3 ms·

Yeah sure, but messaging apps don't need new features - they need to simply send messages to each other. Walled gardens suck as a user experience for messaging

Yeah sure, but messaging apps don't need new features - they need to simply send messages to each other. Walled gardens suck as a user experience for messaging apps.

spiffytech 5y ago
> messaging apps don't need new features - they need to simply send messages to each other. Messaging apps have evolved in very pro-user ways over the years. Reactions, threads, voice/video/screenshare, and more are all popular with users. Stuff that we didn't have at all in the AIM era, or maybe only had on one chat platform. And under the hood, I read that an important reason everyone left XMPP is it fundamentally requires an active connection, but that means your phone's radio can never enter low power mode, hurting battery life. I miss Pidgin. I really liked having all my chats in one place. I sort of have that now with Beeper. But it's also clear that we're not done evolving the medium, and standardized protocols, for all their upsides, often crystalize a platform in whatever state it's in when the standard is written.
- zaik 5y ago
  > but that means your phone's radio can never enter low power mode, hurting battery life. This problem has been solved by https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0352.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0352.html
  - spiffytech 5y ago
    > Version 1.0.0 (2020-10-14) Glad to see it's being addressed, but: - The proposal is stable, but not finalized - 13 years is a long time to wait for a solution (iPhone debuted in 2007, got apps in 2008) - Plus however long it takes for implementations to adopt this - Plus whether they adopt it at all, since this is a protocol extension and not a protocol requirement. The XEP requires client-server cooperation, which means the clients and all servers the user connects to have to implement this to see the benefit.
    - zaik 5y ago
      I think most XMPP clients for mobile devices have supported this (and other protocol extensions like push notifications) for quite a while now. Conversations, the most popular one, certainly does.
    - MattJ100 5y ago
      > "The proposal is stable, but not finalized" Is "stable" now a negative thing? I don't understand. If you are referring to the "document lifecycle" at the side of the XEP, and the "Final" status there... "Stable" is the "widespread adoption" stage. "Final" is a dead-end status that means the extension is frozen. It's rarely used for extensions that are actively in use until they are beyond updating. > "13 years is a long time to wait for a solution (iPhone debuted in 2007, got apps in 2008)" This extension was created in 2014, and implementations were already performing traffic optimizations (using other non-standard methods) before then (which is why we decided to standardize it). > "Plus however long it takes for implementations to adopt this" It's already adopted, implemented and deployed. You can see deployment stats at https://compliance.conversations.im/test/xep0352 https://compliance.conversations.im/test/xep0352 - as for the handful of servers there that don't implement it, on investigation these tend to be private, abandoned or special-purpose servers. > "Plus whether they adopt it at all, since this is a protocol extension and not a protocol requirement. The XEP requires client-server cooperation, which means the clients and all servers the user connects to have to implement this to see the benefit." As I said, it's already implemented and adopted in clients and servers. It has been a requirement in the XMPP compliance suites for years (for reference, latest is here: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html#mobile https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html#mobile ). All in all, your comment seems to contain a lot of unfounded scepticism and negativity. This problem is solved, since a long time :)
      - spiffytech 5y ago
        > Is "stable" now a negative thing? The XEP page indicates the proposal is still subject to change ("some changes to the protocol are possible before it becomes a Final Standard.)". That kind of thing sometimes holds up adoption of standards, creates incompatible implementations. But you've demonstrated it clearly doesn't in this case. > This problem is solved, since a long time :) I stand corrected! Thank you for your instructive reply.

Yeah sure, but messaging apps don't need new features - they need to simply send messages to each other. Walled gardens suck as a user experience for messaging apps.

spiffytech 5y ago

> messaging apps don't need new features - they need to simply send messages to each other. Messaging apps have evolved in very pro-user ways over the years. Reactions, threads, voice/video/screenshare, and more are all popular with users. Stuff that we didn't have at all in the AIM era, or maybe only had on one chat platform. And under the hood, I read that an important reason everyone left XMPP is it fundamentally requires an active connection, but that means your phone's radio can never enter low power mode, hurting battery life. I miss Pidgin. I really liked having all my chats in one place. I sort of have that now with Beeper. But it's also clear that we're not done evolving the medium, and standardized protocols, for all their upsides, often crystalize a platform in whatever state it's in when the standard is written.

zaik 5y ago
> but that means your phone's radio can never enter low power mode, hurting battery life. This problem has been solved by https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0352.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0352.html
- spiffytech 5y ago
  > Version 1.0.0 (2020-10-14) Glad to see it's being addressed, but: - The proposal is stable, but not finalized - 13 years is a long time to wait for a solution (iPhone debuted in 2007, got apps in 2008) - Plus however long it takes for implementations to adopt this - Plus whether they adopt it at all, since this is a protocol extension and not a protocol requirement. The XEP requires client-server cooperation, which means the clients and all servers the user connects to have to implement this to see the benefit.
  - zaik 5y ago
    I think most XMPP clients for mobile devices have supported this (and other protocol extensions like push notifications) for quite a while now. Conversations, the most popular one, certainly does.
  - MattJ100 5y ago
    > "The proposal is stable, but not finalized" Is "stable" now a negative thing? I don't understand. If you are referring to the "document lifecycle" at the side of the XEP, and the "Final" status there... "Stable" is the "widespread adoption" stage. "Final" is a dead-end status that means the extension is frozen. It's rarely used for extensions that are actively in use until they are beyond updating. > "13 years is a long time to wait for a solution (iPhone debuted in 2007, got apps in 2008)" This extension was created in 2014, and implementations were already performing traffic optimizations (using other non-standard methods) before then (which is why we decided to standardize it). > "Plus however long it takes for implementations to adopt this" It's already adopted, implemented and deployed. You can see deployment stats at https://compliance.conversations.im/test/xep0352 https://compliance.conversations.im/test/xep0352 - as for the handful of servers there that don't implement it, on investigation these tend to be private, abandoned or special-purpose servers. > "Plus whether they adopt it at all, since this is a protocol extension and not a protocol requirement. The XEP requires client-server cooperation, which means the clients and all servers the user connects to have to implement this to see the benefit." As I said, it's already implemented and adopted in clients and servers. It has been a requirement in the XMPP compliance suites for years (for reference, latest is here: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html#mobile https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html#mobile ). All in all, your comment seems to contain a lot of unfounded scepticism and negativity. This problem is solved, since a long time :)
    - spiffytech 5y ago
      > Is "stable" now a negative thing? The XEP page indicates the proposal is still subject to change ("some changes to the protocol are possible before it becomes a Final Standard.)". That kind of thing sometimes holds up adoption of standards, creates incompatible implementations. But you've demonstrated it clearly doesn't in this case. > This problem is solved, since a long time :) I stand corrected! Thank you for your instructive reply.