Two kinds of communication systems
You can send an email from one provider to a person using a completely different provider, and it arrives. A phone call works the same way across carriers and countries. Most chat services do not. If you use one messaging service and a friend uses another, you generally cannot message each other directly: you both need an account on the same service.
The difference comes down to standards. Email and the phone system rely on shared, published rules that anyone can implement. Most messaging services are closed systems run by one company, with their own private rules. The ability of different services to exchange messages is called interoperability.
Why closed services exist
There are understandable reasons for the closed approach.
- Speed of change. A single company can add features, such as reactions or read indicators, without waiting for agreement among many parties.
- Control over quality. One operator can manage spam, abuse and reliability across its whole network.
- Security design. Encryption and identity checks are simpler to design when one party controls both ends.
- Business reasons. A large user base is valuable, and people who stay for their contacts are less likely to leave. Economists call this a network effect: a service becomes more useful to each person as more of their contacts use it. It also creates lock-in, meaning that switching costs more than the app itself, because contacts, group chats and history stay behind.
The result is that people often keep several messaging apps installed, one for family, one for a hobby group, one for work, because each circle chose a different service.
What moving between services involves
Switching, or even just living on several services, has practical costs.
- Contacts. You must persuade each person to join the new service, or maintain both.
- History. Message archives, photos and shared files often cannot be moved in full, or only to a limited extent. Some services allow you to export your data, but the format may be hard to use elsewhere.
- Groups. A group chat exists on one service; to move it, every member must agree and join.
- Features. Reactions, voice messages, polls and disappearing messages may not translate between services.
Anyone choosing a tool for a team should weigh this before committing. The comparison points covered in guidance on tool selection include whether data can be exported and whether leaving is possible without losing key records.
What shared standards could change
If services followed a common standard, a user on one could, in principle, message a user on another, much like email. Several ideas are discussed, and some regions have considered or adopted rules that require large services to open up certain functions. The details differ and are changing, so check current rules where you live.
Potential benefits:
- More choice. People could pick a service for its features or privacy approach without being tied to where their contacts are.
- Competition. Smaller services might compete more easily if they did not need to build a user base from zero.
- Less duplication. Fewer separate apps might be needed.
The trade-offs and open problems
Connecting services is technically and socially harder than it sounds, and the downsides are real.
Encryption. Private conversations protected by end-to-end encryption are designed so only the participants can read them. Connecting two services with different designs while keeping that protection is difficult. Experts continue to work on it, and approaches may involve compromises on features or metadata.
Spam and abuse. Open systems are easier to flood with unwanted messages. Email shows this: it is open, and also full of spam and phishing messages that every provider has to fight. A service that is open to outsiders needs ways to block bad actors from other services.
Moderation and responsibility. If a message crosses from one service to another, which operator’s rules apply? Services with different standards could disagree about what to allow.
Features and slower change. Agreeing on a common standard takes time. Features that are not in the standard may not work across services, so users may see a reduced version of the experience when messaging across boundaries.
Privacy. Sharing information such as phone numbers, identifiers or presence status between services raises questions about who holds the data and how it is protected. Understanding privacy settings on each service becomes more important, not less.
Business incentives. Companies that benefit from keeping users inside their own service may resist, and that is part of why regulation is sometimes proposed. Platform regulation is a larger topic with a range of approaches.
Related approaches
Some people use tools that combine messages from several services into one inbox. These can reduce the number of apps to check, but they depend on the services allowing it and may involve sharing your login with a third party, which carries risks. Another approach is networks designed from the start to be open, discussed in the article on decentralized networks. Those trade polish and simplicity for independence.
What you can do now
- Before adopting a service for a group, ask whether you can export your data and what happens if the service changes or closes.
- Keep at least one widely compatible channel, such as email or a phone number, for important contacts.
- Do not assume that all your history is permanent; save important files and records somewhere you control.
- When you do move a group, announce the change clearly, keep the old chat open briefly, and avoid abandoning members who cannot switch.
Standards for connecting services are a work in progress, and predictions about whether and how they will develop are uncertain. For now, the practical rule is to choose with the exit in mind.