[HN Gopher] Instant Messenger History: Lessons for the Threads E...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Instant Messenger History: Lessons for the Threads Era of Social
       Media
        
       Author : cpeterso
       Score  : 30 points
       Date   : 2023-07-13 21:01 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (tedium.co)
 (TXT) w3m dump (tedium.co)
        
       | Zak wrote:
       | > _John Gruber... has suggested... instant messaging was a dead-
       | end technology_
       | 
       | I use Signal and WhatsApp daily. Most people I know use some sort
       | of IM, though for some of them it's only iMessage.
       | 
       | It's interesting and a little surprising that none of the PC-
       | based instant messaging services popular in the early 2000s were
       | successful in making the jump to mobile, though some did produce
       | mobile clients.
        
         | lintroller wrote:
         | Mobile providers had no incentive to let the instant messaging
         | services on their network when they were charging 10 cents per
         | SMS message.
        
           | toast0 wrote:
           | I'm pretty sure the major messengers all had integrations
           | with at least US mobile providers. Because if you didn't have
           | a messaging plan, you'd get charged 10 cents per message as
           | it was delivered over SMS.
           | 
           | IMHO, the reason a mobile first network was more compelling
           | than a desktop first network is that people tend to have
           | their phones on them, while their desktops tend to be at
           | their desks. For better or worse, you can always reach me on
           | my phone.
           | 
           | Tencent developed QQ on desktop and then WeChat on mobile,
           | but afaik, didn't bridge the two networks.
        
       | 5- wrote:
       | current pidgin lead developer has been writing rather
       | entertaining posts on pidgin and generally im history:
       | 
       | https://dev.to/grim
       | 
       | e.g. https://dev.to/grim/where-did-the-name-libpurple-come-
       | from-4...
        
       | distantsounds wrote:
       | I would absolutely love to run my own little TOC/OSCAR server and
       | host my own private AIM community. The only implementation I
       | found is the closed-source AIM Phoenix project, is anyone aware
       | of one?
        
       | TheRealPomax wrote:
       | Threads is an entire era now? Surely it's a _liiiiittle_ too
       | early to make that claim.
        
         | madeofpalk wrote:
         | I think it's fair to say that we have a post-twitter, or elon-
         | twitter era when all of a sudden Twitter has a bunch of
         | competition that it's never really had before. I wouldn't say
         | it's _Threads '_ era, but it does seem like something has
         | happened.
         | 
         | Something has to be said about about the fact that _now_ Meta
         | decided to launch a Twitter clone.
        
           | soperj wrote:
           | Why? Did something have to be said when Google launched
           | Google+? Or any of the other social platforms?
        
           | mjfl wrote:
           | but Twitter didn't even matter when it was just Twitter.
           | Twitter was a minor, failing social media site up until Musk
           | bought it.
        
             | kalupa wrote:
             | not sure that's been corrected yet. Seems to be becoming
             | more minor and more failing
        
             | gumby wrote:
             | I can't argue with this:
             | 
             | > Twitter was a minor, failing social media site up until
             | Musk bought it.
             | 
             | Maybe "slowly failing", accelerating after the purchase.
             | 
             | But I _slightly_ disagree with this:
             | 
             | > Twitter didn't even matter when it was just Twitter.
             | 
             | I think twitter was disproportionally more significant,
             | though not as hugely so as its denizens believed. If there
             | were a graph of "number of subscribers" (X) vs "influence
             | over Zeitgeist" (Y), Twitter would appear a little above
             | the curve.
             | 
             | The reason is that a lot of journalists corresponded on it
             | so things discussed on it would appear in the press.
             | 
             | I started using it last summer or so -- a few months before
             | the sale. I never (and don't) like the short form. I'm more
             | likely to see something outside my "bubble" on TW than FB,
             | but frankly FB is more useful to me (I just want to know
             | news about my friends and family, and their kids,
             | basically, plus cat and dog pictures). Climate Twitter is
             | pretty good; for some reason the same kind of thing doesn't
             | appear on FB (Machinist FB is good and there appears to be
             | no Machinist Twitter that I can find).
             | 
             | If this sounds like a defense of twitter: it isn't. I'm
             | just saying that "didn't matter" is probably too absolute.
             | It never mattered a lot, though.
        
         | scrumper wrote:
         | Maybe it's fair? It's the first major persistent broadcast
         | messaging platform since Twitter popularized the concept with
         | non-computer nerds.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-07-13 23:00 UTC)