back
12 comments
The other reason it won't be the Twitter killer is network effects. My friend isn't using identi.ca, so why should I?

By the time that identi.ca makes any inroads, Twitter will get its technology fixed and people simply won't care.

It's not about the technology, it's about the conversation.

IRC is the only thing I can use during a Steve Jobs keynote that doesn't crash/fail. Yes, it's not the darling simplicity of Twitter, but in most cases it seems to work. Getting the masses to understand that is the problem, I think, which the author tried to point out. It's not really a technical issue more than a stupid-people tricks problem.
IRC isn't kludgy / annoying unless if you make it so (which means being on the wrong servers or the wrong channels.)

Case in point: irc.freenode.net #startups

LOL. Actually, you just made the point. If you have to be on a "right" server or a "right" channel, that's the definition of kludge. Mainstream adopters don't want to figure out what's right and wrong.
Heheh. Touche
"Unless a push is built-in, some server admins may not update, leaving features unavailable depending on which server you've logged into. With the constant innovation in web apps and user demand for a more feature-rich experience, that's an uphill battle for a distributed system."

That's backwards. In a distributed system there's competition between nodes because it's relatively easy for a user to move from one node to another. In a centralized system the competition is with separate systems, and since it's harder to move away an entrenched central system doesn't need to do much to survive.

Individual nodes also don't need to be as conservative about new features as massive centralized systems do.

There is a point where inertia sets in and new features that require widespread adoption become impossible (this is where email and IRC are now), but that takes years.

"Without users or site owners owning the copyright, there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy, nor of your conversation not being spread far and wide in various forms."

The license is a red herring.

If you publish something on the internet (whether by twitter, identi.ca, email, blog, or whatever), you have no way to positively control the distribution of that content. All you can do is take actions that tend to limit distribution, in many cases.

Privacy is dead: the sooner people start living their lives as though everything about them will eventually be public, the fewer unpleasant surprises they'll have.

I never fail to be confused by this assertion. Why is it that coders expect to be paid for developing apps, yet anyone writing or taking pictures or creating music should just assume they are creating it for free?
Coders expect to be paid for developing apps by the people/companies that want those apps. Coders who write code and then release it under an open source license are not expecting to be paid for it. Writers or photographers who produce and then post their stuff on-line, un-prompted, ARE creating it for free. If you want to get paid to write or take photographs, find someone who is willing it pay to have you write or pay to have you use a camera. This will require that someone actually want /your/ output.

Developers go to work and produce something for someone else, and in exchange get paid. Then they go home and work on their own stuff. Writers, too, can get a job where they write for someone who is willing to pay them, and then go home and write their own stuff. In most cases, the developers don't really like having to produce stuff for someone else, but that's how they pay the bills.

The developers seem to be more adept (in your analogy) at solving the problem: they find someone who wants to pay them BEFORE they produce the software (even shrinkwrap software or startups presumably have done some market research to find out if their output is attractive to potential buyers of said product). The writer or photographer who tries to find someone to buy their output AFTER it's already created is facing an uphill battle, mostly in marketing, trying to convince someone to buy their product rather than producing a product the market demands.

Developing software for someone else is like working in a portrait studio or photographing products for ads.

I'll agree that coders, writers, and artists are all in the same position: what we produce is easily copied, so relying on difficulty of copying for our revenue stream is a bad idea.

I'm not sure why you make a distinction between coders and those other groups, here.

Also, while I appreciate that this is ultimately the same issue as the death of privacy, there seem to be a lot of people who want to both strengthen privacy laws and abolish copyright. In this sense, you're less confused than that group, anyway. :)

I still like using IRC. Its nostalgic.
So is vi. So is PINE. But I want better tools.