4 ms·

I think there are multiple reasons why multi-protocol mobile clients haven't taken off: 1. More complicated protocols. iMessage and Skype are many times more c

by xnyhps 11y ago

I think there are multiple reasons why multi-protocol mobile clients haven't taken off: 1. More complicated protocols. iMessage and Skype are many times more complicated than AIM/ICQ, MSN or YIM, with lots of layers of custom encryption and authentication. Reverse engineering of these protocols has never been close to done. 2. Battery usage. Each new account you add is (likely) another connection that you have to keep open. With one connection you can apply optimizations like the server bundling packets, but you can not do that when you need to keep connections to many different services.

darklajid 11y ago
Given that I know your account/where you're coming from: What's your take on multi-protocol .. servers today? Let's call them 'transports'?
- xnyhps 11y ago
  I've used a transport for a while, but I've never successfully done a file transfer using one. Voice/video over transports is going to be even harder to do. I think that makes it a dead-end for most people. Trust is also a difficult problem with transports, as they often need to store your passwords in plain. A single server storing your Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft passwords just does not sound like a great idea to me.
douche 11y ago
Skype is actually not that complicated a protocol - at least on the enterprise side. It is basically just straight SIP messaging, with a few Microsoft-specific extensions.
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  "enterprise skype" is just a renamed microsoft lync and has nothing to do with the real skype besides branding nonsense.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Do you mean "Skype for Business" aka Lync? Cause that's really totally unrelated to Skype except for questionable branding. Skype used a heavily obfuscated system, with all sorts of anti-reversing technology. And the protocol flowchart for Lync is complicated as all hell, even with SIP at the core. (More complicated than SIP usually is.) I wonder if Skype itself falls under MS's legal obligations to publish protocol descriptions.

by xnyhps 11y ago

darklajid 11y ago

Given that I know your account/where you're coming from: What's your take on multi-protocol .. servers today? Let's call them 'transports'?

xnyhps 11y ago
I've used a transport for a while, but I've never successfully done a file transfer using one. Voice/video over transports is going to be even harder to do. I think that makes it a dead-end for most people. Trust is also a difficult problem with transports, as they often need to store your passwords in plain. A single server storing your Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft passwords just does not sound like a great idea to me.

douche 11y ago

Skype is actually not that complicated a protocol - at least on the enterprise side. It is basically just straight SIP messaging, with a few Microsoft-specific extensions.

throwaway2048 11y ago
"enterprise skype" is just a renamed microsoft lync and has nothing to do with the real skype besides branding nonsense.
MichaelGG 11y ago
Do you mean "Skype for Business" aka Lync? Cause that's really totally unrelated to Skype except for questionable branding. Skype used a heavily obfuscated system, with all sorts of anti-reversing technology. And the protocol flowchart for Lync is complicated as all hell, even with SIP at the core. (More complicated than SIP usually is.) I wonder if Skype itself falls under MS's legal obligations to publish protocol descriptions.