The "problem" of federated systems is that it dilutes power across businesses and does not allow any single entity to control the ecosystem. This is a good thing, except that it makes it harder to fight head-to-head with trillion dollar companies that use messaging platforms as loss leaders.
Thing is, Signal has the exact same issue: the top post of this thread is about how people are feeling compelled to donate to Signal so that it does not rely on one kind benefactor. If people want to donate to Signal, why not donate/hedge a bit by donating to Matrix or to the Conversations (the best XMPP client) developers?
> Signal is the best available option imo for most people.
Signal is still centralized. It is "open source" only in name, as the client code was constantly out-of-date and it is basically impossible to fork it or run your own server. It has a very poor record cross-client vulnerabilities and it forces everyone to be dependent on the security of their smartphones. How many times do we have to re-learn not to put all of our eggs in the same basket?
We agree on the issues, but don't agree on the solution.
I don't think Matrix will be able to compete. I think Signal is the best available option today for most people, but the risks you outline are real. I think Urbit is our best shot at a better future.
Matrix is already competing. It's just taking a different strategy (going after governmental institutions and enterprises) than the one you'd like. The fact that Element is going after a market with a very long deployment/usage cycle makes me believe that Matrix has a lot more staying power than Signal.
Signal is nice, but it all it takes is one catastrophic bug - or one Government pushing to break it, or some good amount of years with lots of developers on payroll without any real revenue - away from disappearing or selling out.
> I think Urbit is our best shot at a better future.
No. The problem to "fix" is not a technological one. It's socio-economical. When (if?) individuals and SMBs learn TANSTAAFL, we´ll be able to have a diverse/healthy (and cheap) industry of professional service providers.
Maybe we should first establish what's your idea of "winning"?
Because my idea of "winning" is one where there is no central entity controlling what should be basic infrastructure. My idea of winning is one where we have more options and that we can hedge one player against the other.
I don't (necessarily) want Matrix to grow to a point where it goes unchallenged. I want it to grow enough to the point where none of the other players has a clear upper hand.
I use Matrix already to talk with my immediate family, a good amount of my friends also managed to install it. Does this mean that I got to use Matrix exclusively? No, far from it. But I do have the option, and in the past when there were issues with WhatsApp and Signal, a lot of my friends were glad that all my nagging gave them an alternative.
"Bad UI", "complex onboarding", "technical issues"... those are all things that are easy to fix compared with the "issue" of having a oligarchy controlling all of the communication platforms of the Western Hemisphere and then China trying to encroach in.
I guess my idea of winning is like the web vs. gopher. I want the good, federated protocol to become the default. I want my friends to be using it not because I have to nag them to, but because it's just objectively a better experience. The federated nature of the thing being invisible and irrelevant to them.
I think today that's impossible - not because of issues related to Matrix, but because of deeper problems with our computing stack and the web. Federated systems can't match the UX of centralized ones and when they come close its often because they've recentralized anyway.
I think we agree more than we disagree probably. I just see Signal as good given the current tradeoffs.
The fundamental issue is that I don't see how we can define what is a "objectively better experience", not for any sufficiently large group of people with different values and priorities.
Any attempt at establishing these comes through some central planning which leads at best to some cookie-cutter "one-size-fits-all" Apple-esque design that while functional, it's just a local maxima that destroys any kind of creativity and makes everything uniform and bland.
> Federated systems can't match the UX of centralized ones and when they come close its often because they've recentralized anyway.
I think it is easier to see it as an issue with the amount of resources that the big companies have vs the "underdogs".
If Element had the same amount of resources as Facebook, it wouldn't be hard for them to say "we will build a client that is just like WhatsApp for those that think that WhatsApp is the benchmark. For those that want something like Discord, we will build another client. And those that want to use Matrix to replace Slack will get another client that does exactly the same".
It does not matter if it is federated or centralized, what matters is that Element does not have those resources, so they can not develop as fast as their competitors and then are seen as "lagging".
Thing is, Signal has the exact same issue: the top post of this thread is about how people are feeling compelled to donate to Signal so that it does not rely on one kind benefactor. If people want to donate to Signal, why not donate/hedge a bit by donating to Matrix or to the Conversations (the best XMPP client) developers?
> Signal is the best available option imo for most people.
Signal is still centralized. It is "open source" only in name, as the client code was constantly out-of-date and it is basically impossible to fork it or run your own server. It has a very poor record cross-client vulnerabilities and it forces everyone to be dependent on the security of their smartphones. How many times do we have to re-learn not to put all of our eggs in the same basket?