A phone number works anywhere in the world, to anywhere in the world, with anyone who has a phone. All e-mail providers work with each other. I don't care who you're with, and I wouldn't even have to know except it's usually part of the address. SMS works no matter which provider we both have.

It feels like we're taking huge steps backwards. Instead of sending a message to a phone number or e-mail address, I'll use iMessage or Google Hangouts or Skype or Slack or.... Video call? We can do FaceTime or Hangouts or Skype or....

Will these things start interoperating with each other eventually, or are we just doomed forever?

And SMS is also frustratingly non-universal. After years of having cell service with one of the large providers, I switched to Fi last year since I was going to be out of the country a lot. The biggest annoyance has been most short code SMS not working. Each SMS shortcode is only supported on a provider-by-provider basis.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that even your examples of open, interoperable protocols are instances where we've traded some of that open interoperability for convenience.

I do have some mailing lists running from it, so it's possible it helped me that their users are making sure mails from it doesn't end up in junk folder.

Anyway, I would encourage anyone to run their own mail server, to prevent large provider doing what you're mentioning. Google already did this with XMPP. They made GTalk interconnected with rest of XMPP server, but as soon as they got a large base they disconnected from the rest and made their own proprietary network.

Regarding inbox deliverability from dynamic IPs (like you'd have with a residential connection), it might work sometimes for short messages with no attachments to people you've corresponded with before, but I wouldn't expect general deliverability to be very good. You have the same problem with botnet infections / malware-based spam here as well; home PCs are much more likely to get infected with that kind of stuff (though WordPress exploits are VERY common on servers), so many people running mail servers will just straight up block dynamic IPs from big ISPs and assume that nothing of value was lost. Personally, for low-volume mail such as what a home server might send regarding maintenance or alerts, I'd recommend using a service like mailgun and hooking up to that with SMTP. It's a lot easier than running your own mail server, you won't have to deal with inbound spam if you're only sending, it works well with minimal setup, they guide you through each step, etc etc.

I run an email server with ten domains on it. Hotmail blocked me once, but I had no problem getting that lifted. No other issues for over five years now.

I have more of a problem with mail going the other way. I use a number of online spam traps to avoid spam, and my gf's Yahoo account often gets bounced by them.

Specific Yahoo servers regularly get flagged for spam, and if you're using a Yahoo account your mail will be filtered by many, many servers if it's sent from one of those IPs.

Those were the days that I don't miss.

Yes, each provider does support their own short codes, but this is not a great example of SMS being "non-universal"

A short code is just "dialling sugar" for {country_code} + {network_code} + {short_code}.

Think about it this way: It would be kind of like trying to access the following url: http://news.ycombinator

Do you need it on .com? .co.za? .io?

So in other words, if you are roaming and you want to use a short code. Just prefix with {country_code} + {network_code}.

The routing should work correctly, the switch (msc) routing tables will have the country code + network code, and route the message correctly to your network. If your network has been configured correctly, it will be able to respond.

There is nothing inherently in SMS that prevents it working. Though carriers can choose to block short codes to other networks (usually to avoid fraud). Your carrier would then need to include request the roaming partner white list a set of allowed short codes.

Source: used to work with SMS gateways for a living.

That said, short codes are rapidly becoming obsolete since data has become ubiquitous and everything is online now. The only one I ever use is voicemail.

I wish. With the prevalence of using SMS for 2FA, short codes are very much in use. When you've got a provider that doesn't work with most short codes, you run into a frighteningly large number of difficult situations. Some providers will give you a "I didn't receive the text, call me" option. Some (grr...Venmo) don't. But it's one of those features you don't realize how often it's used until it doesn't work for you.

What country are you in?

The way I have seen them configured is they work from off-net if you prefix with correct codes.

Remember the foreign switch,smsc or ussd gateway is going to route the message if it has the correct prefix. The Routing (b number analysis) is looking up a prefix, to send it off.

