5 ms·

I think we can all see how wonderful email is because of its interoperability and many of us wish IM had that. When Google announced XMPP federation, it felt l

by mdasen 13y ago

I think we can all see how wonderful email is because of its interoperability and many of us wish IM had that. When Google announced XMPP federation, it felt like it could be the start of something better. It wasn't. Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo didn't play along and even big third parties that used XMPP wanted to keep a walled-garden. But when Google kiled federation, it was a blow (at least to me). It meant that it wasn't going to happen. As long as Google was federating, there was that glimmer of hope that things might change. Maybe some startup will be open and awesome and it will kick-off change once people see how interoperability makes things great like email. Maybe even Microsoft or Yahoo would switch and it would pressure others creating a cascade. Today, even if Yahoo decided "open is the way to go for IM," they don't have Google already there. There had always been the possibility that someone big would join Google's openness. There isn't that possibility now. I don't think it's hard to argue that things that are universal are better in a lot of circumstances. I can call anyone via phone number, I can email anyone via their email address. It's awesome. With something like Skype, I can only connect with Skype users. That's less great. Not only do I have to use Skype, I have to convince others to use it as well. People have to buy into Skype. When I switched to Gmail early on, it didn't matter if others didn't use Gmail. If something new and great comes along in the IM space, it likely won't get traction because of the network effects. I know that one can point to counter-examples. That isn't the point. The point is that users should be able to use and migrate to better services. The openness of email allowed Gmail to thrive with a low cost of switching. I don't blame Google for going closed, but it is sad. It extinguishes some of the hope for something truly better. And it's sad when the champion of open throws in the towel on it. I'm not trying to canonize Google, but they have pushed for a decent amount of openness on the internet and when they've given up on open IM, it's hard to imagine someone else (who is big and influential) picking up the cause.

snuxoll 13y ago
> Maybe even Microsoft or Yahoo would switch and it would pressure others creating a cascade. Microsoft actually made XMPP federation a big deal with Lync Server 2013, there used to be an entire server role that needed to be installed for federation but now it's just part of the edge server role as an optional feature. Even Microsoft sees federation as being important, too bad Google doesn't.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  They do see it as an important way to lose customers.
sneak 13y ago
> When Google announced XMPP federation, it felt like it could be the start of something better. It wasn't. Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo didn't play along and even big third parties that used XMPP wanted to keep a walled-garden. But when Google kiled federation, it was a blow (at least to me). It meant that it wasn't going to happen. Nobody's built the killer realtime messaging app yet. Skype is the closest we have, and it sucks on the iPhone and has no web interface so it doesn't run on ChromeOS. WhatsApp doesn't work on tablets and requires a phone number as your primary identity. Facebook and Twitter DM have become large, but aren't there yet because they don't do video/voice and don't federate (and at least in Twitter's case, don't sync read/unread between devices). iMessage and FaceTime would be it, bar none, if it worked on non-Apple hardware - if only from the bootstrap momentum of every single iOS user. There is opportunity here. If I wanted to be in the software development business, I would solve this problem and eat WhatApp's lunch. Ideally it'd be federated, but that's not a hard requirement. It just needs to work perfectly on every device that every person sends and receives messages from. That's not that hard these days, which is why it's baffling that nobody's built it yet. I have an inkling that Hangouts is attempting to become that thing. If indeed that's their plan, they will easily crush Skype.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  Ha, even people here can't see the value in decentralization and peer-to-peer connection. Startups think "we'll just get enough users on our proprietary network; ???; profit!" and big companies want the lockin. Hangouts does everything I need and it does it exceedingly well, but I hate using it knowing how locked in I am.
  - sneak 13y ago
    I use iMessage constantly, and while the lock-in bugs me theoretically, everyone I need to talk to regularly uses iOS, so it does not actually practically affect me very often. The last time I can recall it being an issue was when I went to message someone who was SMS-only from my iPad. The whole SMS-overloading thing for iMessage is the most effective/profitable marketing decision Apple has ever made, I think.

by mdasen 13y ago

snuxoll 13y ago

> Maybe even Microsoft or Yahoo would switch and it would pressure others creating a cascade. Microsoft actually made XMPP federation a big deal with Lync Server 2013, there used to be an entire server role that needed to be installed for federation but now it's just part of the edge server role as an optional feature. Even Microsoft sees federation as being important, too bad Google doesn't.

Spooky23 13y ago
They do see it as an important way to lose customers.

sneak 13y ago

> When Google announced XMPP federation, it felt like it could be the start of something better. It wasn't. Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo didn't play along and even big third parties that used XMPP wanted to keep a walled-garden. But when Google kiled federation, it was a blow (at least to me). It meant that it wasn't going to happen. Nobody's built the killer realtime messaging app yet. Skype is the closest we have, and it sucks on the iPhone and has no web interface so it doesn't run on ChromeOS. WhatsApp doesn't work on tablets and requires a phone number as your primary identity. Facebook and Twitter DM have become large, but aren't there yet because they don't do video/voice and don't federate (and at least in Twitter's case, don't sync read/unread between devices). iMessage and FaceTime would be it, bar none, if it worked on non-Apple hardware - if only from the bootstrap momentum of every single iOS user. There is opportunity here. If I wanted to be in the software development business, I would solve this problem and eat WhatApp's lunch. Ideally it'd be federated, but that's not a hard requirement. It just needs to work perfectly on every device that every person sends and receives messages from. That's not that hard these days, which is why it's baffling that nobody's built it yet. I have an inkling that Hangouts is attempting to become that thing. If indeed that's their plan, they will easily crush Skype.

drivebyacct2 13y ago
Ha, even people here can't see the value in decentralization and peer-to-peer connection. Startups think "we'll just get enough users on our proprietary network; ???; profit!" and big companies want the lockin. Hangouts does everything I need and it does it exceedingly well, but I hate using it knowing how locked in I am.
- sneak 13y ago
  I use iMessage constantly, and while the lock-in bugs me theoretically, everyone I need to talk to regularly uses iOS, so it does not actually practically affect me very often. The last time I can recall it being an issue was when I went to message someone who was SMS-only from my iPad. The whole SMS-overloading thing for iMessage is the most effective/profitable marketing decision Apple has ever made, I think.