[Telepathy] future of Telepathy?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 28/04/16 14:16, Martin Klapetek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Daniel Pocock <daniel at pocock.pro
> <mailto:daniel at pocock.pro>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 28/04/16 05:04, Martin Klapetek wrote:
> 
>     >
>     > I think you're kinda missing a point here. My friends may very well
>     > get over me not being on their network, but why would I, as an
>     ordinary
>     > user, want to switch to something where I won't have my friends? What
>     > would be the point of using a network and/or a client where I
>     would be alone
>     > when the _main_ point of a social/IM network is to connect people?
>     >
> 
> 
>     Leadership?
> 
> 
>     > For that matter, I actually did join Diaspora and convinced the grand
>     > total of 2 friends to join. They stuck around for about 4 days, then never
>     > logged in again "because nobody else would join and so it was boring".
>     >
> 
>     There was a time when neither Facebook or Diaspora or any of these
>     things existed.  Are you arguing that everybody had a boring life then?
> 
> 
> No. Are you arguing that outdated software should stay outdated because
> there was no software like it 20 years ago?
> 

People went to the moon using outdated software

I'm not saying people should use outdated software, but if we ignore all
the proprietary crap and the only thing left is outdated software then
it is better than nothing and if its good enough to do the job, why not
use it?


> 
>     Get a motorbike.  Learn to ski.  Visit Australia[1].  Please don't tell
>     me life is boring without facebook though.
> 
> 
> Sigh. So when a user asks me "Can I chat on Facebook with Telepathy?"
> you're saying I need tell them "No, but get a motorbike. Learn to ski.
> Visit Australia instead". Seriously? I'm sorry but then you clearly don't
> understand the userbase.
> 

Those are extreme examples to help make a point, but yes, you can
probably find similar examples that fit your situation more closely.



> 
>     > For that matter, I actually do use XMPP and I have one single friend-friend
>     > online on that network.
>     >
> 
>     You can add me and double your friends
> 
>     > Now just why would ordinary users want to deprive themselves of
>     > all their 350 facebook friends and go sit in the corner by themselves,
>     > no matter how much better we tell them that corner chair is?
>     >
> 
>     Go try a new motorbike and then ask "why would 350 of my friends waste
>     time on facebook when they could do this?"
> 
> 
> You're either trolling at this point or just don't understand the issue.
> 
> Tell you what, if you ever find yourself in Toronto, please email me
> and we'll just go in the streets, asking random people these questions
> about their IM usage.
> 
> You might get surprised, because yes, crushing majority of facebook
> users would rather stay connected with 350 friends on facebook than
> be alone on a motorbike forever. You need to ask the ordinary users,
> not your IT friends circle.
>  

This is where you need to think about it more deeply

Look at Apple: they are happy to have 10% of users who absolutely love
them while the other 90% buy other products.  Would they make a change
to their business model that might lose some of those people to try and
get bigger market share?  I doubt it.

Look at Jeremy Corbyn (Britain's new Labor party leader): like Apple,
his message is constant.  No monarchy, no nuclear weapons.  People
either agree with him or they don't but everybody knows where he stands.
 He doesn't care about all the mainstream voters who are uncomfortable
with his views and maybe he won't ever be elected PM, but he sticks to
his values.

We need to take the same approach as Apple and Corbyn: prioritize our
values.  Serve our biggest supporters as well as we can instead of
losing sleep over everybody and everything.

Regards,

Daniel