It is up to your home operator to correctly handle this.

Source: 10+ years working with mobile operators

Google, Hotmail, etc, all work just fine. Just make sure to set up DMARC (DKIM+SPF) and TLS by default.

It was a while ago, if I recall correctly the block seemed to be ip based (it reported my ip not domain-name). I host with vpsdime, while it is a vps and thus to be expected I don't seem to be on any other lists.

DMARC, PTR, no open-relay, encryption, etc., all set up on my end. The email I was trying to reach was in fact an (important to me) gov't adress. Ended up using my old gmail for that instead.

If Google Fi is using SMS-enabled wireline numbers as opposed to mobile numbers then there could be additional complications.

I've run on-Prem email for years in different capacities. It isn't nearly as difficult as its often portrayed.

But there are useful sample config files online, and once it's running it just works.

Email interoperability is at LEAST as good as phone interoperability, which was the GP's point, I think. But all of these things are more walled gardens than you might think.

Slack is an outlier because you don't actually need to communicate with everyone in the world on Slack.

But for others, it would be completely unreasonable to ask your acquaintances to pay to install Skype to talk to you. And you probably wouldn't pay for Skype if it didn't interop with whatever other people were paying for.

In a world where switching costs for consumers are so low, interop becomes less important because you can ask your contacts to install an app if it's useful enough.

None of these messaging apps care if you install their product or not because there are so few people who share your views.

(I believe that operators generally have much tighter regulations and laws governing what they could actually do with that, but regardless - besides the point)

Sure, for personal devices, but with business devices, installing an app can be a multi-month approval process.

Sad that Google + Facebook pulled out of federation a long time ago. We could have had bring-your-own-client cross-network all of this stuff. We still can, but realistically we won't.

Who's going to provide that at no cost?

There are plenty of working open standards to do the basics, its if you want to do anything beyond the basics that you end up in a walled garden.

Sure, you can still SMS worldwide, as long as they have a cell phone. But non-phone devices are becoming very common. What if you want to send or receive messages on your tablet or computer. (This works OK in the Apple world, but only because they hack it by routing SMS through your phone.)

Video calls don't even have that.

E-mail, for example, was different. I started using online services when you had AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy, etc. all in their own little worlds. That didn't last very long before they all bridged their internal e-mail systems to the internet and everyone could talk to each other.

Actually, not necessarily. At least with my provider (AT&T), I can set up my Mac as a validated device for WiFi calling, so I can do SMS and actual phone calls without using the iPhone as a relay.

It is a miracle that the web itself has survived as one of the few open interoperable protocols. Though I think this golden period will soon end, strangled by the death of net neutrality on one side and proprietary walled gardens on the other.

Ultimately, a commons is not compatible with unrestricted capitalism.

Sadly but somewhat hilariously, the thing which might prevent them a bit from offering exclusive-to-their-network content is the fact that in the US, you often don't have a choice of which ISP to go with, so if I really wanted some content which was exclusive to ATT's network, I simply can't switch off of Comcast (apartment building with no other option, past 3 apartment buildings were the same) since they've so successfully monopolized markets.

Edit: on the beginning: http://www.internethistorypodcast.com/2014/04/chapter-3-part...

I had hope for Hangouts, but Google dropped the ball big time in terms of user complexity and quality of product as they are wont to do.

I agree that video conferencing is rather fragmented but I'm honestly not sure how much that has slowed adoption. People just don't want to use video in a lot of cases. Essentially all my internal calls are on a videoconferencing system and I doubt I turn on the webcam 25% of the time. (We do use screen sharing a fair bit though.)

It is conspicuously absent on any other platform; even Android tablets can't use Duo, let alone a Linux, Windows, or macOS machine. So it's a hell of a walled garden.

Sure, bringing everybody together would be tough. You'd need a lot of discussion and probably glue/bridging code between different services. But it could be done! None of the big services are even trying to integrate with each other.

