×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Drops XMPP Support

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the do-not-evil-yeah-right dept.

Communications 416

Cbs228 writes "During last week's Google I/O conference, the company announced a replacement for its aging Talk instant messenger: Google Hangouts. Hangouts, which is only available for Android, iOS, and Chrome, offers closer integration with Google+. Unfortunately, the new product drops support for the XMPP instant messaging protocol, which has been an integral part of Talk for over ten years. XMPP delivers instant messages to desktop clients, like Pidgin, and enables communication between users on different instant messaging networks. Hangouts users attempting to communicate with contacts on non-Google servers, such as jabber.org, have found that all communications have been suddenly and inexplicably severed. A Google account is now required to communicate with Hangouts users. Google Hangouts joins the ranks of an already-crowded ecosystem of closed, incompatible chat products like Skype." Interesting, because Google Wave was based on XMPP and Google was integral to the creation of the Jingle extension that enabled video chatting over XMPP. Note that no end date has been set for Talk yet, but the end must surely be nigh given Google's recent history of axing products like Reader and CalDAV support from their calendar app without much notice.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

416 comments

Bad Google (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777679)

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

filter error: don't use so many caps. it's like yelling.
filter error: don't use so many caps. it's like yelling.
filter error: don't use so many caps. it's like yelling.
filter error: don't use so many caps. it's like yelling.
filter error: don't use so many caps. it's like yelling.

Re:Bad Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777745)

Because 'gay' is totally a synonym for 'bad'

Re:Bad Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777875)

In modern usage? It is. Sorry if that offends anyone of the homosexual persuasion. Language evolution and all that.

Re:Bad Google (3, Interesting)

Sloppy (14984) | about a year ago | (#43778013)

I saw it happen, plus the resulting confusion. What's really shocking is how long ago it was. It was around 1985. English teacher gave hard assignment. Student said "that's so gay!" meant as a generic pejorative. Teacher thought he was being called a homosexual and student was in deep shit.

It happened, over a quarter century ago. I can cut the 1985 teacher some slack for not knowing. I can cut a 2013 teacher some slack for disciplining a student for bitching about homework. But I can't cut anyone slack in 2013 for not knowing "gay" is a generic pejorative. If you don't know gay is a generic pejorative by now, then you also probably missed the memo that it means homosexual. You probably think it means "happy."

Words. They're like tech skills. Keep up or be left behind.

Re:Bad Google (5, Insightful)

Dputiger (561114) | about a year ago | (#43778167)

You don't get to decide when a word is pejorative to a group that's historically been targeted with it. I agree strongly with George Carlin when he talks about the ludicrousness of "bad words." There are no "bad words." But you know what there *are?* There are words that have been used offensively against a minority group so often that they've become hurtful *to* that group of people.

You have a right to use those words anyway. You have a right to not care. You have a right to claim that because YOU don't find the word offensive, no one else has a right to do so, either.

You also have a right to decide that decades of discrimination against a particular group were so awful, you'll avoid using a word or two -- not because those words are "bad," but because they serve as reminders of abuse, insults, and ignorance. You have a right to decide to change your speaking habits *ever* so slightly as a way of demonstrating to this person or persons that you don't agree with the way those words were used against them.

You have a right to decide that empathy and acknowledgement is more meaningful than saying a certain collection of phonemes.

Or not to.

Re:Bad Google (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778051)

It is, despite attempts by the PC police to make it otherwise..

BE LIKE ONE OF US !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777693)

Ben Dover !!

not surprising (4, Insightful)

berashith (222128) | about a year ago | (#43777697)

My phone told me that an update to google talk was available, and that it would be replaced with hangouts. Google+ hasnt had a lot of traction with me, so I am not really sure if this is just going to be one less google product that I will be using now.

Re:not surprising (-1, Offtopic)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#43777721)

My phone told me...

My phone told me a good friend of mine discovered the great Penis Pills. So I ordered a case.

Google+ has 390Million Actice users (0, Troll)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43777877)

Google+ hasnt had a lot of traction

This is nothing to so with Google+ in fact you can use it from your Gmail account, as for Google+ its been going through some changes just lately...and its getting a lot of traction from other users. There are advantages of using Google+ which are group video calls; Sending Photos to everyone in your hangout; Start a hangout with the right people (Circle :)

Of course you would know that if you used Google Talk

Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43778003)

Of course you would know that if you used Google Talk

You have always been able to add multiple users to Google Talk without needing Google+.

There are some serious privacy concerns with Google+, and a lot of people smart enough to avoid the whole Facebook clusterfuck are not at all keen to surrender to Google even if Google appears to be somewhat more responsible with your data.

