[Standards] Easy XMPP

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Mon Jan 16 17:40:11 UTC 2017


On 16 January 2017 at 17:32, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramtsov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:28:41 -0700
> Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>
>> I fully understand that XMPP can be useful for organizations who want
>> to develop or deploy their own messaging systems, either on-premises
>> or integrated with an existing system like an e-learning platform -
>> there are server packages you can download, libraries you can develop
>> on, companies you can contract with for support or consulting, and
>> overall it's pretty secure.
>
> But IM companies don't choose XMPP. Whatsapp was initially build on top
> of XMPP but now it's something different. New services like Slack and
> Signal don't use XMPP neither. So seems like XMPP is not that featured
> protocol even though there are "server packages, libraries and support".

I'd say MUC and Federation.

MUC's just not the right model anymore. (Hence we need MIX).

And if your business plan doesn't involve federation, why bother with
the additional overhead and complexity?

Individual services more or less operate on a business plan that's the
antithesis of federation - they want to get everyone using their own
service. Signal's is similar, but they want to get a sufficient
critical mass on their own service to then sell the (now proven)
technology to others.

Businesses simply buying an IM service, however, want to be able to
talk to their supply-chain, customers, and so on. So federation can
still be a selling point.

Dave.


More information about the Standards mailing list