4 ms·

Why did we as consumers accept this? I remember back when MSN/Windows Live Messenger used to be one of the most popular options out there. Even though I used U

Why did we as consumers accept this? I remember back when MSN/Windows Live Messenger used to be one of the most popular options out there. Even though I used Ubuntu, I could still chat with my friends through the Pidgin messenger. This was all possible through the XMPP interface, which still exists by the way. It's not just that these new messaging platforms are adding no extra value, they are creating worse experiences, and we're buying into it. You now have to install half a dozen messaging apps just to keep up (WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook, etc.) . And now we're suddenly talking about reinventing the wheel.

croes 5y ago
Because SMS was expensive
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
oarsinsync 5y ago
> Why did we as consumers accept this? Short term thinking and focus on new shiny features over long term sustainability. It's a pattern we see repeated in many aspects of society, not just messaging. Combine this with network effects and it ceases to matter that a minority of people have the time and interest to think about the long term, the majority have already made the decision, and your choices are to either be left out, or participate. It's frustrating, but it's one of those things when a large enough sample of the population are living lives which have much bigger problems than messenger lock-ins. tl;dr: stickers
lotsofpulp 5y ago
How easy is it to send full quality videos and pictures via XMPP? I feel like the main difference from my Pidgin days and today is that these days there is a metric ton of large media files being sent around.
- ryukafalz 5y ago
  Easy, on some clients/with some servers. These days they do it the same way as most other platforms, by uploading the media to a web server. It took the ecosystem a while to catch up to that though, and there are plenty of clients out there that still don’t support it.
  - zaik 5y ago
    > there are plenty of clients out there that still don’t support it Which ones don't?
    - ryukafalz 5y ago
      Pidgin on Windows, for one. And even on other platforms you have to compile and install the third-party plugin for it yourself, it doesn’t ship with Pidgin - this is beyond what I would expect most users to do. (I imagine the same is true for Adium as they’re both libpurple clients, but I don’t have a Mac handy to check.) Those two alone are the clients that most Windows/Mac XMPP users I know reach for first, probably out of familiarity.
- MattJ100 5y ago
  It's as easy as via any other method. XMPP supports both server-intermediated transfers (where the file is uploaded to the server - this is what almost all platforms choose to do these days), but it also supports negotiated p2p streamed transfers (suitable for huge files, essentially unlimited, but less reliable, e.g. it requires both sender and recipient to be online at the same time).
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I assumed it costs Apple quite a bit for the bandwidth and storage of all the media files they send, and hence why Apple is the only one that offers to do it at full quality. I assume it costs Meta a lot too, and so they reduce the quality of media flying around on WhatsApp. Would others have to be able and willing to pick up these costs if the networks were opened up? I am thinking even if Apple/Meta were forced to open their networks, they would balk at subsidizing outsiders. I am not clear what the backend costs and cost allocation would be, for example, if someone using iMessage sends me a 4K video to me and I am not using iMessage, and I am offline, but I will expect to see it next time I open up Pidgin on my laptop.
zaik 5y ago
> Why did we as consumers accept this? You don't have to. If you say you're only reachable with apps that support XMPP then generally people who care about chatting with you will use that. That's what I have been doing since January last year when WhatsApp changed its ToS.

croes 5y ago

Because SMS was expensive

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

oarsinsync 5y ago

> Why did we as consumers accept this? Short term thinking and focus on new shiny features over long term sustainability. It's a pattern we see repeated in many aspects of society, not just messaging. Combine this with network effects and it ceases to matter that a minority of people have the time and interest to think about the long term, the majority have already made the decision, and your choices are to either be left out, or participate. It's frustrating, but it's one of those things when a large enough sample of the population are living lives which have much bigger problems than messenger lock-ins. tl;dr: stickers

lotsofpulp 5y ago

How easy is it to send full quality videos and pictures via XMPP? I feel like the main difference from my Pidgin days and today is that these days there is a metric ton of large media files being sent around.

ryukafalz 5y ago
Easy, on some clients/with some servers. These days they do it the same way as most other platforms, by uploading the media to a web server. It took the ecosystem a while to catch up to that though, and there are plenty of clients out there that still don’t support it.
- zaik 5y ago
  > there are plenty of clients out there that still don’t support it Which ones don't?
  - ryukafalz 5y ago
    Pidgin on Windows, for one. And even on other platforms you have to compile and install the third-party plugin for it yourself, it doesn’t ship with Pidgin - this is beyond what I would expect most users to do. (I imagine the same is true for Adium as they’re both libpurple clients, but I don’t have a Mac handy to check.) Those two alone are the clients that most Windows/Mac XMPP users I know reach for first, probably out of familiarity.
MattJ100 5y ago
It's as easy as via any other method. XMPP supports both server-intermediated transfers (where the file is uploaded to the server - this is what almost all platforms choose to do these days), but it also supports negotiated p2p streamed transfers (suitable for huge files, essentially unlimited, but less reliable, e.g. it requires both sender and recipient to be online at the same time).
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I assumed it costs Apple quite a bit for the bandwidth and storage of all the media files they send, and hence why Apple is the only one that offers to do it at full quality. I assume it costs Meta a lot too, and so they reduce the quality of media flying around on WhatsApp. Would others have to be able and willing to pick up these costs if the networks were opened up? I am thinking even if Apple/Meta were forced to open their networks, they would balk at subsidizing outsiders. I am not clear what the backend costs and cost allocation would be, for example, if someone using iMessage sends me a 4K video to me and I am not using iMessage, and I am offline, but I will expect to see it next time I open up Pidgin on my laptop.

zaik 5y ago

> Why did we as consumers accept this? You don't have to. If you say you're only reachable with apps that support XMPP then generally people who care about chatting with you will use that. That's what I have been doing since January last year when WhatsApp changed its ToS.