for Nassim's example to work the minority has to be exclusionary. Everything is nut-free because you don't want to kill allergic people and you can't have both nuts and no nuts in your food, so the minority in the group can force to change the behaviour of the rest.
With messaging apps you can use both Whatsapp and Signal, so even if you convince a few people to convert, Whatsapp is unlikely to decline.
The important word in Taleb's thesis is 'stubborn', not minority. The change isn't gradual but 'fractal' with one person in the group being able to flip everyone else, and they going on an doing the same thing.
> With messaging apps you can use both Whatsapp and Signal
You can have both Whatsapp and Signal installed, but everyone in a conversation needs to have the same app. So why not both doesn't apply as neatly as you assert.
Sure, but that assumes you only have one group. I'm in only 2 really small groups, both on Signal, but I keep Whatsapp because there are a few people I can only talk to there.
It's also a backup mechanism in case Signal fails (like it did when the exodus happened)
That's true, but the people I talk to on Whatsapp are not (usually) in the same country as me, and cross-border SMS tends to not be included in a basic package. Especially now that UK has left the EU, that's definitely not going to be cheap. Add to this that cost increases with message length in SMS - over the internet it's basically flat if you have wifi or data (up to a point at least... :D )
You can have both of them installed at the same time, so anyone refusing to join a Signal conversation is just going out of their way to be a pain to deal with.
Eh, I already have enough messaging apps myself (4 right now), so adding more at this point is a hurdle I'd like to avoid. I can imagine others having similar feelings.
On the surface it seems like people would just use two apps, but most people don’t care. So, if nobody is extremely pro WhatsApp because for example they have a non smartphone and it’s what works then WhatsApp dies.
It’s just a question of how many people are extremely pro WhatsApp and will Facebook drive them away.
But you're stuck in a world where apps are segregated that way. But if I were Google, I'd change android to make their messaging app backend-agnostic and able to send information to any app with a unified frontend. I'd ban from the store if not.
Done, nobody cares anymore, for real and features will come from Google :D We're so stuck on using 2 apps instead of 2 networks we forget mobile phone providers had to agree together to do SMS decades ago, and it went fine with dumbed down feature.
And let's be honest, the only killer feature that made me finally adopt whatsapp like 6 years ago was that it used the data plan that works on WIFI rather than the phone plan. We were all fine with SMSes before.
It's weird to hear you say that, because SMS is terrible. Unreliable delivery, delivery receipts that come back even if the recipient's phone is turned off, no media (MMS is also terrible, just try to send a video over it and watch the pixelated garbage that comes out the other side), no privacy or security to speak of, carrier interop issues (character encodings, message length, shortcode support), identity tied to your phone number, no ability to send/receive messages without being tethered to the phone (to be fair, Signal and WhatsApp also have this problem)... I could go on.
Interesting. I guess the issues you see as a user depend on where you life / which carrier you are using?
I had more issues with iMessage delivery then I ever had with SMS in my whole life. I dont even remember a single incident with SMS delivery. And I consider your "missing media" point an advantage. Sending stupid videos from phone to phone is a disease that I dont want to deal with.
> no ability to send/receive messages without being tethered to the phone (to be fair, Signal and WhatsApp also have this problem)
Signal actually has a desktop app. It requires having installed signal on a phone before, and linking the accounts, but it doesn't depend on the phone after that I believe.
As for SMS, it works on pretty much any device and network, with the caveats that it's the first and lowest common denominator messaging service.
SMS and MMS are telco standards whose progress and maintenance depends on the willingness of operators to patch and upgrade their infrastructure equipment (good luck with that)
So yeah, while saddening I don’t expect SMS to make much progress as its lifecycle is tied to the worst one in the industry.
XMPP had a better chance, but unfortunately chatting service is the bait for other purposes... so an interop standard has no chance to survive without regulation.
Back in the day when Google had "don't be evil" as their motto, they released something called GTalk. It was a desktop instant messaging app, because that was before the smartphone era.
