Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We are in the AOL days of social networking

buddycloud.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: We are in the AOL days of social networking

#41

Post by BarkMore »

quanticle wrote: post #22
BarkMore wrote: post #4

What if social networking is like instant messaging? After many years, the proprietary instant messaging services have not been replaced with an open alternative. Open does not always win.

The fact that the proprietary protocols haven't been replaced by more open alternatives is largely irrelevant where the end-user is concerned. As long as the protocols have been reverse-engineered to the point where cross-platform tools are possible, it doesn't matter (to the user) whether the underlying protocols are open or closed. There are now a plethora of instant messenger clients that allow for a single sign o…

Not only have the client to server protocols been reverse engineered, some proprietary IM services supply libraries for using their proprietary client to server protocols.

When I mentioned IM, I was referring to the fact that service to service communication is closed. With the exception of the XMPP network and some one-off deals between some of the big services, services to not communicate with each other. There is not a single federated instant messaging network.

There is a single federated network for email. I can send a message from my account on Hotmail to Gmail without having an account on Gmail. Imagine what the world would be like if we couldn't do that. We would all have accounts on several services, each with their own inbox. It would suck.

Re: We are in the AOL days of social networking

#42

Post by jerf »

michaelchisari wrote: post #40
jerf wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open alternatives exist; they have not replaced the proprietary alternatives. "Replaced" is the key word. AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve are dead . There's still a company with the AOL name and I guess I can't quite guarantee there isn't some AOL-subscription-only service left somewhere, but they don't matter. AIM, ICQ, MSN messenger, Yahoo Instant Messenger, QQ, and Facebook chat all matter. (Global penetration of the…

I can't quite guarantee there isn't some AOL-subscription-only service left somewhere AOL still has 5 million paid subscribers. Dead is hardly ever truly dead. Facebook in 2020 might still have 500 million users, but the game will be very different.

Poking at their marketing material, I'm pretty sure that's only as a dial-up service provider, and maybe some really limited media streaming features that are less subscriber-only rather than licensed by AOL as part of the package but not exclusive.

I was talking about the AOL that fit into the set of Prodigy, Compuserve, and AOL, which I tried to make clear but may not have made clear enough. AOL the online service with exclusive forums and custom client software and exclusive games and exclusive this that and the other with incidental access to the internet begrudgingly provided as a second-class citizen is dead, killed by the open internet. A company called AOL survived (with assorted drama), but it's just part of the Internet now.

Re: We are in the AOL days of social networking

#43

Post by [deleted] »

dantheman wrote: post #39
jonknee wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be assured they aren't doing it to be nice. For one, that would be against their fiduciary duty. IM networks are used by companies like AOL/Microsoft/Yahoo/Google to keep people coming back to their respective services (which is also why traditionally they weren't big on interoperability). They aren't making money, but do more good than the savings not running the services would bring.

"For one, that would be against their fiduciary duty" This is completely untrue.

[deleted]

Re: We are in the AOL days of social networking

#44

Post by moe »

BarkMore wrote: post #41
quanticle wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the proprietary protocols haven't been replaced by more open alternatives is largely irrelevant where the end-user is concerned. As long as the protocols have been reverse-engineered to the point where cross-platform tools are possible, it doesn't matter (to the user) whether the underlying protocols are open or closed. There are now a plethora of instant messenger clients that allow for a single sign o…

Not only have the client to server protocols been reverse engineered, some proprietary IM services supply libraries for using their proprietary client to server protocols. When I mentioned IM, I was referring to the fact that service to service communication is closed. With the exception of the XMPP network and some one-off deals between some of the big services, services to not communicate with each other. There is…

Imagine what the world would be like if we couldn't do that.

It would probably be little bit like needing an account on Facebook, Linkedin, Xing, Twitter, Myspace, Flickr, Google and a dozen other properties that barely - if at all - interact with one another.

It would suck.

Exactly.

Re: We are in the AOL days of social networking

#45

Post by BahUnfair »

jncraton wrote: post #6
BarkMore wrote: post #4

What if social networking is like instant messaging? After many years, the proprietary instant messaging services have not been replaced with an open alternative. Open does not always win.

Give it time. At some point in the not so distant future, we could all be using smartphones that just have data plans. Then we'll get to see if SMS sticks around.

I personally find SMS far to expensive for the amount of information I can communicate using it. Texting is last resort, I much prefer to call someone or attempt to contact them on steam or facebook IM.

