4 ms·

Not sure I buy that explanation. More likely is thst there's too little business advantage to being compatible with others and too much business advantage to ha

Not sure I buy that explanation. More likely is thst there's too little business advantage to being compatible with others and too much business advantage to having people inside your own ecosystem. Simple as that. There's just very little motivation for compatibility between these systems unless you are open source.

xg15 2y ago
This. Thinking that the complexity of a spec is the primary obstacle to adoption seems logical at first. But it can't be true if you consider that the specs of all kinds of "foundational technologies" we use daily - HTML/CSS/JS/the DOM, IMAP, USB, IP, etc - are not just complicated but often downright messy, full of overengeneered, inconsistent or contradictory features. I'd argue that the "beauty" or "ugliness" of a spec can make the life of the particular programmer who has to implement it slightly easier or harder - but it has very little effect on whether it is implemented or not. That's a product decision which follows completely different considerations.
CharlieDigital 2y ago
Agreed. Back in the 2011 timeline, I printed and read the spec front-to-back to implement what was effectively an "early Microsoft Teams" (a real-time, chat-oriented client connected to SharePoint)[0] using XMPP. The spec is very easy to read, understand, and implement. I think on top of your points (and maybe adjacent or extended from that point) is that I think some entities like Google were probably seeking more wire efficiency over the XMPP protocol and possibly wanted to innovate/iterate faster. There was a wave of "real-time" collaborative apps at that time and I can appreciate the need for teams to innovate faster. [0] Short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_W0VxjzbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_W0VxjzbM
WD-42 2y ago
This 100%. It’s hard to serve ads to someone using your service through a text based irc client running 24/7 on a vps
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
My frustration with "too complex" is high. Criticism in general often devolves to very broad heresay & un-backed opinions, but man, too complex is just one of the weakest by far at this. Few people have spent the time to get to know a protocol or system well enough to know what really was unnecessary or bad. The ability to crash out & then talk smack is high. Most haters haven't even earned that right! XMPP is pretty simple to get started with. Theres not that many extensions you "really should have". The extension model let them grow & adapt well over time, giving more weight to the underlying eXtensibility model. I tend to agree it was mainly a push for privatization & lack of interest in economic mutualism that lead to drift away from XMPP.

xg15 2y ago

This. Thinking that the complexity of a spec is the primary obstacle to adoption seems logical at first. But it can't be true if you consider that the specs of all kinds of "foundational technologies" we use daily - HTML/CSS/JS/the DOM, IMAP, USB, IP, etc - are not just complicated but often downright messy, full of overengeneered, inconsistent or contradictory features. I'd argue that the "beauty" or "ugliness" of a spec can make the life of the particular programmer who has to implement it slightly easier or harder - but it has very little effect on whether it is implemented or not. That's a product decision which follows completely different considerations.

CharlieDigital 2y ago

Agreed. Back in the 2011 timeline, I printed and read the spec front-to-back to implement what was effectively an "early Microsoft Teams" (a real-time, chat-oriented client connected to SharePoint)[0] using XMPP. The spec is very easy to read, understand, and implement. I think on top of your points (and maybe adjacent or extended from that point) is that I think some entities like Google were probably seeking more wire efficiency over the XMPP protocol and possibly wanted to innovate/iterate faster. There was a wave of "real-time" collaborative apps at that time and I can appreciate the need for teams to innovate faster. [0] Short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_W0VxjzbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_W0VxjzbM

WD-42 2y ago

This 100%. It’s hard to serve ads to someone using your service through a text based irc client running 24/7 on a vps

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

My frustration with "too complex" is high. Criticism in general often devolves to very broad heresay & un-backed opinions, but man, too complex is just one of the weakest by far at this. Few people have spent the time to get to know a protocol or system well enough to know what really was unnecessary or bad. The ability to crash out & then talk smack is high. Most haters haven't even earned that right! XMPP is pretty simple to get started with. Theres not that many extensions you "really should have". The extension model let them grow & adapt well over time, giving more weight to the underlying eXtensibility model. I tend to agree it was mainly a push for privatization & lack of interest in economic mutualism that lead to drift away from XMPP.