3 ms·

I really really like the ideas of Matrix, but the problem is none of my friends are on it. I had the same problem when I started to use Signal. WhatsApp actual

I really really like the ideas of Matrix, but the problem is none of my friends are on it. I had the same problem when I started to use Signal. WhatsApp actually seems like the lesser of two evils right now - even though it's controlled by Facebook, they've added encryption and some of my friends are on it. Who'd have thought we'd look back on the days of MSN, AIM and ICQ as the golden age of interoperable messaging? At least I could talk to everyone I needed to through Gaim (Pidgin) or Trillian.

Certhas 10y ago
I have had some success with getting people on signal, though now that Whatsapp is encrypted by the same technology there doesn't seem to be a big benefit anymore. Generally it seems to me people are not so adverse to having several messanging sollutions installed these days.
codemac 10y ago
> I really really like the ideas of Matrix, but the problem is none of my friends are on it. Build a whatsapp bridge for matrix? I mean, it's built for the exact case where people aren't "on" it.
- Arathorn 10y ago
  Precisely. There's already the beginnings of a WhatsApp bridge for Matrix (and indeed anything that libpurple can speak) at https://github.com/matrix-org/node-purple/tree/master/appservice https://github.com/matrix-org/node-purple/tree/master/appser.... It just needs tuits for people to work on and finish off. Meanwhile, the IRC & Slack bridges are live and work relatively well today (although a lot more work still to be done).
- reitanqild 10y ago
  The problem is Whatsapp is actively hostile to any kind of attempts to creating 3rd party clients or APIs.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    So was AIM, though. That didn't stop the third party clients.
    - smcnally 10y ago
      AOL worked actively to stop third-party AIM clients in the same ways as mentioned above from icq through WhatsApp -- changing protocols and central auth mechanisms. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/06/aol.vsms.idg/index.html http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/06/aol.vsms.idg/index... http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/24/business/fi-59086 http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/24/business/fi-59086
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Right, the point is "whatsapp is hostile to third-party clients" makes no sense as an explanation of why we don't have third-party clients for whatsapp, because all third-party clients for everything have had to deal with hostility from the first party.
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    Wasn't really a problem with ICQ, even though they had actively struggled and tried to change protocols frequently (and broke unofficial clients once in few months). The community was large, and there was a significant demand for good clients (official one was shit). I guess now the difference must be that either official client is good enough for most users, or that users' attitude to how they want things had changed and they learned to submit to whatever service providers dictate.
  - voltagex_ 10y ago
    Exactly, and this is the problem with the state of messaging in 2016. The companies have built their walled gardens and are now actively defending them against "outsiders". It's to the point where I've considered buying an iDevice just to communicate with a few friends on iMessage.
bad_user 10y ago
Being able to use Gaim/Pidgin doesn't count as interoperability dude. Those protocols worked only because somebody bothered to reverse engineer them and this "interoperability" only worked half the time. I know because I was using Gaim/Pidgin for Yahoo! Messenger back then. Today at least they are using web technologies and I get to use Facebook's Messenger, WhatsApp, Hangouts and Slack on Linux without headaches.
- mkhpalm 10y ago
  For a short period, most of those old proprietary clients started supporting XMPP. That was the golden age of instant messaging. I couldn't help but notice that somewhere around that time is also when Apple released iMessage and FaceTime. Suddenly, everybody ran back to walled gardens and we de-evolved to a point where people are suddenly okay paying for a service that they can only sort of integrate with. Thats how low the bar has gotten now. Personally, if I were a place like Google where the content is more important than the product. I would be having very pointed discussions with the people in charge of things like Hangouts and Allo. There seems to be a lack of vision compared to what is easily doable in this space. Knowing enough of the XMPP spec to see what was never done, I have to agree that the author is right. Google never understood what they had with GChat. To put it another way. Imagine if everybody ran around trying to make their own SMTP or HTTP protocols? Thats what everybody is trying to do with chat right now.
  - bad_user 10y ago
    Oh, I totally get what you're saying, except that I don't find usage of XMPP clients to be that useful. Yes, I know that Facebook supported at some point XMPP clients. I never cared about it. Real interoperability is federation. If we had federation, the problem of using your favorite client would be moot. My argument is that there never was a "golden age" of chat, unless you refer to IRC back in the nineties and even that would be debatable. And out of the big boys I can only name Google's Talk as supporting federation, only to be killed and replaced by Hangouts, that doesn't support federation because, wouldn't you know, they needed to innovate and couldn't do that while supporting XMPP, allegedly. And even if Hangouts pushed WebRTC forward, I'm glad it's not used and I'm glad that it suffers a slow death, because this proves that the innovation argument is bullshit. And I'm fairly certain that Google Talk was more popular than Hangouts, even if Hangouts got pushed down the throats of every Android user.

