Speaker 3
Yeah, no, I was going to agree. I think that is the the future. And. mentioned threads coming in, right? Like that's the, you know, big gorilla in the room that's coming down to the Macedon's elephant. But...
Speaker 1
I like that analogy.
Speaker 3
their AT proto, you know, standing across the street. And I think there's this very important conversation to be had, right, because there's no perfect protocol, right, there's no perfect network. And I do believe there's some aspects that they get done right where the activity pub spec falls incomplete. And so, you know, are there thoughts on maybe supporting both protocols or a bridge or, you know, because at the moment, obviously, like it's just text based. like from the little rumor mills, it's been more of people thinking about like a Lemmy counterpoint, you know, once AT Proto does allow that to happen. And so I think it would be obviously a lot of work, but would be awesome to also open that up in terms of frequency with AT Proto users.
Speaker 1
Yeah I have a lot of respect for what they're doing at Blue Sky with AT Proto. I remember when they first put out the blog post, I was a little upset and I think I posted a snarky toot that you know everybody liked about like oh why don't they engage with the protocol of activity pub and improve the spec. Yeah did the same thing. Yeah. And, you know, they had some valid complaints. And the way that they're building it is really interesting. Unfortunately, my reading of a photo right now is that they only allow public posts. So there's no private follower only posts. So that would not work at all with frequency at the moment. If that changes, obviously, I would consider implementing it as well, because I'd love for everybody to be connected. And I don't, you know, I don't have a horse in the race in terms of protocols, I want the best protocol to win. That's not always what happens. Right now, I'm supporting the official W3C protocol. But, you know, I don't know what's going to happen in the future. But right now, because it's public only that just completely conflicts with what I'm doing with frequency. So it wouldn't be a match at this moment.
Speaker 2
I would post on a protocol, why adopt it, if that was your whole thing. Frequency is like kind of your experience with, you know, I have this idea, I'm going to give it form and foundation and turn it into a thing and manifest it into the world. How, what advice would you give to someone that wants to do that, but maybe is too scared to try and take that risk?
Speaker 1
Just get out there and start playing with it. I had only a little bit of app development before. I was more of a backend developer. I had done an Android game that basically I ported from iOS. It already existed and I just kind of copied it over to another place. I wouldn't say that I had a lot of experience with mobile development app development. And there was certainly a learning curve, but I think it's really fun and exciting. And I like using React Native because it lets me take the tools and the practices that I use from web, especially like really fast deployment, and do the same thing on iOS, which normally you can't do if you're going through the iOS app. It's a very slow, tedious process. And that's like the blockages and the gateways that Apple puts up is what has always kept me away from app development for a while. It felt very cumbersome. And so I like that React Native gives me that way that I can just push an update and see the change right away. Obviously, I'll push it through to the App Store eventually, but to be able to do what's equivalent to a branch deploy, I love that. I'm not willing to give up those tools.
Speaker 2
No, totally fair. It's interesting that you bring that up because I think it was the own cast guy, Gabe Kangas. He was having some difficulty getting his app published in the app store. I think there was like some other app that had similar functionality, or maybe I think it was more like he had like a guide thing built in that suggested channels and Apple's like, oh no, you have to vet every single one of those channels that gets suggested. Otherwise it's problematic. And just made it really hard for him to get the thing published. He finally got it through. But that's like a whole other can of worms is just trying to get our apps into app stores so that people can use them in the first place.
Speaker 1
Absolutely. Yeah, I had a similar experience. I went back and forth a lot. I went through some appeals. I got on the phone with somebody from Apple to be like, what is it that you need for this to be approved? And I'm really not used to that as a web developer. I'm used to being able to throw something up at a URL and let people hit it. So that was a challenge and a learning curve. Yeah,
Speaker 2
I mean, the open web is very much at odds with having a walled garden where that's the only way to get the app. You know, that's the only like, that's the only where people will discover it to begin with. Whereas the web, you can just throw whatever at whatever space.
Speaker 1
Yeah. And the way the Apple tries to force you to use their subscription in -app purchases and everything like that, or they will approve you, that so much like extortion. I don't like it at all.
