Live data from Hacker News

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

slate.com

131–140 of 295 posts

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

#131
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Jabber was XML based. Matrix is JSON Based! If only we would've chosen the right technology, people would've used it. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0295.html

edit: it's a joke. I'm an idiot.

You're missing the sarcasm.

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

#132
post #43
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mixing GChat with Hangout. GChat was(is) minimal and very useful.

You're right. Point still stands that google's design choices are god awful these days, though.

People complain about that with Apple too 'these days'. So if the biggest mobile players and one of the biggest web players are bad at design/ux is it just the few people in the world who care about this kind of thing all being on HN or is there some objective measure for this? I'm asking because I don't see it and I know almost no-one who does, then again I am and know mostly hardcore techies (who prefer text only interfaces) or people who do not work in IT and both really do not see it.

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

#134
post #129

We already have a perfect messaging system that is fully interoperatble, works, is relieable and doesn't need a new account because everybody has one: emails. You can perfectly chat with emails, the problem are that all clients make you use emails as digital letters instead of chats. But you could perfectly imagine an email client doing what gchat used to do.

Email isn't fast enough. Gchat was/is faster.

Text messages are very slow, and nobody minds. People on iMessage don't see the difference.

It's more a metter of perception. When you click on a mail, it takes a lot of time to type, then your UI have a delay to say it's sent, then you have this time taken by many clients to move your mail to the proper folder. But a proper mail-chat client would just make the message appear as sent, then to all the stuff in background, and you would just not see it slower than other chat. The time people take to answer you message is usually the bottleneck, not the network.

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

#135
post #66

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!

This. Hideous and awful.

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

#138
post #46

Who is building the open-source Slack? Four things are needed: 1. Good support for multiple active clients, including mobile. If I see a message on desktop, I shouldn't get notified on mobile. If I read on one client, when I reconnect on another, it should show me the convo starting where I left off. Etc etc. 2. Eternal history (ideally configurable by users/channels) with decent search. 3. A few basic bells-and-whis…

Although it's not open sourced, you should check out discord (https://discordapp.com/). Although our niche is gamers, lots of people use Discord for tons of other things. We've got all those things except search (but we're working on it!)

(disclosure: i work there)

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

#140
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The "Don't be Evil" is so vague that it was obviously just for show right from the start.

Reflecting on it led me to use 'be nice' as our company policy. It's vague too but it has been a useful guide towards doing the right thing on occasions. Mottoes are necessarily vague.
Post reply on HN