I've never found a problem sending pictures to people, even groups of people. Why do you feel you need to surrender all your privacy instead of just emailing a photo?

Seriously (-1, Troll)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43778091)

I've never found a problem sending pictures to people, even groups of people. Why do you feel you need to surrender all your privacy instead of just emailing a photo?

I am in kind of awe at this? I cannot dumb myself down enough to respond.

Re:not surprising (3, Insightful)

Georules (655379) | about a year ago | (#43778085)

I find the new hangout app on android to be unusable. It looks nice, but there is no way to simply sort up to the top people who are online / available. This makes me a lot less likely to want to chat because I don't want to bother people who might be busy.

The hangout thing in gmail is also pretty, but I could not find a way to disable the sounds. *BLING* every time my window is not focused.

They are dropping reader, gchat is gimped. If they mess up gmail/calendar I might wonder why I even use google.

So long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777699)

and thanks for all the fish...

How does this help Google+? (5, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#43777711)

Ok, so Google Talk is going away at some point, everyone I talk to who uses a different tool will no longer be reachable with "Hangouts", and I'll be confined only to my excruciatingly small circle of Google+ friends...

Why should I use Hangouts? It talks to only a few people in my circle of friends, all of whom also have accounts with some non-google resource.

Wouldn't this be yet another reason to abandon Google+? I mean, it's great 'n all, but almost nobody I know uses it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a social network. It's like, let's invent a social network for hermits. Nobody talks to you, but that's what, you know, is supposed to happen. I haven't heard of anything so useless since the Anarchists Union.

Re:How does this help Google+? (3, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#43777725)

Non-Google Jabber accounts are less common than Google accounts, so I'm guessing most people won't notice. It certainly can't help, though, since it'll drive away non-Chrome users. As well as everyone who fears Google+ for its real name policy controversy junk.

Re:How does this help Google+? (2)

Hadlock (143607) | about a year ago | (#43777795)

That's not the point, the point is that if Google+ (or whatever they're naming their "standard") isn't open, then the cottage industry of third party IM clients (some of them are actually pretty decent) would roll over and die.

Re:How does this help Google+? (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43777865)

That's not the point, the point is that if Google+ (or whatever they're naming their "standard") isn't open, then the cottage industry of third party IM clients (some of them are actually pretty decent) would roll over and die.

That's what puzzles me about the move: If Google said '95% of 3rd party XMPP servers are spam bots, we aren't doing federation unless you are a Google Apps customer or otherwise verifiably unlikely to do something dramatically stupid', that'd be annoying but not wildly surprising. Dropping XMPP entirely, though, both kills 3rd-party clients and suggests that they were either unable to shoehorn what they wanted into XMPP(even as a proprietary extension, with the standardized subset allowing partial compatibility), or they saw breaking compatibility as a virtue.

I suspect that federation(at least outside of paying customers, who are both more important to listen to, and less likely to be spambots), is viewed as more trouble than it's worth; but dropping XMPP entirely is an entirely different game.

Re: How does this help Google+? (0)

taharvey (625577) | about a year ago | (#43778025)

Not so. I use apple messages. It talks via apples own iMessage network, xmpp, bonjour, icq, yahoo, aol and others via plugins.

The xmpp support was a good means to chat with people who live in the google sphere.

Look who is the real walled garden...

Re:How does this help Google+? (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year ago | (#43777729)

I mean, it's great 'n all, but almost nobody I know uses it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a social network

The anti-social network?

Re:How does this help Google+? (2)

Pseudonym (62607) | about a year ago | (#43777941)

Actually, there are several degenerate cases of social networks which could be thought of as anti-social.

First, there's the romantic option of a social network with only two members [zefrank.com]. Then, there's the narcissistic option of a social network with only one member. A true anti-social network, however, would have no members.

Excuse me while I go register nullspace.com.

Re:How does this help Google+? (3, Interesting)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#43778137)

The anti-social network?

Well, there's something to be said for that. I have no particular desire to be part of Google's ecosystem, and I'm certainly not going to start using their products if I can't depend on them still being there tomorrow or the day after. Google is developing quite a habit of pulling the rug from under its users, and we shouldn't reward that.

Re:How does this help Google+? (4, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#43777759)

If the majority of your GTalk contact list are people from other XMPP/Jabber servers, you're in a tiny minority of overall users.

Most people using GTalk these days are doing so because it came on their Android phone, and they needed a Google account to buy apps. Most of their contacts are in the same boat. They may not be aware that this Google account they have is also a G+ account, and that's precisely what Google is pushing for here - notice that one of the features Hangout adds is the ability to send freshly snapped photos, and the way it does it is by means of a G+ photo album...