Re: We are in the AOL days of social networking

#46

Post by rythie »

I hope we'll end up with something open, but I have my doubts. There are still many closed systems that indicate that it may not happen:

* Apple released their closed Mac Store today after 25+ years of a open system, to add to their many closed systems. Apple have shown several times they will block apps. they don't like.

* We've had 35+ years of games consoles, on which the games are tightly controlled by the supplier of the console. Microsoft have already indicated they will not allow certain types of games in to use Kinect.

* 100+ years after the invention of the Telephone we have Skype, which is controlled by a single company.

* Whilst Email is open. Microsoft, Google or Yahoo control so much of the market they can and do effectively stop you talking to your customers by marking your mails as spam and making it hard to appeal (e.g. previous spammer on your IP)

Re: We are in the AOL days of social networking

#47

Post by phlux »

timdellinger wrote: post #16

As much as I agree with the overall premise (Facebook won't be king of the mountain forever), I'm still a bit unsure about what the driving force will be for users to go from Facebook to "open" alternatives. The driving force for leaving AOL was clear: there's a big, exciting internet out there that's more interesting and innovative than AOL chatrooms and AOL keywords, and the user base was also getting a little more…

I agree with you, and came ere to say what you have -- however I can name a few reasons why FB users will leave/choose to be non-participants.

(Disclaimer, I do not have, nor shall I ever have a FB account)

Lets assume that in the next few years FB userbase doubles. 20% of the population of the planet has an account.

The amount of data held on those users is immense, and as such, of keen interest to the corporate oligopoly that is government -- There is a very good incentive alone to not have an account on FB.

I am sure there will be a not-insignificant number of people whose ability to get jobs/keep jobs will be inhibited by FB.

I also can imagine FB fueling interest in even more privacy as well - and groups of people with a personal desire to have absolutely ZERO information about them online will be a small but real niche in the populous.

Re: We are in the AOL days of social networking

#48

Post by noahc »

phlux wrote: post #47
timdellinger wrote: post #16

As much as I agree with the overall premise (Facebook won't be king of the mountain forever), I'm still a bit unsure about what the driving force will be for users to go from Facebook to "open" alternatives. The driving force for leaving AOL was clear: there's a big, exciting internet out there that's more interesting and innovative than AOL chatrooms and AOL keywords, and the user base was also getting a little more…

I agree with you, and came ere to say what you have -- however I can name a few reasons why FB users will leave/choose to be non-participants. (Disclaimer, I do not have, nor shall I ever have a FB account) Lets assume that in the next few years FB userbase doubles. 20% of the population of the planet has an account. The amount of data held on those users is immense, and as such, of keen interest to the corporate oli…

I like the sentiment, but I just want to share pictures from my latest beer pong victory man!

The point is that humans are horrible at risk modeling, particularly teen agers and those in early adulthood.

We as a society seem to be heading towards an expectation of less privacy, which makes Facebook and Google easier to tolerate.

The reason Facebook will fail is when a fundamental shift happens in society that Facebook isn't designed to handle. Facebook really came about because of a mobile population coupled with a need to track our social graphs. Even 30 or 50 years ago facebook couldn't have existed, because everyone you wanted to talk to was only a few minutes drive away.

Re: We are in the AOL days of social networking

#49

Post by pyre »

rythie wrote: post #46

I hope we'll end up with something open, but I have my doubts. There are still many closed systems that indicate that it may not happen: * Apple released their closed Mac Store today after 25+ years of a open system, to add to their many closed systems. Apple have shown several times they will block apps. they don't like. * We've had 35+ years of games consoles, on which the games are tightly controlled by the suppli…

  > * 100+ years after the invention of the Telephone
  > we have Skype, which is controlled by a single company.
Bad example. See Ma Ball ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System ).

Re: We are in the AOL days of social networking

#50

Post by rythie »

pyre wrote: post #49
rythie wrote: post #46

I hope we'll end up with something open, but I have my doubts. There are still many closed systems that indicate that it may not happen: * Apple released their closed Mac Store today after 25+ years of a open system, to add to their many closed systems. Apple have shown several times they will block apps. they don't like. * We've had 35+ years of games consoles, on which the games are tightly controlled by the suppli…

> * 100+ years after the invention of the Telephone > we have Skype, which is controlled by a single company. Bad example. See Ma Ball ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System ).

Good point, I was just thinking about global monopolies. BT of course did a similar thing in the U.K.
Post reply on HN