The major exception was high bandwidth communication, where it remains cost prohibitive to do without scale - video has come a long way, to be sure, but large image, audio, video processing have remained difficult to do at scale and right, at least without the correct hardware and supporting algorithms.
There are solutions, most of the ones I can think of involve paying money versus using some "free" service - this is why you don't see a lot of private fileshares with random videostreams between friends, not so much technical reasons.
While protocols may exist that "work fine", it seems clear that for "chat, video conferencing, file sharing" (as well as social media), proprietary networks are more much much more popular than standardized protocols.
Email being a notable still-popular exception, when it comes to internet communications.
> proprietary network
> it seems clear that for "chat, video conferencing, file sharing" (as well as social media), proprietary networks [protocols] are more much much more popular than standardized protocols.
HTTP is used for communication and social media. So is HTTPS. Want to use an SSD for your operating system to load programs off-of for your games and communication? That requires SATA or NVMe. Want to play games that require non-trivial graphics? That requires PCIe.
Want to use Discord or Zoom or Slack Huddle or your own in-browser (or "desktop" [really a browser] app variant of those)? That's WebRTC which uses TLS and SCTP.
Where is the proprietary here? Where are you pulling this information from?
I can't say for sure what vishnugupta meant, but what I thought when I read their comment are:
* Most people's chat goes over things like Slack or MS Teams -- proprietary protocols. Not the open protocols that do exist like IRC.
* Most people's "instant messaging" goes over things like Signal, Whatsapp, or Facebook Messenger, all proprietary protocols. Even if open protocols like XMPP exist, they are less popular.
* Most people's video conferencing goes over things like Zoom, MS Teams, Apple Facetime -- proprietary protocols.
* I am not familiar with the "file sharing" protocols popular, but I assume the same.
HOWEVER, most people's email goes over open protocols. It's an outlier when it comes to these higher-level interpersonal communications.
(Do you disagree? I'm not sure if you do, or if you're just talking about something else!)
But yes, of course, there are other open protocols that are still very much in use. Including things like TCP/IP and UDP (which almost all of the protocols we are talking about function on top of) and HTTP (which some may as well). Most of these popular infrastructural protocols are also older, where vishnugupta suggested "since then", new protocols that become popular tend to be proprietary. An example of a newer network protocol that was open and standardized and also had a lot of uptake would be good to hear!
You are proposing an explanation for why most of these things run on proprietary protocols, an explanation I agree is a component of what's going on, I didn't say anythign to the contrary -- I'm still stuck on trying to demonstrate that proprietary protocols for these things are more popular than open standard ones -- which is being disputed -- before we can even get to talking about what explains this state of affairs!
FTP is the closest file sharing protocol I could think of when I wrote my comment above.
Moxie touched on this topic in his article about web3, where he compared and contrasted protocols Vs platform. He explains why he believes platforms, once they gain a big enough distribution, are inherently at an advantage because they can change and adopt fast.
HTTPS, HTTP, TCP, UDP, ICMP, ACME, DNS, NVMe, PCIe, SATA, WS.
WebRTC (used for communication) uses SCTP and TLS. SMTP (email) came out in 1981. SCTP in 2000. There are _many_ _many_ _many_ more examples, but that beats your statement by a solid 19 years.
I could keep going but I think you get the picture.