We're working on making bridges better integrated in Matrix to help with this use case - it's certainly a good way to drive uptake.
On the other hand, bridges are always an impedance mismatch - you have to keep up with new features on both side of the bridge, and the system you're bridging into doesn't always want to be bridged.
So, we think bridges are a key thing for Matrix (it's where the name comes from - matrixing together different comms platforms!) - but it'd be wrong to predicate the success of the protocol on bridges. They're useful, they have their place, but they're not the sole reason to use Matrix.
On feature-mismatch, I don't think it has to be that big of a deal - as long as
* delivering messages and file/image attachments work reliably in both directions
* stickers and other native attachments (location, audio clips, etc) can be received, not necessarily sent
, that's absolutely Good Enough for daily use for me and I imagine many others.
Reactions and sending of stickers etc optional, but if that's there, that's basically full parity of what anyone in the target audience mentioned above could expect. Actual parsing of non-plaintext data is obviously up to clients and should be approachable for the average casual contributor.
> the system you're bridging into doesn't always want to be bridged.
This should be the crucial and challenging part to maintain.
> This should be the crucial and challenging part to maintain.
More than that, some of the system explicitely _don't_ want to be bridged, because retaining users in their silos brings in more money than maintaining a window to the world outside the silo. It's tolerated at best today, but you can be sure that if a bridge ever get traction, the Whatsapps/Facebooks/Wechats will do what they can to block you.
Rather than betting on the bridges in the long term, I believe it's in your interest (as a Matrix user) to host a bridge to Whatsapp, and tell your Whatsapp friends that it kinda works but it's gonna fail at some point, so they better have a second account for the future. Install the account for them even, that removes some of the friction. But ultimately you have to realize that Whatsapp doesn't want to talk to Matrix (the situation is completely different for an open protocol of course, like IRC or XMPP)
On the other hand, bridges are always an impedance mismatch - you have to keep up with new features on both side of the bridge, and the system you're bridging into doesn't always want to be bridged.
So, we think bridges are a key thing for Matrix (it's where the name comes from - matrixing together different comms platforms!) - but it'd be wrong to predicate the success of the protocol on bridges. They're useful, they have their place, but they're not the sole reason to use Matrix.