• 7heo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So it returned back to a state where it would have been without Google anyway.

    The state before Google was “up and coming solution for federated chat”

    The state after Google was “impractical solution that does not federate¹ properly, and is hard to set up²”.

    Those are not the same.

    1: because of Google.
    2: because of Google.

    • realharo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Users don’t care about federation. For them, there is no such category as “federated chat”. There is only “chat”.

      XMPP never had significant market share among the instant messengers of the time (except maybe as custom solutions for work chat, but not as a consumer service).

      • 7heo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, of course it would have not ever been a mainstream thing for end users. But Google definitely nipped them in the bud, both by providing a (bogus) drive behind the XMPP development (and so, preventing anyone else from doing so), and also by kickstarting them into relative widespread use instead of letting them grow organically.

        If they had, there is a possibility XMPP would have become a service provided by nerds for their friends and family as soon as 2010, like email, or more recently, nextcloud.

        And it would have been a valid option for corporate solutions. But no, instead, we got slack. Thanks, Google.