5 ms·
WhatsApp is AFAIK based on XMPP. Anyway, the protocol in use isn't important from a user perspective. Using XMPP or being 'open' isn't relevant to users, ease
by chmars 14y ago
WhatsApp is AFAIK based on XMPP.
Anyway, the protocol in use isn't important from a user perspective. Using XMPP or being 'open' isn't relevant to users, ease of use and network effects are.
Skype is another example IMHO.
- andor 14y agoThe idea behind "being open" and "using XMPP" is to make network effects irrelevant: XMPP federation allows you to talk to anybody also using XMPP, regardless of their service provider -- imagine messaging Facebook Messenger users seamlessly via WhatsApp. Just like Email works already. That's the point of XMPP. And because XMPP is extensible, providers could still compete on features without locking their users in. Wouldn't that be great? Unfortunately, there's a strong business incentive for user lock-in. Imagine Email were created today instead of 40 years ago. We'd have a myriad of startups trying to make a buck from incompatible services. "Our new customer uses Exchange, does anybody have an Exchange account so I can email him?" As long as companies are trying to make products out of the social need to communicate, and thereby fight for the triviality of who gets to route the messages, there won't be much innovation on top of these services.