[nickez]

The reason gsm, 3g, 4g, sms and so on succeeded was because everyone could implement them. I guess you had to pay license or patent fees, but they are not walled gardens. Phones from different manufacturers and/or different operators can communicate. I'm surprised that "chat"-protocols are allowed to be monopolies by the regulators. The regulators probably don't understand tech.

[vitiral]

It is indeed confounding how something as simple as chat and messaging can be so difficult to standardize. I suppose looking at the shitshow that is email standards (and how difficult it is to ensure valid senders) gives some insight, but yikes.

[Spivak]

Because "chat" is pretty much meaningless as a term. The only common thread between chat apps is "bidirectional data transfer between at least two devices." SMS and Discord are both chat but have wildly different completely incompatible semantics, iMessage embeds full iOS apps and a payment network into the chat.

I can't see any world where chat gets standardized that doesn't involve throwing out everything except the most basic sms-style semantics which is basically what RCS is.

[nickez]

You can have different standards for different use cases. So you mean that iMessage and rcs are so different that Android can't use iMessage or apple couldn't use rcs? We don't need to find one standard to rule them all. But we need to stop anti-competition behavior like allowing these protocols to be exclusive.

[Spivak]

Used as a common denominator for basic communication, yes. Use for the kinds of rich interactions and modalities (like the "server" metaphor) that Apple, Google, and everyone else wants to add to chat, no. And that's where we get lost in "extension hell."