| Looking at the three factors Google Talk used to overtake AIM’s instant messaging market share dominance helps crystallize measures FreedomBox should take in expanding the user base of its messaging platform. The easiest part of the three prongs discusses above for FreedomBox to meet is the first one because Freedom Box’s messaging platform, like Google Talk, uses XMPP; additionally, later this year FreedomBox’s platform will have a secure, effective system of text, voice, and video chat compatible with Google Talk that will already be architecturally built-in to any FreedomBox computer. Thus, because Freedom Box already has the necessary infrastructure in place with respect to its messaging platform, it has already completed this task.
The other two elements are where FreedomBox currently faces larger challenges. When Google Talk came out, it was easy for many people I know to switch from AIM to Google Talk because they were already receiving their e-mail through Gmail. Thus, people liked Google Talk because essentially got two-for-one shopping when logging into Gmail: you could check your e-mail and instant message from the same website. I believe that for Freedom Box’s messaging platform to become widely used, its users must be able to easily perform other online tasks at the same time. I know that FreedomBox already has dozens of free and open-source software (FOSS) applications for its XMPP chat, but I would recommend to its innovators that they do everything possible to integrate their messaging protocol as seemly as possible into its e-mail platform. The more FreedomBox is able to mimic the Google Talk-Gmail relationship, the more successful it will become in expanding its reach.
Lastly, people switched from AIM to Google Talk because it was the “cool” thing to do. Of the three elements discussed above, this is by far the most difficult to quantify, but its impact was very real at the time. When Gmail first started, you could not just go on a website to sign up for the product; you had to be invited by someone else. This initial exclusivity made you feel cool when someone sent you an invitation to sign up.
On the other hand, one of FreedomBox’s main principles is that it is available to anyone that wishes to be part of its movements, which means that a “cool” campaign founded on exclusivity makes absolutely no sense. Thus, FreedomBox must take another angle in convincing everyday Google Talk users to stop using Google Talk: show that maintaining and protecting online privacy is the “cool” thing to do. On this note, I recommend a two-fold strategy for FreedomBox to embrace: (1) keep showing the harms that occur when online privacy is violated, and (2) keep highlighting examples where secure messaging platforms have helped to directly lead to important social movements. To get users to switch from Google Talk to something more secure, I believe FreedomBox’s best strategy is to not only show how harmful Google Talk can be, but also demonstrate that instant messaging can be a cause for good if it focuses on the right ideals. |