Re:How does this help Google+? (5, Interesting)

Pseudonym (62607) | about a year ago | (#43777965)

Most people using GTalk these days are doing so because it came on their Android phone, and they needed a Google account to buy apps.

Most people I know are using Google Talk because it works anywhere. It has an Android client, and a MacOS client (Messages), and a Linux client (typically Pidgin), and even a web client which works if you're behind a corporate firewall.

Admittedly, most people I know aren't most people. Nonetheless, dropping XMPP makes Google Talk much, much less useful.

Re:How does this help Google+? (5, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#43777791)

Why should I use Hangouts? It talks to only a few people in my circle of friends, all of whom also have accounts with some non-google resource.

I'm asking myself the same question about Picasa - Google has made it very difficult to share pictures outside of their ecosystem.
 

Wouldn't this be yet another reason to abandon Google+? I mean, it's great 'n all, but almost nobody I know uses it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a social network. It's like, let's invent a social network for hermits. Nobody talks to you, but that's what, you know, is supposed to happen.

Google has demonstrated, repeatedly, that they don't "get" social - and equally has demonstrated a stunning inability to learn from their past mistakes.

Nothing to do with Google+ (1, Troll)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43777837)

Ok, so Google Talk is going away at some point, everyone I talk to who uses a different tool will no longer be reachable with "Hangouts", and I'll be confined only to my excruciatingly small circle of Google+ friends

...calm down, Ignoring the fact that Google+ has 390Million Active accounts...or that Android has passed 900Million Activations (Facebook has 700Million Active users). It works straight from gmail which has over 425Million users...hell there is even an iPhone app. Hell you can load it up...and still chat to people only using talk!

There are advantages to having a Google+ account, but its pretty limited...you can chat to 10 users at once. The bottom line though the success of Google+(growing faster than twitter, While Facebook suffers fatigue) its not part of this discussion.

Re:Nothing to do with Google+ (5, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | about a year ago | (#43777897)

... Ignoring the fact that Google+ has 390Million Active accounts...

I'll buy that if by "active" you mean "someone said I should try it so I signed up and checked it out for an afternoon" or "I was forced to join Google+ to read the messages of a Groups thread someone pointed me to" or "I have a Google+ account? When did that happen? Oh, I guess I accidentally signed me up yesterday!" then sure.

Re:Nothing to do with Google+ (3, Insightful)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#43777901)

...calm down, Ignoring the fact that Google+ has 390Million Active accounts

Which doesn't mean a whole lot, since having a Google account at all now is basically a Google+ account. Signing up for Youtube means you are an "Active" google+ account.

Re:Nothing to do with Google+ (0, Troll)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43778009)

Ah the Google+ haters. I and millions of others use Google+ every day. We just use it for things other than whining about stupid shit and complaining about High School like what you find on Facebook. Unlike Facebook I find Google+ to actually be useful. Hate all you want, bitch about how Grandma and little Tina in 10th grade aren't using it. I really don't give a fuck. I'm just glad you and the other whining bitches aren't on it. Thanks for staying away.

Re:Nothing to do with Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778117)

Wow. I'm sure Google is *really* happy they have the nasty elitist crowd locked down.

Re:Nothing to do with Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778179)

lol - if only you could realize how your comment makes your appear. just for one fraction of a second.

apple fanboys are the lowest of the low, but as google begins to eat itself, a new breed of idiot is emerging from the shadows. not as dense maybe, but wow, every bit as pathetic.

Re:Nothing to do with Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778127)

Tuppe666 is here for his hourly Google fluffing. Amazing that this post is free of Apple bashing too, how out of form!

Re:How does this help Google+? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777849)

I haven't heard of anything so useless since the Anarchists Union.

Maybe you should brush up your history of anarchism: unions have been part of it since the very beginning (that is: since before the marxists threw the anarchists out of the First Communist International because the marxists wanted to take over parliament & politics which was rejected by the anarchists who prefered union federations over parliament).

Re:How does this help Google+? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777887)

Keep in mind that you can *still* plug your Google Account credentials into any XMPP chat client and use that account to talk to others who have a Google Account. Google isn't -yet- pulling the plug on XMPP client support; they're pulling the plug on XMPP server-to-server federation.

This move by Google is still a bowl of shit, but you retain the power to use the client (and plugins) of your choice when talking on the Google Network.

