Know what's better? Open specifications and federated services. It's called XMPP and if it's not enough, then something better should be developed.
Is this the replacement of SMS? Not sure what people would have thought at the time if they could not send SMS to other mobile carriers. It saddens me even more to see public institutions moving their SMS infrastructure to the new 'carriers'.
Protocols are not a new thing. Let's not go back to the time were computers could not talk to each other.
In our company, we recently switched from Jabber to Telegram.
Telegram is easier to use on multiple devices (it synchronized automatically and you don't have to worry that if you leave one device open, you won't get the message elsewhere), has both a usable mobile app and a usable web/desktop app, it has the "private" chat that's much easier to use than OTR (Pidgin, Gadjim and Adium each implement OTR differntly and it never works right cross-client), and, as one co-worker noted, it finally looks like something from 21st century.
TextSecure/Signal/what's the name now has - in addition to confusing branding cross-OS - strange SMS reliance and no working desktop app. I would prefer it to Telegram though, if they had some reliable destop application, but they don't.
That's why we should be worried. The ease of using Telegram over any other service is clear and that's why most companies and public institutions are moving their old messaging services to Telegram. Without wanting to say that Telegram's job is easy (it's not), it's too easy to run a centralized service and make it easy to use.
Of course companies should use whatever is most cost effective to run their private communications. But when running a public communication channel restricting to a centralized service should not be an option.
Multiple devices should be a non-issue today, really. Usable web and desktop apps is quite subjective, I think? I do admit that the Telegram desktop app looks slick.
The OTR problems seem weird, because as far as I'm aware Pidgin and Adium share the very same implementation for example?
It sounds like you were mostly unlucky to me. On the other hand: Maybe that's already another blow against XMPP, if it doesn't "just work".
I would love to get your coworkers feedback on something like this [1] - because 'looks like something from the 21st century' is not something I get immediately.
I'll bite. If i would be a non-techie the things i would notice are:
* What's Jabber / XMPP? I don't know what that is. Why should it be in the title?
* All the screenshots (there are many!) basically look the same. I don't understand the conversations in the screenshots.
* It's not free.
* The first line "Conversations is an open source Jabber/XMPP client for Android 4.0+ smart phones.". What's open source? What's Jabber/XMPP? What's a 'client'? The only words i understand in this sentence are 'Android' and 'smart phone'.
* "Design principles" is not something i care about. Simply tell me what this product does.
* Clicking on 'Read more' gives me a text that is so technical i don't understand a single word of it ("XEP-0065: SOCKS5 Bytestreams - or rather mod_proxy65"?)
Hmm.. I was talking about the UI (I think that's a rather pretty client, comparable to the current WhatsApp/Telegram/whatever thing).
Again, comparing to Telegram [1] (see disclaimer in my previous post: I use that as well):
* Jabber/XMPP is a weird point. You wouldn't need Conversations if you wouldn't have a server to use. You pick up Conversations because a) some friend tells you to install it and connect it to their server or b) you have a server of your own. If you don't know what XMPP is, then yes - this client is not for you.
* Really? Can you look at the Telegram screenshots? Let me bite this time:
Hey Lucy, got a second?
As in the duration of 551557906200 periods of the radiation corresponding between the two superfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atoms? Yes, I might.
We need some data extracted from a secret chat…
* It's free. [2, GPL] I know, Joe User isn't going to build it, but again: You need a server for this to work. If you care about that, I'd say you have ways to save the 2.38 EUR if necessary.
The rest of your points are certainly valid (marketing for XMPP sucks), but again entirely different problems. I highly doubt that most people read the description of the Telegram or WhatsApp apps. Friends recommend it, people install it, use it, done. XMPP is a different case, because it requires a friendly server (and the post installation configuration step where you select one), but that's not quite relevant for the 'looks like something from the 21st century' discussion, is it?
I was trying to make the point that there are ~new~ and current clients for XMPP as well, even if Pidgin looks like shit.
> Telegram is easier to use on multiple devices (it synchronized automatically and you don't have to worry that if you leave one device open, you won't get the message elsewhere)[...]
XMPP supports this, but regrettably, almost no clients implement these features. It's a huge shame that so many dev create brand new protocols+clients instead of implementing these features for existing XMPP clients. But I do admit that as-is, users can't pick up any existing XMPP client that supports this. :(
> OTR (Pidgin, Gadjim and Adium each implement OTR differently
I've been using this daily for a few years now. I've always used pidgin, while almost none of my peers have. OTR is also standard, so I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
This is why I switched to SMSSecure. It's a TextSecure fork that continues to support encrypted SMS direct to the phone and not through a server of any kind.
Telegram has an open specification, called MTProto. I guess XMPP wasn't good enough, so they DID develop something "better" (better for this specific use case).
Also federated services have their disadvantages, so I wouldn't necessarily say that's better.
You're right, of course. Unfortunately, the trend right now doesn't seem to be open protocols. Until the pendulum swings back again, i'd like to think that i'm beter off with a platform that isn't being run by Facebook.
What surprises me is how lazy and clueless mobile network operators seem to be despite the power they still hold. They have all the power they need to develop or implement modern messaging protocols. Granted they can't charge for it. Still seems a better option than pushing SMS, MMS and letting new players enter their yard.
I am all up for letting mobile network operators just provide internet services. Surely the trend seems to be to flush everything down the Internet tubes and if that's the future, we need something better than a couple of companies that do not respect free choice.
Awesome, great, APIs are good.
Know what's better? Open specifications and federated services. It's called XMPP and if it's not enough, then something better should be developed.
Is this the replacement of SMS? Not sure what people would have thought at the time if they could not send SMS to other mobile carriers. It saddens me even more to see public institutions moving their SMS infrastructure to the new 'carriers'.
Protocols are not a new thing. Let's not go back to the time were computers could not talk to each other.