-
Website
http://www.louisgray.com/live/ -
Original page
http://blog.louisgray.com/2008/07/can-microblogs-just-talk-to-each-other.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
charlieanzman
60 comments · 11 points
-
Jesse Stay
221 comments · 70 points
-
Ari Herzog
43 comments · 21 points
-
ChangeForge | Ken Stewart
133 comments · 18 points
-
drewolanoff
64 comments · 53 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
FTC Disclosures Made Simple For Bloggers With Conflicts
6 days ago · 46 comments
-
Still Waiting for An Evil Google? It's Not Going to Happen.
6 days ago · 30 comments
-
Fighting Bots With Bots on Twitter, Leveraging SocialToo
1 day ago · 5 comments
-
Simler Adds Likes, Favorite Tags, Revamps Homepage
1 day ago · 4 comments
-
Gowalla Raises $8.4 Million for Location Check-in Service
1 day ago · 2 comments
-
FTC Disclosures Made Simple For Bloggers With Conflicts
IM is a slightly different issue because all of the IM clients started completely closed. Eventually they opened up bit by bit. Now we have clients that talk to most if not all of them. There is also a standard that some follow called Jabber/XMPP for IM. Twitter actually uses part of XMPP for their realtime update API. Each user needs to have a "home" server in this type of case as well. So if I am an Identica user, that is my home and where all of my relationships are stored.
As I tried to state in the post, a federated system like email, is a very good solution. However, these things take time to build, so we still have to wait a bit.
Definitely see your point on the track record of limiting interaction but I see it taking towards the direction Rob is talking about.
There are good reasons why instant messaging services started allowing users to communicate with people using competing applications.
It was all well and good when AOL was the one dominating and innovating - they were hoarding a massive user base so the game was theirs to control. But as soon as the ways to connect to the internet proliferated and new interfaces and tools were developed that provided internet users with an incentive to jump AOL's walls they had little choice.
As we have moved through that process and the market has grown, providing users a myriad of choices for virtually each type of web activity, I believe we have all developed an expectation that the services we use play nice with others.
I don't think there is a user out there that wouldn't love to see the kind of federated approach rob is talking about - Twitter and its cousins don't have to move in that direction but that is not going to change the market's demands.
At some point somebody will figure out how to do it and it will be AOL all over again for the pioneers...
I looked back over Jason's post from earlier this month of Babelnote and while some of the concerns he raises seem to make sense I don't have anywhere near the technological background to know whether or not they are truly valid.
Truth is, from my perspective, the how is irrelevant - its the why that matters.
There is a fundamental difference between the kind of communication that the Twitters and FriendFeeds offer and email, instant messaging, texting and chat rooms. If there wasn't no one would be so excited about them - they would take one look at them and say "oh, that's just like (insert item from previous list)" and walk away.
Point is - the demand for the function isn't going to go away, its going to increase.
The kind of solution you are suggesting would allow the Twitter's and Indenti.ca's out there to focus on providing UIs that will meet specific needs and attract more users instead of spending all their time trying to build a structure capable of supporting everyone's everything.
Thanks to you and Winer and Jason and all of the other people out there who are taking the time to put their tech skills to use to try and figure out a solution.
So long as you guys keep thinking forward and throwing out ideas for the solution someone, somewhere will figure it out.
For example, if I post to laconica server 1, and someone on laconica server 2 is subscribed to me, server 1 would know that server 2 needs my posts and would push a copy to server 2, which would store/cache and display to my subscribers on that server. And as bandwidth and storage marginal costs decrease, this will become increasingly feasible.
This kind of feels to me like a subscription model email system now, where you write the message without really controlling the distribution list.
I always thought that Twitter was a public IM platform. Subscription email is another decent way to look at it. I also think people are too concerned about the problems that might be added instead of the benefits. Am I right that federation is the right way to go? Maybe, let's see if someone builds it.
And who makes a profit on email?