[dwe3000]

I think part of the problem with getting rid of email is that it has proven itself flexible enough to handle a variety of communication needs, so to replace it, several tasks/apps need to work in combination. For example, an archived text messaging/IM handles part of it, possibly including identity, but something would also need to stand in for the long-format or large file transfer (like Dropbox, Google Docs, etc.).

[tgragnato]

IM apps are not a feasible plan until they will provide a "no lock-in" interoperability (adding to archivability).

> You would think it was crazy if your cell phone could call only people with phones on the same network. But we put up with that absurd situation when it comes to instant messaging -- and have for years. Worse, there's little sign of change anytime soon.

The premises to accomplish this are: protocol standardisation, dissemination among users, collaboration between app makers.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messagin...

The decentralised protocols listed are: Bitmessage, Ricochet, Ring and TOX. None of them is widely deployed.

Email is decentralized, that means I can quit Gmail any time I want and use another service. Or even start my own.

[dwe3000]

Agreed. I would want "No lock-in" for IM to be a requirement. I wonder whether or not pure volume - e.g., Facebook Messenger - would be enough, however, to drive people in that direction even without the interoperability with other systems.

(I am not a Facebook user; just recognizing that they do have market share on their side.)