[shmerl]

> Go find someone who uses Facebook Messenger and has never heard of Hacker News. Ask them if they care about interoperability.

Many do complain about it, but can't do much to fix it. People either end up installing 20 different clients to reach those who use other services (imagine installing 20 browsers to read different sites or 20 e-mail clients to use different e-mail accounts), or simply don't communicate with those users when that number grows annoyingly large. This problem affects everyone, and it's pretty apparent even to those who don't visit HN.

[drumdance]

I don't install 20 different clients, and the ones I do install are ones where I want to keep things separate. I don't want Slack messages showing up in my Facebook messages. I don't want Facebook messages showing up in Apple Messages on OSX.

[matt_kantor]

Standard protocols and interoperability do not preclude this. Plenty of people have separate work email addresses from their personal ones.

[nl]

And interestingly most people use separate clients for their work and personal email accounts.

[shmerl]

Indeed. Separation of accounts and profiles isn't really related to artificial separation of existing services which prevents interoperability. Accounts should be separable according to user's preferences, and not according to how services decided not to federate. It's pretty self explanatory.

[nl]

I've replied up-thread about this, but while it's true that some people complain about it, many also see this as a strength. Plenty of people are quite happy to install 20 IM clients in order to keep different aspects of their life separate.

If you doubt this, think back to the numerous HN threads where people complain about how they want to keep the Facebook profile separate to their LinkedIn profile. It's unclear why this is different.

[shmerl]

You are mixing up the need to separate accounts / identities (which even single client can easily do even for the same service), and artificial separation of services caused by the lack of interoperability. Those are completely unrelated issues (first is something that user should have a choice to do, second is something forced on the user).

I explained it here as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856612

[nl]

I'm not mixing anything up. I'm saying that many people prefer it (and actually I do too).

Saying that they are completely unrelated issues appears to ignore a minor detail called implementation(!?)

Almost every mainstream IM client requires you to sign out of one account and into another if you want to maintain separate accounts. That means that if you actually want to use them (ie, get instant messages instantly) you need to be signed into all your accounts at once.

[shmerl]

Yoy didn't address my point above. The need to separate identities and accounts is not equal to the boundaries set by non federated services.

And my IM clients have no problem enabling many accounts in parallel. Some client must be really crippled and archaic not to enable that. I can run multiple clients too if I wish (Pidgin. KDE Telepathy and etc.) but not because they can't talk to the same service but for whatever MY reason. Again - don't mix up unrelated issues.

[jshen]

even enough people care about it then it's a market opportunity. You should jump on that if you think enough people care about it.

My assumption, not enough people care to sustain a business.

[TeMPOraL]

It's not that. This problem is simply not viable to be solved by market alone.

I could jump in and make an integration solution, providing interop between various communication mediums. So will my competitors, and now everyone has 20 interop apps to chose from, and the problem jumps one meta-level up. Or the companies who own the services I try to make talk to one another will decide that I (or my users) break their ToS and retaliate.

Also good luck going with that when everyone's so big on encryption and sandboxing apps, making sure their interop capabilities are nil.

[jshen]

If consumers cared enough, they would switch from the closed platforms. Not enough people value it, and that's the hard fact.

[TeMPOraL]

Consumers won't care, and they never will. Sometimes the market simply exploits a coordination problem, and you can not depend on customers to care there, because they're stuck in a trap and can't collectively express their opinion in a way that would matter on market.

Other times it exploits information asymmetry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, half of the good theoretical things about markets break down completely if you can't assume rational and perfectly informed customers. Well, in terms of products and services having anything to do with technology, you generally can't. General population is 100% clueless. Therefore markets following only their feedback may lead them to pretty suboptimal situations.

[jshen]

I'm not some kind of libertarian free-market solves all problems person. I think markets have many short comings. However, this is a case where I think people genuinely prefer the closed platforms for all kinds of reasons. They are better user experiences, they are easier to understand for a busy layperson, etc.