[Members] Google and XMPP federation

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Sun May 26 09:20:17 UTC 2013

Sorry for the top posting, on the phone, but I do think we should be
putting together a detailed rebuttal on technical grounds.

If Google wishes to create a walled garden for business reasons, they're
free to do that, despite my strong feelings that this is not the best
solution for their users. Their shareholders are their primary concern, I
do appreciate this.

I do however see no possible excuse for their constant misinformation about
XMPP, and their attempts to justify a business decision on false technical
grounds, at our expense as an organisation and individually, must be

I'm happy to devote some time to this rebuttal.
On 26 May 2013 08:37, "Philipp Hancke" <fippo at goodadvice.pages.de> wrote:

> Am 26.05.2013 01:19, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
>> On 2013-05-25 20:44, Mike Taylor wrote:
>>> [..]
>>  >
>>> The only definitive article i've seen to date is the one I read this
>>> morning and, IMO, it's a hack piece.
>>> http://www.pcworld.com/**article/2039820/google-weak-**
>>> xmpp-support-capabilities-led-**us-to-proprietary-tech-in-**
>>> hangouts.html<http://www.pcworld.com/article/2039820/google-weak-xmpp-support-capabilities-led-us-to-proprietary-tech-in-hangouts.html>
>> I wrote a extensive rebuttal on all of the points raised in this article
>> (on TechHive):
>> https://plus.google.com/**116276248303121270590/posts/**ggNwh9eLYWu<https://plus.google.com/116276248303121270590/posts/ggNwh9eLYWu>
> I just watched a whole hour of https://www.youtube.com/watch?**
> feature=player_embedded&v=**KMr8etxIbjY<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KMr8etxIbjY>-- can someone else go through the rest of the show please?
> There are some interesting statements:
> In the conversation starting at 11:00 chee chew seems to say that xmpp is
> based on http. Am I getting that right? The arguments he's making sounds
> more like he means TCP... even though that doesn't make them more valid.
> The conversation about presence starting at 28:45 is even more
> interesting. The key quotes here are that "in the mobile world the idea of
> presence is a bit more blurry" and "with the hangouts product you can send
> a message whether they're online or offline".
> First the presence part. For me, this describes a very naive notion of
> presence, reducing it to online/offline. XMPP has a slightly more elaborate
> model, allowing you to specify what you're currently doing in your
> presence. For enterprise unified communications there are other factors
> that influence your presence like being on a phone call or having a meeting
> (i.e. calendar integration).
> Now the delivery of offline messages... I think the notion that you can
> only write to people who are online comes from aol instant messenger,
> possibly from IRC. Again, this is not true for XMPP as a protocol and the
> only major xmpp implementation that did not implement offline message
> storage or allowed you to send messages to contacts who are not online
> was... gtalk.
> I'm still struggling to the see the technical argument in "the model of
> xmpp did not work for us" given those... misinterpretations of how xmpp
> works.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20130526/f1723db3/attachment.html>

More information about the Members mailing list