Live data from Hacker News

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

slate.com

221–230 of 295 posts

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

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> […] in a world where clients are all free and the identifier of choice is the phone number […] To me this translates to: “Please run our proprietary software to participate and use a high-value nearly unique identifier to identify yourself — we really like to know that john.doe@gmail.com is the same person as feetfetish33 so we can better quantify you for targeted advertising.” I am willing to entertain the notion…

I have yet to encounter a chat network that uses targeted advertising, so you're well off into the realm of conspiracy theories there. Chat networks are all moving to the use of phone numbers because users mobile phonebooks are a vendor neutral, open access social network of high value contacts that almost everyone has and for which there are simple APIs available. Phone numbers have other advantages. They are diffic…

> I have yet to encounter a chat network that uses targeted advertising, so you're well off into the realm of conspiracy theories there.

You won't see that because that is not what makes the phone number so useful. Its biggest benefit is being able to correlate all those separate data profiles via one unique key. This makes these profiles more valuable to advertisers. You won't see advertisements in most of these apps (it would drive users to the competition) but they don't have to; they just show them in the browser. They already know it is you thanks to the ubiquitous social media buttons and tracking going on.

This is largely conjecture, sure, but the fact that using your phone number is a requirement rather than an option makes me suspicious.

Sometimes I don't mind if two services know that I am the same person, but I would like to be able to choose for myself. Sometimes I do like to use a throw-away email address and a VPN to use some service, simply because I care about my privacy. Often I don't feel that a service needs to know who I am beyond an alias.

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

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and this is the problem with the state of messaging in 2016. The companies have built their walled gardens and are now actively defending them against "outsiders". It's to the point where I've considered buying an iDevice just to communicate with a few friends on iMessage.

Convince them to get Telegram. It works on most devices, and has extensibility built in: https://telegram.org/blog/bot-revolution https://core.telegram.org/api

Already did with the in-laws. :-)

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

#223
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It already happened for personal correspondence (facebook) and I'm sure at some point it'll happen for work correspondence too. I don't know the numbers but I'm part of the population that never used Facebook, so I'm unconvinced you can generalize like that. > Put simply, in a world where clients are all free and the identifier of choice is the phone number, federation doesn't add much value. I didn't really unders…

Moxie's argument is that interop takes place at the level of the operating system's notification tray. If you want to make a better WhatsApp, all you have to do is ... build a better app. The traditional obstacles are largely gone in the mobile world: • You can access the same social graph just by requesting the contacts permission on your mobile phone: it's not like Facebook where the social network is locked away.…

All those are true, but still iMessage is an important reason for many to pay more for an iPhone. So still it's pretty hard to create an attractive alternative, wouldn't you say ?

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

#224

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.

SMTP is a store and forward protocol that in no way provides real time chat speeds. It is designed to be robust, not fast.

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

#225

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.

Tachonomy isn't the word you meant to use there. In fact, it's not a word. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tachonomy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Taxonomy

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

#226

Nope, totally wrong. Slack moved in at the exact right time for Slack to have moved in. The world needed a chat app that was easy to jump into and could be separate from their private world. Gchat was not and could never be that, because Gchat was associated with personal accounts. It's been a while since we've had a decent chat client that we could use for work (no, you would not get designers, marketing and sales t…

Keeping a separate work account is easy. Just create one. I don't understand why people just don't do this more often.

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

#227
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.mattermost.org/ is doing it

Technically Mattermost is very interesting. Unfortunately I cannot figure out their licensing scheme and business model. The license file mentions several licenses: AGPL, Apache 2, and the MIT license. They seem to apply separate licenses to binaries that they publish vs the open source repository. Is there an implied open core business model somewhere? How do I know when Mattermost Inc will show up and demand money…

Why not ask them to clarify?

Mattermost is explicitly a self-hosted solution. Their license does not appear strange to me; you can either use their builds, or build from source and adhere to the AGPL.

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

#228
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Outside the US, WhatsApp is winning because of network effects. In which country? Because I have tons of messengers installed and so do most people I know outside the US.

I know that WhatsApp is immensely popular in Germany. Most of my friends (me too) don't even have Facebook, and those who do, don't even use it regularly. WhatsApp on the other hand, is more trusted than Email - When some friend sends me an email, he asks me via WhatsApp if I revived it. Group Chats, especially with younger folks, are numerous and used for anything, even though the technology is obviously lacking, wh…

Sample size of one for me....

I was in Germany two weeks ago and I tried to get my colleagues on chat...any chat...when I mentioned WhatsApp, they all looked at me like I had a unicorn horn growing out of my forehead. So far I have been unsuccessful in getting any of my team on a chat platform on a regular basis. My company supposedly endorses Lync 2010 (yeah, I know), but probably less than 10% of my coworkers use it and the entire division in Germany doesn't even have it installed on their PC's. Our Lync is also broken by the fact that corporate IT doesn't allow it on mobile platforms.

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

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, un…

That's not much different than dropping xmpp federation: Microsoft was charging them for the patent license on ActiveSync, AND attacking android at the same time. So Google dropped ActiveSync at the point in time when it hurt Microsoft most - WP8 release. Microsoft's response was "no no no, don't pay for ActiveSync but please keep it up" Historically, Google drops features when they don't make financial sense or when…

Right, now try setting up Outlook 2016 with Gmail. It has nothing to do with financial sense, they intentionally broke the functionality. That's anti-competitive. You can search for the various people having problems with it. If Microsoft had done what Google did, they'd have made the front news of major publications for being anti-competitive. Google is a darling, so they get away with murder. This is just a minor example.

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

#230
Hangouts was horrible to me for just one reason - on the smartphone, it hid info on who is online right now.. perhaps this was designed to motivate us to send more messages, but it meant i could no longer easily know if someone might answer now, or if i better try sms/call/.. and then as of recently, Hangouts just fails to notify me of messages, or keeps re-notifying me of old ones, and now i barely use it any more.

Google+ had a similar design decision, when it showed (don't know if this changed) friend suggestions without indicating if those people actually use Google+, or if your adding them to a circle will just spam them to join a social network they don't (want to) use. it's understandable that Google might want to do these things to grow their platforms, but without tact and understanding for what the users really want, they're achieving the opposite.

Post reply on HN