regarding doing what slack can do, I think we do have a bit of collective amnesia about what was truly good and truly bad about what came before.
Slack does a lot of things, but its UX is actually pretty piss poor due to the bolt-ons (threads is just about the worst implementation I have ever seen), walled garden, weird account things (magic links~ if you want to see your other workspaces make sure you use the same email everywhere!), security (goodbye decent realtime bot api) and the client which feels slow despite using more resources than it should given its status as a program that needs to always be running.
To take one example of a worse system: IRC scales to tens of thousands of users on a single machine; doesn't have emoji or picture sharing though- but the bot API is simpler for sure, you can connect in one click if the person has an IRC client (or you pass a webirc link) - no signup needed.
I think the problem with slack is exacerbated in europe (or rest of the world in general), where the latency of fetching thousands of tiny assets or chats is many-many times higher than in California.
Also; the reason I had to do that was because my mum wouldn't permit a home internet connection; broadband was a thing at the time. Dial-up was not mandatory in 2002. IRC with dial-up was faster than slack is today too; you can argue that slack “does more” though.
I claimed multiple things. Unless you think the single assumption being wrong in magnitude (I still maintain the majority of their customers were American) completely upends the entire thesis, then you're trying to treat this as some counterexample which... doesn't work here.
> Slack does a lot of things, but its UX is actually pretty piss poor due to the bolt-ons (threads is just about the worst implementation I have ever seen), walled garden, weird account things (magic links~ if you want to see your other workspaces make sure you use the same email everywhere!), security (goodbye decent realtime bot api) and the client which feels slow despite using more resources than it should given its status as a program that needs to always be running.
I'm not discussing the UX here I'm trying to talk about what Slack is doing differently than AIM.
Once you were online with AOL, it was extremely high speed. Virtually instantaneous chatroom messaging with hundreds of users in a given chatroom.
Mobile devices matter because they cannot maintain persistent connections. This by design necessitates a different architecture. AIM and IRC can have a single machine hold open a TCP connection and send and receive messages. A mobile device's modem wakes up briefly, performs some network chatter, then goes back to sleep. It's a fundamentally different requirement on the way the system is designed. IRC has evolved (through add-ons, not in the protocol itself) to shim this by using bouncers or having some sort of push notification based proxy for messages.
The other question is, how reliable was AOL? I have no idea how many outages they had, how long those outages lasted, nor what the impact was. Given the service was meant to be used as entertainment I suspect their SLA was one of best effort rather than the measured kind that Slack is leaning into (wrt using multiple CSes and using consistent hashing to pick which CS to send a message to, so architecture can be scaled as needed.)
I don't work for Slack but I work on high scale systems for a big company for a living. I'm pretty aware of the limitations of networks nowadays and the differences between systems in the dial-up era from now. Just the fact that Slack accommodates devices with push based semantics (mobile devices) and pull based semantics (anything that can open a persistent connection) is itself a large difference between systems of old and systems today.
Btw the TOC and Oscar protocols that AOL used have been reverse engineered and documented online so you can see for yourself at least at a protocol level what's different.
This isn't really a property of the device. It's an OS limitation. Nokia Series 60 didn't have a platform push service, so WhatsApp had to maintain a connection from the app to the servers to get messages without delay; it was not unusual to find Series 60 phones connected for 30+ days when I worked at WhatsApp. The newest versions of Nokia Series 40 had push, but older versions had to long-connect as well. Some mobile networks aren't great at letting connections work for longer times either, but some can.
But yeah, Apple only lets Apple keep connections open. Android doesn't have hard and fast rules, but background connections are likely to die, you should use push if you can. The push services connection is going to try to stay connected for a long time though.
Thought it is quite interesting to consider a world where mobile platforms made different platforms.