Certhas 10y ago

I have had some success with getting people on signal, though now that Whatsapp is encrypted by the same technology there doesn't seem to be a big benefit anymore. Generally it seems to me people are not so adverse to having several messanging sollutions installed these days.

codemac 10y ago

> I really really like the ideas of Matrix, but the problem is none of my friends are on it. Build a whatsapp bridge for matrix? I mean, it's built for the exact case where people aren't "on" it.

Arathorn 10y ago
Precisely. There's already the beginnings of a WhatsApp bridge for Matrix (and indeed anything that libpurple can speak) at https://github.com/matrix-org/node-purple/tree/master/appservice https://github.com/matrix-org/node-purple/tree/master/appser.... It just needs tuits for people to work on and finish off. Meanwhile, the IRC & Slack bridges are live and work relatively well today (although a lot more work still to be done).
reitanqild 10y ago
The problem is Whatsapp is actively hostile to any kind of attempts to creating 3rd party clients or APIs.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  So was AIM, though. That didn't stop the third party clients.
  - smcnally 10y ago
    AOL worked actively to stop third-party AIM clients in the same ways as mentioned above from icq through WhatsApp -- changing protocols and central auth mechanisms. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/06/aol.vsms.idg/index.html http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/06/aol.vsms.idg/index... http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/24/business/fi-59086 http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/24/business/fi-59086
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      Right, the point is "whatsapp is hostile to third-party clients" makes no sense as an explanation of why we don't have third-party clients for whatsapp, because all third-party clients for everything have had to deal with hostility from the first party.
- drdaeman 10y ago
  Wasn't really a problem with ICQ, even though they had actively struggled and tried to change protocols frequently (and broke unofficial clients once in few months). The community was large, and there was a significant demand for good clients (official one was shit). I guess now the difference must be that either official client is good enough for most users, or that users' attitude to how they want things had changed and they learned to submit to whatever service providers dictate.
- voltagex_ 10y ago
  Exactly, and this is the problem with the state of messaging in 2016. The companies have built their walled gardens and are now actively defending them against "outsiders". It's to the point where I've considered buying an iDevice just to communicate with a few friends on iMessage.

bad_user 10y ago

Being able to use Gaim/Pidgin doesn't count as interoperability dude. Those protocols worked only because somebody bothered to reverse engineer them and this "interoperability" only worked half the time. I know because I was using Gaim/Pidgin for Yahoo! Messenger back then. Today at least they are using web technologies and I get to use Facebook's Messenger, WhatsApp, Hangouts and Slack on Linux without headaches.

mkhpalm 10y ago
For a short period, most of those old proprietary clients started supporting XMPP. That was the golden age of instant messaging. I couldn't help but notice that somewhere around that time is also when Apple released iMessage and FaceTime. Suddenly, everybody ran back to walled gardens and we de-evolved to a point where people are suddenly okay paying for a service that they can only sort of integrate with. Thats how low the bar has gotten now. Personally, if I were a place like Google where the content is more important than the product. I would be having very pointed discussions with the people in charge of things like Hangouts and Allo. There seems to be a lack of vision compared to what is easily doable in this space. Knowing enough of the XMPP spec to see what was never done, I have to agree that the author is right. Google never understood what they had with GChat. To put it another way. Imagine if everybody ran around trying to make their own SMTP or HTTP protocols? Thats what everybody is trying to do with chat right now.
- bad_user 10y ago
  Oh, I totally get what you're saying, except that I don't find usage of XMPP clients to be that useful. Yes, I know that Facebook supported at some point XMPP clients. I never cared about it. Real interoperability is federation. If we had federation, the problem of using your favorite client would be moot. My argument is that there never was a "golden age" of chat, unless you refer to IRC back in the nineties and even that would be debatable. And out of the big boys I can only name Google's Talk as supporting federation, only to be killed and replaced by Hangouts, that doesn't support federation because, wouldn't you know, they needed to innovate and couldn't do that while supporting XMPP, allegedly. And even if Hangouts pushed WebRTC forward, I'm glad it's not used and I'm glad that it suffers a slow death, because this proves that the innovation argument is bullshit. And I'm fairly certain that Google Talk was more popular than Hangouts, even if Hangouts got pushed down the throats of every Android user.