy reach-ability on a global scale.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  >The point being: the system is there and there is competition that drives the prices down. Eh, not really. Many countries still use the state-run monopoly. Connecting to them has a specific price. The demand for calls into their country is more-or-less fixed, and will remain so no matter the price. If you're seeing a price much below the actual price, then it's due to someone doing some illegal maneuver, such as sticking their cell phone on a VoIP system. (Despite it being illegal, I applaud such efforts.) Even for countries that aren't run like that (Europe?), prices can be well in excess of $0.20 a minute. The price to the receiver of the call is $0.00 so perhaps that limits competition. Some places even put an international tax on all calls, so that calls from outside the area are forced to pay more. Some places do the inverse. Do you have info on people that use SMS across countries? For many countries I've seen, the price-per-message makes it a true last resort. (Inside the US or inside EU, this may not be an issue.) This makes WhatsApp so useful. Do you have a real proposal, or is this a "it'd be nice if our government helped some companies build and run an IM infrastructure for very low cost for us"?

gcb0 13y ago

When telephone started it was like that. until regulation... which allowed Bell to buy everyone else and integrate everything. So? pick your poison?

Argorak 13y ago
Sure, pick your poison. (although I couldn't care less about Bell, being from Europe and all) But be aware that said regulation allows us to make emergency calls reliably in the case of an accident and then quickly talk to loved ones on the other side of the globe by hitting 10 buttons on a device everyone understands. Also, the same regulation enables TCP to work on a global scale, allowing me to post this very message on a message board hosted somewhere on another continent, probably passing through the infrastructure of more than 3 multi-million dollar companies actually being in the business of compatibility. Given the choice between all instant messaging services closing shop or the a breakdown of the phone system, I know which one I would pick.
- gcb0 13y ago
  TCP is a good point... anyone have more information on how that worked? I always assumed it was free market.
  - Argorak 13y ago
    ARPA used TCP and the whole thing got build from that. Non-TCP for local network was quite usual for a while (eg. IPX). But to connect to the existing internet, you had to speak TCP. After the internet "won", switching to TCP for local networks as well just made things easier.