Re:How does this help Google+? (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43777899)

I like G+ because I can organize my social circles and contacts without having to be social. I don't give a fuck about a feed of what people are fucking doing, reading, thinking, wishing, vomiting out into text and I don't care enough about anything I'd share to actually share it with a bunch of people who aren't going to give half a shit. I wouldn't say "for hermits". I would say "for people who aren't vapid attention whores and don't need to share or view everything everyone ever does at every second of the day and have things to actually do"... ... well, except for all the technorati attention whores who spam the shit out of G+ with their "brand".... ... and Robert Scoble...FFS...

Re:How does this help Google+? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777951)

Ok, so Google Talk is going away at some point, everyone I talk to who uses a different tool will no longer be reachable with "Hangouts", and I'll be confined only to my excruciatingly small circle of Google+ friends...

Why should I use Hangouts? It talks to only a few people in my circle of friends, all of whom also have accounts with some non-google resource.

Wouldn't this be yet another reason to abandon Google+? I mean, it's great 'n all, but almost nobody I know uses it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a social network. It's like, let's invent a social network for hermits. Nobody talks to you, but that's what, you know, is supposed to happen. I haven't heard of anything so useless since the Anarchists Union.

And other than winning the fucking popularity contest, tell me exactly how Facebook is any different from this social network offering.

Just because it's not the most popular tool out there doesn't mean Google is doing a damn thing different from any of them who are leading the popularity contest, so try and not be ignorant and blame the (un)popular tool next time.

They're all closed, proprietary, and likely soon to be (not so) free. Get used to it, social lemming. You're driven towards a brand-name cliff no matter which direction you choose.

Re:How does this help Google+? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777993)

So, Google is just as evil as the rest of them then.

Yay for open. Or something.

Re:How does this help Google+? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43778023)

and I'll be confined only to my excruciatingly small circle of Google+ friends...

Not, that part is wrong. The Hangouts replacement for Google Talk has no dependency on Google+.

At least not yet, but it looks like its heading in that direction.

It used to be that google was satisfied with simply and email address in exchange for all the advertising the dump on you.
But its clear the bargain has changed and they want to know everything about you in exchange for that email address.

Closed protocol? (3, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about a year ago | (#43777723)

Does anyone know whether the new protocol will be undocumented or if it is documented, if there is any resemblance to xmpp? Hopefully Google will allow xmpp bridges.

I am just worried that Google is trying to do more to force us to use their tools, rather than allowing us to use our favourite messaging clients., but with their service.

Re:Closed protocol? (3, Informative)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about a year ago | (#43777835)

From what I've read, it's still XMPP, but they've just severed server-server communications so you can only talk to Google+ accounts over XMPP.

Re:Closed protocol? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about a year ago | (#43777847)

From what I've read, it's still XMPP, but they've just severed server-server communications so you can only talk to Google+ accounts over XMPP.

I suppose with the lack of big names federating, there probably wasn't much to lose with this action?

Re:Closed protocol? (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#43778031)

I am just worried that Google is trying to do more to force us to use their tools, rather than allowing us to use our favourite messaging clients., but with their service.

...and just a month after the FSF "commend Google for doing the right thing and respecting the importance of full federation" [fsf.org], after they reversed a Jabber invite block they started in March as an "anti-spam" measure. I guess it's now an "anti-privacy" measure, right Google? Or is it an "anti-Facebook" one? Oh, Larry Page...

iCal support in Calendar? (2)

jrumney (197329) | about a year ago | (#43777731)

It's news to me that Google is dropping iCal support from Calendar. The whole rationale for them dropping support for ActiveSync was that standards based iCalendar support was available and most devices support that now (ie noone uses Windows Phone, they are all using Android or iPhone). So does someone have a supporting reference for that, or is the Unknown Lamer just confused?

Re:iCal support in Calendar? (4, Informative)

Sancho (17056) | about a year ago | (#43777769)

Google's dropping support for CalDAV which I think was the primary supported way of syncing with iCal.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-second-spring-of-cleaning.html [blogspot.com]

Re:iCal support in Calendar? (3, Insightful)

caseih (160668) | about a year ago | (#43778045)

My google calenders are all still working with Thunderbird. I went to the parent link and at the bottom of that blog post, they have an update where they reversed their decision to end CalDAV support. They say: "Update March 15, 2013: We worked with the developers who provide 98 percent of our current CalDAV traffic to assure access to the CalDAV API, which means many popular products will not be impacted. We remain committed to supporting open protocols like CalDAV."

So I guess making a stink really can make Google change their minds.

Re:iCal support in Calendar? (1)

Sancho (17056) | about a year ago | (#43778099)

Interesting. I'll admit that I just searched long enough to find the blogspot post that I originally saw.

