11 ms·

Google Talk never gained mass adoption. Google was punished by their competitors by adopting open standards, like XMPP and OpenID, when some competitors impleme

Google Talk never gained mass adoption. Google was punished by their competitors by adopting open standards, like XMPP and OpenID, when some competitors implemented "one way" interoperabilility to siphon off users. I favor federated open standards, but let's not rewrite history. Google Talk was never mass adopted or a market leader, MSN, Yahoo Messenger, AOL Messenger always had way more market share. I mean, good lord, you're calling for regulations to penalize Google over failed messaging products, why don't you call on regulations to force Apple and Facebook who own the world's most popular messaging platforms, to open up their protocols to federation?

toomuchtodo 9y ago
If you want to propose legislation to require Apple and Facebook to allow interoperability, I will get it in front of federal legislators.
cornholio 9y ago
how exactly does one siphon users by implementing one-way federation in XMPP?
- cromwellian 9y ago
  The same way iMessage siphons from SMS. You embrace-and-extend, crafting a proprietary protocol closed service with a bridge to an open one. You gain users by allowing people to inter operate with friends outside your proprietary service: normally a "cost" and impediment to your users, all the while creating incentives to onboard their friends. Once they're onboarded, they become locked in, and gradually you can reduce interoperability with the federation.
  - cornholio 9y ago
    Well, I would say that applies to open protocols themselves, like SMS and XMPP - in fact Google did it also. But when two service providers interoperate and build more features to entice users to move to their platform, I would call it fair competition not siphoning; there is no "one way" aspect, you either federate or not. What I want to say is that killing XMPP federation was a deliberate stab against a competitive market, not some reasonable defense against being taken advantage of, it's exactly the final "reduce interoperability" step you talk about. Unless competition regulators disagree, it's fair game for Google, but the consumers certainly stand to lose.
Promarged 9y ago
I've been pondering this for a while. The standard thinking is if everyone federated (e.g. XMPP in Facebook, Gmail) it would be good. But look at it from another perspective. Then your main account, your identity would be permanently tied to one provider (Facebook, Google) as your JID would end with @facebook.com. The only true solution is to use your own domain and then, if possible, delegate to hosted server. If the provider does something that you don't like you just change provider or host your own. And one's @gmail.com address will always be hosted by Google.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

If you want to propose legislation to require Apple and Facebook to allow interoperability, I will get it in front of federal legislators.

cornholio 9y ago

how exactly does one siphon users by implementing one-way federation in XMPP?

cromwellian 9y ago
The same way iMessage siphons from SMS. You embrace-and-extend, crafting a proprietary protocol closed service with a bridge to an open one. You gain users by allowing people to inter operate with friends outside your proprietary service: normally a "cost" and impediment to your users, all the while creating incentives to onboard their friends. Once they're onboarded, they become locked in, and gradually you can reduce interoperability with the federation.
- cornholio 9y ago
  Well, I would say that applies to open protocols themselves, like SMS and XMPP - in fact Google did it also. But when two service providers interoperate and build more features to entice users to move to their platform, I would call it fair competition not siphoning; there is no "one way" aspect, you either federate or not. What I want to say is that killing XMPP federation was a deliberate stab against a competitive market, not some reasonable defense against being taken advantage of, it's exactly the final "reduce interoperability" step you talk about. Unless competition regulators disagree, it's fair game for Google, but the consumers certainly stand to lose.

Promarged 9y ago

I've been pondering this for a while. The standard thinking is if everyone federated (e.g. XMPP in Facebook, Gmail) it would be good. But look at it from another perspective. Then your main account, your identity would be permanently tied to one provider (Facebook, Google) as your JID would end with @facebook.com. The only true solution is to use your own domain and then, if possible, delegate to hosted server. If the provider does something that you don't like you just change provider or host your own. And one's @gmail.com address will always be hosted by Google.