Google Talk Is Being Discontinued

Post by scrollaway » Sat, Mar 25, 2017, 1:45 PM UTC

JD557 wrote: post #469

scrollaway wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reminded of the scene with the Slurm Queen in Futurama talking about "reintroducing Slurm Classic", as a jab on Coke. Realistically, if Google discontinued Gmail, people would move to other email providers. There's plenty of big ones. BTW: Want to avoid being caught in that eventuality, but don't want to stop using Gmail? Buy yourself a personal domain name (for your last name or some such) on https://www.gandi.…

>and set up a redirect to your @gmail.com address. What do you recommend for this? I've been wanting to do this for some time, but that means I either need to: * Use GMail for work, which does not seem tailored for personal used (it's paid, I can't easilly find the price and it seems a bit odd to use Google solution to avoid problems with Google) * Send all mails to my personal server and setup a redirect there to GM…

Post by jaxondu » Sat, Mar 25, 2017, 5:25 PM UTC

gsnedders wrote: post #89

aclimatt wrote: post #64

Can somebody please explain to me Google's messaging strategy? As a Voice, Talk, Hangouts, SMS user for what feels like the last decade, I am so incredibly confused that I want to walk into Google and fire all 18 of the 19 messaging teams. That way at least we'll have one singular group to yell at when things go wrong. Here's the Google Messaging landscape as far as I know it: - Google Talk in Gmail: I think this is…

> Screw Google and whoever is running their messaging division. Except I think that's the problem: nobody is. Nobody is. AFAIK, they're basically all from different divisions of the company, and that's why it's a total clusterfuck.

Post by cortesoft » Sat, Mar 25, 2017, 5:33 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #377

cortesoft wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what if they don't publish the protocol? Do we block downloads of their client? Even if we assume they are American companies, and we can sue them if they violate the rule; how on EARTH would we define an IM protocol broadly enough to avoid an easy avoidance of the law, but narrowly enough to not basically block all proprietary protocols?

Good questions. If a company doesn't publish the protocol in use within, let's say 3 months of a valid request by a third-party then they'd be liable to a fine, perhaps something like $1 per day per registered user, plus costs of government and registered third parties in pursuing the interoperability request. Small companies might escape, but if Facebook tried it they can't really run away. You'd need to be able to…

Post by dorianm » Sat, Mar 25, 2017, 8:08 PM UTC

kyrra wrote: post #229

shmerl wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just failed. Google betrayed XMPP. You can blame Eric Schmidt for it. He gave some lame speech about how other instant messaging services aren't playing fair, so Google should also become a walled garden. And that was it. They made Hangouts and stopped caring about federated IM idea. It's a wonder we can send e-mails between many servers. Imagine someone like Eric Schmidt driving it. We'd be stuck with incompatib…

Why Google felt betrayed by Microsoft: Larry Page commenting about it at I/O 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pmPa_KxsAM&t=2h54m20s Strategist commenting about it: http://www.ucstrategies.com/unified-communications-strategie... Microsoft's one-way integration was them not exposing presence and typing notifications to services they federated with (but they were "taking" that data from others).

Post by anchpop » Sat, Mar 25, 2017, 8:22 PM UTC

krzyk wrote: post #437

munin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget Allo in the mix, from Google, that could replace Hangouts! Take a product people use, and replace it with something people don't, then replace that with something that people also don't use.

Isn't Allo video only? Hangouts is first-text, with optional video.