That statement doesn't make it clear to me that they are supporting CalDAV for the future, though--just that they've worked with the developers responsible for 98% of their CalDAV traffic. This is consistent with their previous statement--that CalDAV developers can get whitelisted. It sounds like iCal probably won't be affected (surely Apple is in that 98%) but it looks like new applications will be unable to use that protocol.

Re:iCal support in Calendar? (4, Informative)

_merlin (160982) | about a year ago | (#43778161)

It's weasel-worded and misleading. You still need to get whitelisted to be allowed to access CalDAV - you have to write them a letter justifying yourself, otherwise you have to use the proprietary Google calendar API. They're just trying to create lock-in.

Re:iCal support in Calendar? (3, Informative)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | about a year ago | (#43777853)

Yes, I mixed up the file format (ical) with the sync protocol (caldav). Thanks for catching that.

Re:iCal support in Calendar? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778043)

This is really a /bad/ thing. I despise the web interfaces for both gmail and google calendar, so I use a thick client and it works very well for me over IMAP and CalDav. It really sounds like they want to force users to always use the browser, making sure they keep the tracking cookies alive.

What's next? Dropping IMAP and POP support in gmail?

Posting a message on a forum (0)

suso (153703) | about a year ago | (#43777733)

I'm afraid posting a complaint on Slashdot will do nothing about this issue.

Re:Posting a message on a forum (1)

citizenr (871508) | about a year ago | (#43777821)

Still better than talking to a hand. Google doesnt listen to the users, they dont even have a place to post any concerns/complaints (probably because there was no way to automate it).

IRC (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777755)

Nothing beats its simplicity to me.

It sure isn't easy getting all your friends on it, but sooner or later they will come back when they get tired of their current service trying to be everything at once, spreading itself too thin.
Having tons of different services for everything is hard to remember and work with, but the same is true for one service that does tons of different things.

Bad call, loss of users (5, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a year ago | (#43777771)

Shame on you Google. I've used Gtalk since it was released. I don't care about the cross platform communication much, but do have a few friends that I know connected to me through other platform. I have convinced several rather computer illiterate friends to use Gtalk so that we could keep in touch by IMs and know when each other was available, introducing them to Google and getting them a Google account in the process. I have no interest in Google's "social media" offerings, or any social media platform for that matter, including Facebook (let the NSA get their info on me in other ways, I'm not going to do their job for them). I really don't even know what Google Hangouts is, but the name tells me that I don't want to know and I will not switch to it when Gtalk goes away (although that seems to not even be an option since my main desktops usually run Windows).

Re:Bad call, loss of users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778063)

Dear frovingslosh,
Fuck you and thanks for your free advertisment.
Cordially,
Larry Page CEO at the Google corporation

Seriously, did you expect them to care? Embrace, extend and extinguish [wikipedia.org]. We been in that movie before. This time it's shame on you.

Re:Bad call, loss of users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778163)

Well I on the other hand welcome this news. The majority of xmpp users were only spammers and I was tired on getting messages on my phone from them.

I thought they were XMPP federation (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777775)

I thought that what they were eliminating was XMPP federation, which is what's used to link all the different XMPP servers

But that's a far cry from eliminating XMPP entirely. I understood that they were continuing to use XMPP, with some extensions, and since those extensions were not supported by others, they were disabling the federation to other systems.

Re: I thought they were XMPP federation (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777823)

This is correct. This article / post is misleading.

Embrace and extend XMPP, block competition (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777905)

They're embracing and extending XMPP, but by denying federation it's no longer XMPP, just based on it.

Although this is not exactly MS-style "embrace, extend, extinguish", it's not very different in practice. It's still deliberately obstructive of standards and interoperability.

Re:I thought they were XMPP federation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777921)

I thought that what they were eliminating was XMPP federation, which is what's used to link all the different XMPP servers

But that's a far cry from eliminating XMPP entirely. I understood that they were continuing to use XMPP, with some extensions, and since those extensions were not supported by others, they were disabling the federation to other systems.

If you are right, then for all practical purposes XMPP != XMPPwithGoogleExtensions.

Just like Java != JavaWithMicrosoftExtensions (a.k.a. J++). Sigh - it seems that Google has finally discovered Embrace/Extend/Extinguish.

Thanks google for the open web. (0)

NotBorg (829820) | about a year ago | (#43777777)

which is only available for Android, iOS, and Chrome

If I have to use Chrome to use g+ features then fuck off. And that goes for any service that requires a specific browser. Fuck you and your closed protocols. You are IE6 to me now.

Re:Thanks google for the open web. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777827)

Now? You've been asleep to the abuse that Google deals out.

Re:Thanks google for the open web. (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about a year ago | (#43777843)

They have an Android app, an iOS app, a Chrome plugin, and a browser agnostic web page.

