291–295 of 295 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We had jabber for a decade at least. The battle for messaging market share doesn't seem technological. Heck you even had the option to federate private servers so one could address users across hosts.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WhatsApp came to Europe at a time when there was a strong need to replace badly overpriced SMS. In the US most telco's offered subscriptions with free, unlimited SMS and WhatsApp didn't provide any immediate benefit. Facebook Messenger came later, but had the ability to send messages without contact information, giving people in the US a reason to adopt it. By now, most people in Europe also have Messenger, but still…
I think this theory is quite solid. For some reason denmark has always (or at least for a very long time) had unlimited sms/mms in most subscriptions. We also have a low WhatsApp adoption rate. Lately fb-messenger is winning territority (and so is snapchat, but for other reasons), since it offers good group chat on top of a service that already covers north of 80% of the entire population.
Chat itself should now be viewed as a commodity, it's the features that's built on top of it that will differentiate one platform over the other.
Enterprise chat used to be a differentiator, but everyones doing that now too.
I think document sharing (Dropbox, Google Drive) and chat are basically in the same place right now in that both have been democratized and both have an over saturation of similar services.
I love Gmail and wish Hangouts got more love. Obviously Gmail is hugely successful in email, and an email address is identity for most services. On the other hand, mobile is where the puck is going, and the base identity for mobile is phone number. Hence, Allo and Duo. I am loyal to Hangouts because everything I read and write becomes easily searchable. I don't want to lose all that history. And it also sounds like a…
> On the other hand, mobile is where the puck is going, and the base identity for mobile is phone number. I don't get this. Just because you're using a device that has historically been tied to a specific method of identification doesn't mean that you have to limit yourself to that? Should desktop chat clients start only identifying people by IP addresses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait are you saying that XMPP was forced out (solely) by Google, and that Google at some point monopolized the "instant messenger" market? Not to mention that XMPP is a standard, not a competitor. This is like saying that modern companies are monopolizing against SOAP or YAML.
> (solely) by Google I didn't say anything about other players in the "chat" market. > Google at some point monopolized the "instant messenger" No, the have dominance in the email market (I mentioned gmail). They used the position of power in the email market to limit XMPP and support their new Hangouts service. Just like Microsoft used to do, Google broke their support of the protocol. While most of the protocol sti…
No its not. Unless you're claiming that this is a form of product tying, but that would require that
1. Gmail held a monopoly or near monopoly over the email market at the time 2. hangouts was a service that people needed (or that to use gmail, you also were forced to use hangouts)
Neither of those were the case.