XMPP Viability Debate
The cluster centers on discussions about the XMPP messaging protocol's history, reasons for its decline despite early adoption by Google and Facebook, issues like inconsistent extensions, federation challenges, and spam, alongside arguments for its ongoing relevance and potential revival.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Nobody buried XMPP. Write good server and client, comparable with proprietary protocols by features and it might work.
To play devil's advocate, what part of the XMPP protocol is dated, that doesn't allow Facebook and Google to continue using it? Maybe if there's a way to update XMPP to include features that shared amongst these services, they can fall back to using it?
Seems like XMPP is still a viable option.
What else was XMPP ever for?
What happened to XMPP? Not trying to be snarky, I still use it. Is there an issue I should be aware of?
Because it was XMPP based and not a proprietary protocol that they and they alone control.
How can XMPP have failed when I and many others use it daily? When many things like Snikket and Zoom and WhatsApp are built on it?
Google made it practical and offered widespread federation.It was not used by many people to talk outside of Google servers (federation ability went almost entirely unused), and it suffered from tons of inbound spam problems, so they shut it off.To answer your question directly though, XMPP doesn’t seem to be that great of a protocol. I’ve heard repeatedly that implementing it is a big mess, and that XML was a poor choice. I’m not sure that this is the reason that users don’t use i
There is XMPP. Messengers of Google and Facebook used it in the early days. From what I know, it failed for multiple reasons.1. The various clients and servers implemented different subsets of the functionality, which deteriorated UX.2. Service providers have an incentive to lock you in and the average user doesn't mind. So no one pushed for it.
We've had this with XMPP already.