Re:Thanks google for the open web. (3, Informative)

NotBorg (829820) | about a year ago | (#43777959)

You don't understand. The summary said "only." Here on Slashdot we celebrate only having read the summary and flying off the handle.

MSN -- Google Talk -- where? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777787)

My friends and I used to be on Hotmail using MSN Messenger. Then we moved to Gmail when Messenger died, using Pidgin to keep everyone in the same circle (Yahoo, Gmail, and the few Hotmail stragglers). Now XMPP is gone, that leaves everyone looking for a new chat protocol, hopefully one within Pidgin.

It feels a bit like an open chat registry might be the way to go, as companies phase out their support for pure chat clients. I still need to chat and Facebook isn't going to cut it.

Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? (2)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43777883)

I always thought it was so weird when people used shit like MSN or Yahoo! for their chat. When someone gave me that as their IM contact, I would just tell them "look, I'm probably never going to end up talking to you, then, because I'm not going to setup an account on a proprietary service just to talk to one person".

Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? (1)

samkass (174571) | about a year ago | (#43777917)

I still need to chat and Facebook isn't going to cut it.

Maybe not for you, but for most people I think it will. Most of the Internet users on the planet have Facebook accounts and it's increasingly the best way to chat or contact anyone. Google is pretty much just driving people back to Facebook with this. As long as it's all proprietary, you might as well go with the one with the biggest available group.

Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? (4, Informative)

cdl (902729) | about a year ago | (#43777955)

Actually, that's the nice thing about XMPP - there are LOTS of XMPP servers (sometimes also called Jabber servers). A list of public (free) servers can be found at https://list.jabber.at/ [jabber.at] The great thing about Jabber/XMPP (and the thing that Google just shut off), is that jabber servers can find each other on the net. Therefore, if you have an account as alice@jabber.org, and your friend has the account bob@example.com, you can message each other just as you do now. the XMPP server at jabber.org will find the XMPP server at example.com and give it your message for bob to deliver. It's just like e-mail - only in real (or close to) time.

Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#43777977)

I've been using AIM since the 90s... I was using the 5.9 version which was basically meant for Windows 98 because all it did was chat, opposed to their newer monstrosities. I only recently started using Trillian instead of the old aim client, which is just another client similar to Pidgin in functionality.

I'm kind of curious how long AIM will last.

Google HANGOUTS drop xmpp support (2)

kwerle (39371) | about a year ago | (#43777797)

It's not clear to me whether or not they're totally going to drop it.

Still, I think this blows.

Re:Google HANGOUTS drop xmpp support (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43777871)

What do you mean "whether or not they're totally going to drop it"...?

They're replacing their chat client with Hangouts and that won't be supporting XMPP. How much more dropped can you get than that?

it would impact my ability to chat with about two thirds or more of the people I know . . . on the other hand, I chat with people via IM (outside of work, that is) all of maybe two months a month on average. IM was a big thing for about a decade, but in the last few years, it seems that most people have either gone full dumbass with "txting" or just use email. So I guess I kind of dislike this on one hand, but don't give a fuck when it comes to actual practical impact.

Do evil (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777839)

They really should change their company slogan.

Where is the difference to asshole MS of the 90s? Can't see it.

How any serious geek can defend or use google is beyond me.

Microsoft still evil (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43777911)

Where is the difference to asshole MS of the 90s?

I'm sorry to correct you Microsoft went nowhere, in fact it got worse after the 90's. It fact Microsoft is the dame abusive Monopoly it always was. It just has to compete with Google and Apple who it can neither bribe or Bully, and it has been unable to leverage its monopoly onto Mobile, where Google and Apple dominate.

Re:Do evil (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | about a year ago | (#43778005)

I wouldn't call this "evil". But they should, if they're acting in good conscience, drop the phrase "universally accessible" from their corporate mission statement.

Google closing gates to its walled garden (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777845)

The old days of Google acting as a good net citizen are long gone. Money always corrupts, and its envy of Facebook and Apple walled gardens became irresistible.

Android is a sort of open garden, but Google got a taste of running a walled one with Android's Market/Play, and cemented its walls with Google+ and by making a full Google Account mandatory for it, Gmail's pseudonymous users absolutely not welcome. In the end, it'll be just another Facebook for a captive audience as advertising targets. Very profitable.

Dropping XMPP is just part of this process. A window to the walled garden was open and it was allowing federation to be done out of control by the Google empire. Easy to see this block coming and the window being closed.

The IETF specifically mentions interoperability as a founding goal in its Mission Statement. By dropping interoperability with other IM providers through XMPP, Google is making very clear where it now stands. It wants the whole cake, and being a good net citizen be damned.