In what way? You can accomplish all these things for free with your existing phone, Google Assistant, IFTTT, and very little effort. If you do it this way, your virtual assistant won't be as dumb as rocks either.

Sorry, but Alexa is still riding on the short bus.

Bonus points if there is a standard way to 'get a call' or 'search for a contact' that cuts across the video conf apps.

They used to. We have open or defacto standards for texts, chat, voip, and video calls. We had/have free and paid clients available. They withered on the vine, without support from the big players.

I don't know why more messaging services use XMPP to bootstrap their userbase. It would allow you to switch to a new service, while you could still talk to your friends that haven't moved yet.

There's a reason it never took off, and it has nothing to do with corporate mendacity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2069810

Otherwise I'd see a use of this device for small kids (parents would protect them from generic chat apps, and they're not good at typing yet) and people who put their phone in random places in the house and only check when they actively want to do something on it.

This could pretty much describe the iPad as well. To me, Amazon is betting way too heavily on voice as the optimal way to interact with hardware. I know that it's cool because it hasn't ever been done well before, but in practice the utility just isn't there for the vast majority of use cases. When you think of all the different visual ways that a tablet enables a person to interact with the machine, and then compare that to an entirely voice-operated machine, it feels like taking a step backwards.

Beyond the issues with dialects and accents - those will eventually be solved with better learning/adaptation algorithms - I've always felt voice interfaces very... limited. Perhaps it will enable more 'social' experiences, but 3-5 people can be in a room and use their devices (laptop/tablet/etc) more or less as they do now. If/when devices with 'voice interactions' are the norm... how will I get any privacy from those around me? And simultaneous voices will present some ongoing problems (until, maybe, personal voice recognition, vs just 'voice', is achieved?)

This is also absolutely going to kill Nucleus[1] which was the first device released with Alexa Voice Service integrated and was heavily hyped by Amazon at the time.

[1]: https://nucleuslife.com/

We reached an interesting point in time where the internet incumbents (Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon) can copy and extend any interesting idea quickly. I remember those days when Microsoft and Intel were ruling the world.

Presumably everyone who would even consider buying this already has a computer at home, which does that better anyway.

Amazon is betting on these children growing up with an Echo in the home which can be a nice way to catch up with your kids' activities while still at work or on your way home.

Child: "Alexa, record a message for mom."

Alexa: "Recording message."

Child: "Mummy, don't be late. But you promised to undo my hair when you return from work. My head hurts."

Ever tried using FaceTime or Skype with poor vision/ dexterity?

All Echos have better mics and better sound than my cellphone for this use.

Edit: I see I wasn't the only one whose brain short-circuited for a second.

An Amazon Echo isn't a needed device. It just makes certain actions easier (e.g. playing music, checking the weather, listening to the news, etc), all of which can be satisfied with a cellphone and computer too. But the key is, it makes these actions EASIER.

For someone who's already indoctrinated to an Amazon Echo device, I can see the barrier for purchase being lower than someone who doesn't have one. For such a customer, the appeal again is that it makes even more actions EASIER.

Being able to see your baby monitor, make a phone call, check the news, see who's at your front door (integration with doorbell video services coming up, I'll bet!), etc, are all achievable by other means. But this family of devices makes them all EASIER.

I think that's the key here. And granted, these devices aren't going to appeal to everyone. But for those that already have the gateway drug/device that is an Amazon Echo, I can see them investing further into this ecosystem of devices.

Sort of a post-iPad reaction to the failure of tablets.

Disagree. This is entering a far less saturated somewhat new market. A very focused communication/consumption device where the tablet is trying to be a laptop.

My mom doesn't have an echo, doesn't know what an echo is, and probably wouldn't ever spend the money on one even if she did. She's about the only person in my life that would EVER consider an Echo to be "the new PC". And quite frankly I can't imagine her giving up her laptop for one of these in a million years.