This makes me think that the web-based ones work for teams (as a shared space for ambient documentation and file sharing), but not as a public service.
Of course #jabber exceeds at scale due to federation. Like email.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about the UI/paradigm of web-based #IRC is really compelling.
A friend here once told me in person that Slack was just a UI shift, and IRC could be improved by copying that (my paraphrase, it was obviously more elegant than that).
If that were the case, we are really talking about the client. Because IRC is weird, and the more we can hide it, the sooner people can do boring business things.
Slack, et al, make boring business easy. 🤔
Re: boring business and chat, that is what web-based chat is about.
Is that what IRC or XMPP promote? I don't think so. Because boring business used to be everyone running office warez locally, and then needed a way to send files to another person that would be opened locally, and they just needed to communicate while they worked locally.
We don't have local workspaces anymore, that isn't the "state of boring business". Now we have online office docs, and chat is "presence".
Team web chat is manageable. If your storage starts to fill, let folks know, add more disk, good to go. Grow a bunch, kick it up, because you are making money.
But in order to offer team web chat to a larger community, to provide the same level of service, you have to plan on scalable storage. Can anyone do that without monetizing?
I'll put this out there: I don't consider #IRC to be a candidate for team chat.
* How does IRC develop?
* External system for archiving and search
* File sharing is weird
* Clients are weird
* Prefers commands over clicking
Super fun tech! But the teams that use it either depend on a third-party (which is fine in many cases), or have an engineer (or likely an IRC fan) to run the whole stack for them.