I wonder what's going on at Google's management (2)

fufufang (2603203) | about a year ago | (#43777855)

This is a 180 degree term to their old philosophy of open source / open protocols.

Bad news for Google Voice (1)

Aug Leopold (1218486) | about a year ago | (#43777895)

Anyone that uses Google Voice for voip outside of gmail is routing their calls through Google Talk. This is pretty popular on Android using SIP and a pbx account but there are also some standalone applications that handle it. If Google ends up dropping Google Talk there are going to be a lot of pissed off Google Voice users.

Re:Bad news for Google Voice (2)

MoxFulder (159829) | about a year ago | (#43778159)

Actually, I think you're routing your calls through Google Talk even if you make your VoIP calls from within Gmail. If you "Try the new Hangouts" from within Gmail, you'll find that you can no longer make GV calls until you switch back to the old Google Talk interface.

I'm glad to see that Nikhyl Singhal of Google reassuring users that the cutting-off of GV is only temporary, and that it will be integrated with Hangouts/Gmail later: https://plus.google.com/106636280351174936240/posts/DG6h32BWaQW [google.com]

Embrace.. extend.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43777935)

..how did that go again?

Well fsck you too Google (1)

johnck (782010) | about a year ago | (#43777957)

Just deleted Google Chrome off my computers and have never felt so happy I run my own jabber server.

I wonder how long until Google will retire Gtalk for good so that Google+ can take over in a bid to get more than 4 users.

Re:Well fsck you too Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778029)

It kind of pisses me off, I use the gtalk account to chat with family, and yahoo for work and friends. Pidgin was cool because it integrated both together so well.
I wonder how gnome shell will cope with this.

And now, I have to wonder, what's next? Google Docs? Google Sites? Honestly, I'm curious. For the better part of a decade Google has been a steady influence. Something stable. People check if the internet works by going to google.com, with all those "changes" some of that trust is fading fast, they're losing people they can't afford to lose.

Old news? (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#43777979)

This is old news. This was one of the first comments on the "Google releases Hangouts" a few days ago.
I've lost contact with about 40% of my contacts so far. Of those whom I can still talk to, about 20% use google with an xmpp client, and the other 40% are not google users (they use some other XMPP server).

Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook (5, Interesting)

aaronmarks (873211) | about a year ago | (#43778011)

This mostly comes down to a battle between 2x platforms: Google vs. Microsoft. I consider myself a pretty avid Microsoft supporter, but if you look at the facts, I kind of think that Microsoft started this fight by:

1) Buying Skype and pitting Skype against Talk.
2) Their Scroogled campaign that pitted Outlook against Gmail
3) Connecting Outlook.com to the Talk API when Google would have preferred that Microsoft federate skype/outlook/hotmail/live/passport via XMPP.

It's that third point surrounding XMPP federation that this all comes down to. When Microsoft decided to not federate via XMPP with the Outlook/Skype consumer products they were saying that they only wanted to establish 1-way communication with Google's platform. There is no doubt that this pissed Google off because Microsoft is trying to take away their market share while also taking advantage of their services and open architecture. Google's offered up XMPP for many years and Microsoft never connected until they had a mail product that was capable of trading market share (in one direction).

Microsoft is clearly not against XMPP because they do support XMPP in their commercial IM product, Lync (which I'm a regular user of and competent in supporting/deploying). I've considered many scenarios but can't figure out why Microsoft wouldn't want to enable XMPP for its consumer products as a way of communicating with Google Talk contacts other than to discourage interoperability with their consumer products; e.g. keep everyone on Skype.

I know that some might argue that Microsoft connected to Google the way they did so that it could pull over all of your Google Contacts and already authorized XMPP invites, but in my opinion they could have just showed you a list of all your current Google Talk XMPP contacts and asked you to place check marks next to any that you wanted to invite to your Microsoft Account contact list. With all that said, maybe its as simple as that someone in the right position at Microsoft failing to comprehend the scenario.

Re:Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook (1)

dhavleak (912889) | about a year ago | (#43778119)

1) Buying Skype and pitting Skype against Talk.

I think Skype was around quite a bit longer, so you'd have to put it the other way around -- Google realized Skype's potential and came up with a competitor. Microsoft realized Skype's potential as well, and purchased them.

...they could have just showed you a list of all your current Google Talk XMPP contacts and asked you to place check marks next to any that you wanted to invite to your Microsoft Account contact list...

As of today's announcement from Google, they would have done all that work in vain. Perhaps MS realized that Google's commitment to XMPP was not something that could be relied upon?

