Neither of these have mass users (yet).
There is a reason why Facebook, and its Chinese equivalent, is so prominent. That’s because it is easy for mobile users to view them and easy for mobile users to correspond with one another using them.
Despite the misgivings about the amount of information collected by Facebook, it is unlikely to be challenged until there is a similarly easy to use alternative.
IMHO I think these mean that either:
- All the different services currently being developed will need to seamlessly link together in such a way that users cannot see the joins; or
- One of the services will need to become pr-eminent, and become the natural choice of the vast majority of users.
I think option one is probably impractical or will take an impractical amount of time and effort.
That leaves option two. Solid not only has to be the best, but it also has to be the easiest for average phone users to use, and it has to get into production pretty quickly. In the long (or short) term, ease of use and time to production is probably going to be more important than whether or not Solid is the best.
The history of technology is full of good ideas that have fallen by the wayside despite being the best. They have either been too complicated for ‘ordinary’ users, or those ‘ordinary’ users have already committed themselves to something that is less technically good but which came to market and built up a user base much earlier (Windows desktops v Linux desktops, Betamax v VHS, etc).