They based it on the decentralized protocol Jabber (or XMPP) and even open their servers to others. Meaning you could discuss with people using other servers than GTalk, just like email.
Google closed their servers to federalization, rebranded GTalk to Hangout and made bad decision after bad decision (but always in the direction of closing up instead of supporting open standards), lost the fight for messaging despite controlling the dominant mobile OS.
tl;dr I have no faith in Google to (1) do the right thing for open standards and (2) manage to get any sort of market share on messaging
>Google closed their servers to federalization, rebranded GTalk to Hangout
rewording your sentence:
Google stop volunteering time & resources on efforts that help others make money, and focused on only Google making money. I don't own any Google (AlphaBet) stocks, but if I was a shareholder, and someone would have told me that "we have a line item that is -50m on our statement, but hey, it is good for the competitors", I would like that line item gone.
I have faith in Google that they will try their best to make money. They may lose 1 here and make 50 there, but that -1 will be gone after a certain time. And this is a good business decision. Otherwise they would have one cash cow and 100 losers and they would be a break-even business, which is not a Business because Business = profit.
I get it, capitalism is fucking us up. The open standards we take for granted today were created by hippies researchers in the 20th century. That's not happening in today's world.
That's how messaging worked on Maemo/MeeGo on the Nokia N900 and N9.
You just added a bunch of accounts and all you messages and conversations (SMS, Skype, Jabber, etc.) were in one unified place.
Its still effectively this way on modern SailfishOS but as new IM services are effectively app based silos with no public API this system needs, you are not really able to make use of it.
I'd pick a different classification. It's more like these groups:
1. Uses whatsapp out of momentum. Doesn't want to use anything else, but might if people really push them; i.e. open to transition to group 2.
2. Will use whatever. Some people in this group want to stop using whatsapp, but won't break contacts to do so. Some people in this group would prefer to stick with whatsapp to avoid the burden of a switch, but won't break contacts to do so. This is the vast majority of switchers.
3. Die hard whatsapp users. Simply refuse to switch to another app, because it's a hassle, and/or because they begrudge other people making a mountain out of a molehill and asking them to do anything. Might oppose yet-another-app; or might actually want to stick to whatsapp because they actually like the simplicity of the network effect.
4. Die hard non-whatsapp (likely signal?) users. Refuse to use whatsapp, likely due to privacy concerns or distrust of facebook.
I don't think most people trying to switch away from whatsapp are in 4. Anecdotally, I people I know asking to switch are clearly in 2, and are largely losing to those in 3. Only 1 person I know claims to be in 4, but I'm not really sure that'll stick if the exodus doesn't keep momentum. Because of the existance of the bulk of humanity which barely cares about this, and some of which will get annoyed at the suggestion - I suspect group 3 is much, much larger than 4, and that suggests this exodus will fall flat. The only real chance here is that since this is all about closed groups that network effects aren't so huge, so a considerable exodus without actual terminal velocity is possible.
Interesting, I think your classification adds some nice colour to the situation.
To me the biggest question, does 2 grow bigger than 3? When X% of people have Telegram, Whatsapp and Signal installed, then it becomes a non-issue to have Signal only sticklers.
> The only real chance here is that since this is all about closed groups that network effects aren't so huge, so a considerable exodus without actual terminal velocity is possible.
This is my experience so far. I think you're right that the network effect is very fragmented and micro. In my case the few active groups that I value have migrated, the rest don't care and could email me or sms me and I've seen sufficient migration to Signal, signalling that moving from 1 to 4 might be viable.
Yeah, I experienced this myself when - some years ago - I attempted to transition to Signal. In all the groups I was in, there was at least one person from group 3, who outright refused to move. It scuppered my efforts...
With messaging apps you can use both Whatsapp and Signal, so even if you convince a few people to convert, Whatsapp is unlikely to decline.
The important word in Taleb's thesis is 'stubborn', not minority. The change isn't gradual but 'fractal' with one person in the group being able to flip everyone else, and they going on an doing the same thing.