Common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778015)

Really retarded isn't it? The point of social networking is to have as much as your social network be connected, even it means they are using a different provider. Limiting the support is effectively asking their users to only socialize with people in the platform. Not a very bright move if you're trying to increase user base to overtake the incumbent...

Google seems to be thinking like Microsoft/Apple these days..

Thinking Like Google (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43778059)

Google seems to be thinking like Microsoft/Apple these days..

Well actually Google is not thinking like either. Apple managed to cash in on early adopter money three times...but failed to compete in a mature market, its early monopoly status thrown away for sitting on huge about of cash, Microsoft throwing it all away to chance mobile market share by dumbing down its Desktop experience to that of a tablet :), Google is doing neither of those things.

Neither Apple or Microsoft is competing in the social networking sphere (ignoring photo sharing sites) and both were happy to ride the Facebook integration, the thrust of your post...although both have stepped back their integration in light of certain developments around the Andoird Phone/App Facebook thing whatever that was. In fact Google is the only one taking on Facebook and is doing a great job at it.

Ironically to need a Google+ account to use Hangouts

The world won't miss Google (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about a year ago | (#43778027)

This isn't evil; it's stupid. It's not even embrace/extend/extinguish. It's embrace/back_off/get_forgotten. Google is kidding themselves if they think anyone cares about .. what's the name of their obscure niche chat product again?

Hangouts runs just fine on Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778047)

I had the interesting experience not long ago of being interviewed for a job via Hangout Video Chat. I just had to install the Google Video plugin.

I thought it was all very silly because I was using the wireless in a cafe not a quarter mile from the company I was interviewing with. Why on earth they didn't just have me into their office is beyond me. But I got a second interview, and am now awaiting their decision.

I used Firefox, and didn't have any trouble with it.

However, I had already signed up with Google+ from a different email account. I didn't really want to register for Google+ from the account that I used to apply for the job, as it is a secret email I give to very few, so as to keep a lid on spam.

idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778071)

i dont wonder google has to do some move like this with so many people not getting it.

I loathe them for this, but they have been trying to play nice with all the rest of the chats echo systems... but others, like microsoft, only allowed communication in one direction... rendering yourself irrelevant... with enough of them milking google and google looking the irrelevant one being the one playing nice, it just got tired and said...... okay, i have the largest dick around... if you dont want to play nice, lets play rude instead...

I dislike this move, but i hope it kills some of his enemies milking so much without giving anything is not nice

Time to start moving away from Google anything (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778073)

Google starts projects and kills them off as much as people change their underwear...

But there is a challenge to GMail coming that is privacy based!.
See:
https://startmail.com

I can't wait untill the beta testing starts - which is soon based on the email I got tonight. I use https://startpage.com instead of Google, and soon I'll be able to dump GMail. I don't mess with Google+ - why would anyone.....

Time to start moving away from Apple/Microsoft (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43778109)

Google starts projects and kills them off as much as people change their underwear...

Microsoft Kills Products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Discontinued_Microsoft_software [wikipedia.org]
Apple Kill Products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_discontinued_by_Apple_Inc [wikipedia.org].

Get over it

I do think its sensible to invest time into open source products(and more importantly formats), but do not expect proprietary software to be the same. Although suggesting Goolge is unique or alone at replacing unprofitable software is simply laughable.

People still IM? (-1, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#43778107)

Other than SMS, people still use IM? Is the Internet populated solely by 14 year old basement dwellers and 50 year old ASL pervs?

Only 1 key product (1)

mattr (78516) | about a year ago | (#43778169)

Seriously Google needs to look at how much shaving off the Do no Evil badge will impair their brand.
Personally there are three products I use and think are important from Google.
1) Google search - best search I know.
2) Being able to ask a query (Google search) through the browser address bar, hence Chrome.
3) Chrome - best browser I know (Mac)

These are very heavily counterbalanced by the very close to evil if not evil level of disregard for / productization of private information.
I also am feeling fatigue from how in your face Google is. If they have a dream of stealing eyeballs from Facebook fatigue well, Google is leading the pack on fatigue - being sold, being networked, etc. If they every happen to make a not-evil service that becomes popular for some group of people, it will be axed in a year. So I have stopped looking to Google for solutions and this has cost them a lot of good will / care about what they do in my book. They constantly cut themselves off at the knees and are becoming more microsoftian each year.

If Google would focus on search and making things useful for people (like for example, contextual help and debugging through a knowledge base and context recognizer running on mac/pc/linux/android) they can do well. But their constant failures in the social and product development realm is a serious distraction. Google needs to reevaluate if they want to be seen as relevant. They don't actually have anything except the ad and phone business that seems worth their billions of cap.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...