8 ms·
It's a shame that Facebook removed support for XMPP in the first place. I guess it's part of their strategy to make the world more "open" and connected.
by wooptoo 11y ago
It's a shame that Facebook removed support for XMPP in the first place. I guess it's part of their strategy to make the world more "open" and connected.
- greyman 11y agoIndeed. But it should be noted that their main competitors like Google chat or Skype also do not support it.
- jconnop 11y agoGoogle chat supports it. Though IIRC they disabled federation - so you can only chat to other google users.
- bbatha 11y agoThey don't support group chat anymore.
- arnvald 11y agoWasn't Google chat replaced by Hangouts, which does not support XMPP?
- jarek 11y agoYou can log into an @gmail.com Hangouts account through XMPP. The instructions on https://wiki.bitlbee.org/HowtoGtalk https://wiki.bitlbee.org/HowtoGtalk worked for my account which is also accessed by Hangouts on Android L. (At least person-to-person messaging works well - I have not attempted group chats or video or stuff)
- bisby 11y agoIndeed. Google voice texts, group chats, and video stuff do not work. I get incoming audio chat requests on pidgin for google voice calls, but they don't work.
- golergka 11y agoWhat proportion of their clients used it? Was it worth it to support such a horrible protocol?
- leni536 11y agoI used it on my desktop. You can call XMPP horrible, it still worked without any problem. Much better than having a browser tab dedicated for Facebook.
- golergka 11y agoWith respect, you're only one person out of billions. Individually, I used it as well. And (as far as I heard), XMPP sucks for developers to implement and support, not necessarily for users themselves.
- alex_duf 11y agoWell then we're three :)
- richardboegli 11y agoFour ;)
- tomtoise 11y agoThere's Dozens of us!
- tutuca 11y agoA dozen!
- feld 11y agoXMPP is a Russian nesting doll of garbage and the optional XMPP extensions ruined it for everyone because clients are always half baked. XML inside XML inside XML inside XML inside Edit: PSYC outlines XMPP problems pretty well. I wish PSYC was more prevalent. http://about.psyc.eu/XMPP http://about.psyc.eu/XMPP
- JustSomeNobody 11y agoNot just FB. Everyone is moving (have moved) to proprietary protocols.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tracker1 11y agoXMPP wasn't a great protocol though... I'm not aware of a better option though. I know that something over WebRTC may not be much better, but may be the best chance of seeing something more open in the next decade again. Every company wants their walled garden though... though there's moats stocked with alligators and piranha around them..
- stinkytaco 11y agoDo you think it's strictly that they want walled gardens? I have a feeling more large companies would support open protocols if they provided the features they needed with the efficiency to provide those services cost (and battery) effectively. It seems all the many open protocols (XMPP, Web and CalDav, etc.) are simply not efficient or feature rich enough for companies that are in a constant features escalation war with competitors.
- gh02t 11y agoI imagine it's that, but amplified by NIH syndrome. Something like "oh yeah we could do it with XMPP, but it's all complicated and stuff and if we just built our own protocol we'd be able to do everything we'd ever want exactly how we want it! It'll be the future!" I've fallen victim to something similar myself many times. "Oh yeah, I could do <this> with <tool x>, but it's ugly and not how <tool x> is meant to be used! I'll just design and implement <tool y> myself to do exactly <this> and it'll be the future!" It's the temptation to make something customized for yourself and it's hard to resist. Particularly when the existing solution has some flaws, which makes the relative cost/effort of rolling your own solution seem lower (even when it inevitably turns out to still be quite high).
- pmlnr 11y agoMQTT appears to work better and is easier to implement; it's an open protocol, just like XMPP. http://mqtt.org/ http://mqtt.org/
- nolok 11y ago> work better and is easier to implement Not implying it isn't true but ... Says who ?
- MattJ100 11y agoHaving implemented MQTT on both client and server sides, I have no idea why people keep saying it's easy to implement. Not my post, but an overview of some of its issues: http://vasters.com/clemensv/2014/06/02/MQTT+An+Implementers+Perspective.aspx http://vasters.com/clemensv/2014/06/02/MQTT+An+Implementers+... tl;dr: Protocol design and implementation isn't easy.
- detaro 11y agoAnd isn't designed as a federated chat protocol, so not really comparable. You could use it as a transport layer to run a chat protocol on top, but it doesn't replace XMPP on it's own.
- delecti 11y agoWhat do you mean by "federated"? I've heard XMPP described as that but never really seen it explained. The impression I've gotten is that somehow users on one XMPP network could chat with users on another? So if Google and Facebook still both fully embraced it, a GChat user could message a FB user without anything extra?
- rakoo 11y agoThat's exactly it, except each of them is not an XMPP network but just a single domain (there's only a single authority, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk of network). XMPP works exactly like SMTP in this regard: you can send a mail from a@gmail.com to b@fastmail.com just like you can (could, at least) send an XMPP message from c@duckgo.com to d@facebook.com