This relies on an implicit idea that a system being closed is required for encouraging adoption, but without actually stating a concrete mechanism for that.

One such mechanism I often lament is that closed systems attract investment dollars seeking to capture a market then eventually enshittify, and that investment can be spent on marketing/polish/etc to drive adoption. I don't think this is the dynamic around Signal though, per se.

I can envision a world in which Signal still did everything they did to promote themselves, while also not binding themselves to mobile phones, Google Play, phone numbers as identity, secure enclaves, etc - where they were just as successful at gaining "normie" adoption, while also having a free foundation. This is where my criticism is coming from.

▲

inigyou 9 hours ago | parent [-]

That's one mechanism, but another mechanism is what I said - an open system fragments too much, making it completely unapproachable. Or even within one "vendor" if they can't make up their mind about how it should work (i.e. if they can't be opinionated) it's just as bad as being fragmented.

▲

mindslight 6 hours ago | parent [-]

If there is still one company pushing their own strongly opinionated client, how does having competing options available to power users detract from that? Like I'm not saying Signal-the-client should go away, rather that Signal-the-company who runs Signal-the-server could be accepting of third party clients, to the point where Signal was easily usable from F-Droid and whatnot. How would that undermine the mass market option?

	▲	inigyou 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They do accept third party clients. They don't like it, but they don't have a choice, because they don't use device attestation.