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The fact that the proprietary protocols haven't been replaced by more open alternatives is largely irrelevant where the end-user is concerned.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 on to various instant messaging networks. I think we might see the same in the future for social networks. Facebook and Twitter will be relegated to the role that the various instant message protocols play in a multi-network client.
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.
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.
Not for most users. They simply reuse the same login credentials at all the sites they use. Other sites make apps that allow data to flow into Facebook easily.
Soon all Facebook users will be able to maintain their contact information over a variety of methods (e-mail, sms, etc.).
In the end, we already have a federated network that solves the problem for most people: Facebook.
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.
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 various services are very uneven; if you're an American you may think ICQ is dead but it's still big in Russia, for instance. Yes, I know ICQ and AIM are basically the same thing but the brand is still separate. Everything I mentioned is indeed still a going concern in at least one major region of the world,. You can of course add IRC, and depending on your mood you can add Google Talk; it may be XMPP and perfectly capable of XMPP federation but almost nobody realizes it, so in practice it's more isolated than you might think.)
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.
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.
