3 ms·

Google killed Talk (XMPP), replaced it with hangouts, and is suddenly offering to replace my SMS app and send them all through hangouts. I get that this works

Google killed Talk (XMPP), replaced it with hangouts, and is suddenly offering to replace my SMS app and send them all through hangouts. I get that this works as a direct competitor to Messages, but I'd really rather just see Jabber or something like it here.

xur17 13y ago
I agree. I'm pretty much okay with any standard, as long as it's, well 'standard'. It just seems a bit ridiculous to have all these different apps essentially doing the same thing, but with different front end interfaces, and unable to communicate with each other.
- rakoo 13y ago
  XMPP is standard. Grab a client for the platform of your choice [0], open an account on ddg.gg (duckduckgo's xmpp server), and you're done. I personnally use pidgin on the desktop and chatsecure on Android. The only thing XMPP is lacking is marketing. Multi-billion-dollars-level marketing; shouldn't be too hard to do, right ? [0] http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/clients/ http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/clients/
  - dmdeller 13y ago
    XMPP is not technically well-suited to mobile devices. It was designed with a base-level assumption that any client will maintain a constant TCP connection in order to receive messages. This doesn't fit well with mobile devices, which spend most of their time 'off' and try to have as little software running concurrently as possible in order to save battery life. Some mobile XMPP clients have come up with various clever workarounds, but all of them are hacks. For example, by keeping the 'real' XMPP connection open indefinitely on a remote, third-party server, and then communicating with the mobile app using a custom proprietary protocol that doesn't have this assumption. A new protocol is needed. In fact, just the other day there was a story on HN where the original creator of XMPP said the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6849755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6849755 The merits of his proposed solution are another matter, though.
    - chrisballinger 13y ago
      We are working on a federated, protocol agnostic push server design here: https://github.com/ChatSecure/ChatSecure-Push-Server/tree/master/docs/v3 https://github.com/ChatSecure/ChatSecure-Push-Server/tree/ma...
    - kazagistar 13y ago
      XMPP never got to the point where it was good enough at video, audio, or even large chatrooms, and so other chat clients took the initiative.
    - rakoo 13y ago
      So, BOSH [0], aka XMPP-over-HTTP ? Originally intended to allow XMPP in the browser, it turned out [1] to be solving a lot of other problems, including the frequent disconnections of a smartphone. [0] http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0206.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0206.html [1] https://metajack.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/xmpp-is-better-with-bosh/ https://metajack.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/xmpp-is-better-wit...
dvanduzer 13y ago
There are plenty of reasons XMPP succeeded where it succeeded and failed where it failed. I don't recall if this made the HN front page, but there was some news this week of interest: http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/4/5173726/you-have-too-many-chat-apps-can-layer-connect-them http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/4/5173726/you-have-too-many-... edit: ugh, jer beat me to it by hours

xur17 13y ago

I agree. I'm pretty much okay with any standard, as long as it's, well 'standard'. It just seems a bit ridiculous to have all these different apps essentially doing the same thing, but with different front end interfaces, and unable to communicate with each other.

rakoo 13y ago
XMPP is standard. Grab a client for the platform of your choice [0], open an account on ddg.gg (duckduckgo's xmpp server), and you're done. I personnally use pidgin on the desktop and chatsecure on Android. The only thing XMPP is lacking is marketing. Multi-billion-dollars-level marketing; shouldn't be too hard to do, right ? [0] http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/clients/ http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/clients/
- dmdeller 13y ago
  XMPP is not technically well-suited to mobile devices. It was designed with a base-level assumption that any client will maintain a constant TCP connection in order to receive messages. This doesn't fit well with mobile devices, which spend most of their time 'off' and try to have as little software running concurrently as possible in order to save battery life. Some mobile XMPP clients have come up with various clever workarounds, but all of them are hacks. For example, by keeping the 'real' XMPP connection open indefinitely on a remote, third-party server, and then communicating with the mobile app using a custom proprietary protocol that doesn't have this assumption. A new protocol is needed. In fact, just the other day there was a story on HN where the original creator of XMPP said the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6849755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6849755 The merits of his proposed solution are another matter, though.
  - chrisballinger 13y ago
    We are working on a federated, protocol agnostic push server design here: https://github.com/ChatSecure/ChatSecure-Push-Server/tree/master/docs/v3 https://github.com/ChatSecure/ChatSecure-Push-Server/tree/ma...
  - kazagistar 13y ago
    XMPP never got to the point where it was good enough at video, audio, or even large chatrooms, and so other chat clients took the initiative.
  - rakoo 13y ago
    So, BOSH [0], aka XMPP-over-HTTP ? Originally intended to allow XMPP in the browser, it turned out [1] to be solving a lot of other problems, including the frequent disconnections of a smartphone. [0] http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0206.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0206.html [1] https://metajack.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/xmpp-is-better-with-bosh/ https://metajack.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/xmpp-is-better-wit...

dvanduzer 13y ago

There are plenty of reasons XMPP succeeded where it succeeded and failed where it failed. I don't recall if this made the HN front page, but there was some news this week of interest: http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/4/5173726/you-have-too-many-chat-apps-can-layer-connect-them http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/4/5173726/you-have-too-many-... edit: ugh, jer beat me to it by hours