451–460 of 504 posts
This blog post mentions following messenger technologies (Google has even more not mentioned here): - Google Talk - Hangouts Meet - Hangouts Chat - Android Messages (something new, never heard of it) (And non-google messenger technologies: SMS, RCS). How user is supposed to navigate all these? Given that all these things are inferior to even Facebook and is ICQ-grade.
I switched back to SMS/MMS, it works every time and never changes.
I’m getting really fed up with Google. Yet another time when they nudge me towards using a service, only to retire it a while later. A separate app for SMS again , just when I’m comfortable with centralizing it in Hangouts. And Allo and Hangouts aren’t compatible, right? Every time I jump on Google’s newest app bandwagon it seems to end up being another ephemeral thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are saying it like if XMPP never worked on phones.
standard complaint was that it was a battery killer.
(Except it costs money so most of my WhatsApp contacts will not switch.)
Here's what I don't get about Google. A few years ago, they were one of the only players in the IM game, alongside MSN, AOL IM, ICQ... have you heard about any of these lately? Of course not, they're all dead. Talk was built on top of XMPP, an open protocol, which helped its popularity as third party clients could connect to it. Talk was also built in to gmail, and at the time that was revolutionary: A fast and light…
Google has its own agenda and making an open and distributed internet that respect people privacy or wishes is not part of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not that easy. I’ve had proper DKIM, proper SPF, my IP wasn’t blacklisted anywhere. But I still ended up in Spam. So I had to send for about a year emails to friends every few days, replicating our discussions on WhatsApp etc (so they’d have organic content), and I’d ask them to mark them as "not spam". Now I end up in their normal Inbox. EDIT: Why the downvotes? Please comment instead what you think is wrong –…
UPDATE: In case someone ever wants to know more details about why my server failed verification, here are checks for that domain I took when changing DKIM keys last (today): http://i.imgur.com/9zqILRk.png https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3akusc... http://i.imgur.com/VIH4jlt.png
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you say it's not a good idea?
Managing your own server is in general pretty hard (for sending or receiving). Unless you want to invest a lot of time in security and so on. It's simply way overwhelming. And if you don't invest in security, you are inviting trouble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree 100%. I'm frankly still not certain if Google talk and G-chat are even the same thing. I've used G-chat for a long time, but don't remember the name being changed. Also, regarding branding: even overlooking the shell-game Google is playing with regards to moving features around (SMS => Voice, SMS => Hangouts, SMS => ?), the branding was confusing from the outset: - Google Chat (GChat) - Google Talk - Google V…
GChat/Google Chat were never official branding question any time. Only users used those names.
"Third-party XMPP clients will continue to work with Hangouts for 1-on-1 chats." For me, this means it basically still exists and my user experience is the same.
I still wonder why we can't just do IM over SMTP. There's already tonnes of volume, the latency is basically good enough, and the format has lots of room for progressive enhancement through the addition of parts and formats. As someone who administrates a small SMTP peering group with a friend, I'm constantly baffled by the reinvention of the wheel. Presence could be easily signalled by messages which degrade gracefu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Larry Page says there he would like to see more open standards used, and he is sad the industry isn't moving in that direction. So why isn't any of their new IM technology an open standard?
Because being constrained by existing standards, rather than being free to make the changes to the protocol that you think will make the product better, is a huge trade-off. The benefit is that your users get that interoperability with e.g. MSN Messenger or Skype or whatever. However, if no one else is doing that, if no one else is playing fair (like Microsoft accepting things like typing or presence notifications bu…
XMPP's only major downside at the time was mobile battery life due to XMPPs limitations over cellular. This could easily have been resolved by using a non-XMPP accepted handshake (as WhatsApp did) or by using a completely different protocol for mobile as Facebook did for mobile (MQTT).
Google decided to go for a walled garden approach as a competitive advantage. There's no technical reason for it.