Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 295 posts

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#61

Post by partiallypro »

inopinatus wrote: post #11
mmastrac wrote: post #6

We had a clean, functional chat app in Gchat that supported XMPP federation, a reasonably good file transfer protocol (IIRC it could be implemented by others) and a even emoji. When Google dropped XMPP, it was pretty much the death knell for interoperability. Facebook followed suit. I don't get the politics that drives the internal chat product development, but it feels like there's a lot of NIH-related "burn it to t…

The removal of XMPP interoperability was the moment I realised "Don't Be Evil" was just another marketing puff, and not actually a statement of values. But I think the termination of Google Wave (which was also federated and built with XMPP) was the real moment Google gave up on team communications.

I knew Google was "evil" long before then, but the biggest middle finger to me as a customer was dropping ActiveSync. Seriously, try to get Outlook to work with Gmail, it's a totally nightmare. Absolutely unnecessary in its complexity to get it to work (lots of buried settings in Gmail, lots of blocking your sign-ins, Calendar syncs only work one way.) I deplore Google Apps for Business, just a complete nightmare, unfortunately I'm stuck with it.

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#62

Post by Perceptes »

weisser wrote: post #54
Perceptes wrote: post #53

Just about every week now there is a top story on HN about the disastrous state of interoperable messaging in the digital world. Every time it comes up, I implore people to look into Matrix ( https://matrix.org ), a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company. I really hope to see it…

> a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company Half of the people reading tune out very quickly around this point. Most people want something that solves 80% of their problems with 20% reduction in headaches.

Do you mean end users, as in the type of people systems like Slack market to, or are you referring to the failures of previous systems that made open specs and interoperability a goal?

If the former, Matrix the specification and overall system is not what would be sold to the end user. Like you say, most of them don't care how it works or about the philosophical or political reasons why you might choose a system like this. They just want to be able to talk to friends, family, and coworkers and have a good user experience. That's something any company could package and sell in a way that resonated with people, using Matrix as its underlying system.

In other words, Super Awesome Chat, Inc. could create a really slick hosted Matrix service and client with great usability, and the end user wouldn't necessarily know or care about how it worked. In mentioning the open specification, it's not for the benefit of that type of user, but at the HN reader who is likely more informed or interested in the details of the technology, the philosophy, or political/sociological implications.

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#63

Post by hughes »

Perceptes wrote: post #53

Just about every week now there is a top story on HN about the disastrous state of interoperable messaging in the digital world. Every time it comes up, I implore people to look into Matrix ( https://matrix.org ), a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company. I really hope to see it…

"Decentralized persistent communication", as long as you either use a centralized homeserver you don't control, or run a hugely resource-hungry and crash-prone homeserver yourself.

I tried running my own for a few months, and resource demands for even a single user in a few moderately popular channels brought down my small ec2 instance.

Eventually I had to shut it down, but now I've lost my ability to authenticate as the user I identified as during that time, until I set up my homeserver again.

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#64

Post by voltagex_ »

Perceptes wrote: post #53

Just about every week now there is a top story on HN about the disastrous state of interoperable messaging in the digital world. Every time it comes up, I implore people to look into Matrix ( https://matrix.org ), a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company. I really hope to see it…

I really really like the ideas of Matrix, but the problem is none of my friends are on it. I had the same problem when I started to use Signal.

WhatsApp actually seems like the lesser of two evils right now - even though it's controlled by Facebook, they've added encryption and some of my friends are on it.

Who'd have thought we'd look back on the days of MSN, AIM and ICQ as the golden age of interoperable messaging? At least I could talk to everyone I needed to through Gaim (Pidgin) or Trillian.

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#65

Post by Perceptes »

nnain wrote: post #55
Perceptes wrote: post #53

Just about every week now there is a top story on HN about the disastrous state of interoperable messaging in the digital world. Every time it comes up, I implore people to look into Matrix ( https://matrix.org ), a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company. I really hope to see it…

This is cool. But IMHO the point of the article is about Google losing its first-mover advantage in chat apps due to wrong branding and prediction for GChat, not interoperability.

True. My comment is not a response to the particulars of this article, but more about the area of software of which GChat was a member. Apologies for turning it into my own soapbox.

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#66

Post by swrobel »

ec109685 wrote: post #25

Slack nailed it with the notion of teams. You invite someone into a team and there's an instant tachonomy of conversation to join. The ability to be in multiple teams at once is hugely helpful as well.

Yes but each requires its own username/password combo!

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#67

Post by codemac »

voltagex_ wrote: post #64
Perceptes wrote: post #53

Just about every week now there is a top story on HN about the disastrous state of interoperable messaging in the digital world. Every time it comes up, I implore people to look into Matrix ( https://matrix.org ), a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company. I really hope to see it…

I really really like the ideas of Matrix, but the problem is none of my friends are on it. I had the same problem when I started to use Signal. WhatsApp actually seems like the lesser of two evils right now - even though it's controlled by Facebook, they've added encryption and some of my friends are on it. Who'd have thought we'd look back on the days of MSN, AIM and ICQ as the golden age of interoperable messaging?…

> I really really like the ideas of Matrix, but the problem is none of my friends are on it.

Build a whatsapp bridge for matrix? I mean, it's built for the exact case where people aren't "on" it.

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#68

Post by insane_dreamer »

Perceptes wrote: post #53

Just about every week now there is a top story on HN about the disastrous state of interoperable messaging in the digital world. Every time it comes up, I implore people to look into Matrix ( https://matrix.org ), a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company. I really hope to see it…

Problem is the greatest system in the world is useless unless a quorum of people in your circle are using it. I've been trying to get my friends to use Wire for a year but still have to run skype

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#70

Post by Perceptes »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #68
Perceptes wrote: post #53

Just about every week now there is a top story on HN about the disastrous state of interoperable messaging in the digital world. Every time it comes up, I implore people to look into Matrix ( https://matrix.org ), a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company. I really hope to see it…

Problem is the greatest system in the world is useless unless a quorum of people in your circle are using it. I've been trying to get my friends to use Wire for a year but still have to run skype

That's where bridging with other services comes in, e.g. using Matrix on your side to talk to contacts on IRC or whatever else without the people on the other side having to change what system or software they use.
Post reply on HN