[JDEV] Best way to drive Jabber adoption?

[Timothy Carpenter]

On 15/6/03 1:08 am, "Rachel Blackman" <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com> wrote:

>> That's a good example of a localised portal. But it will be hard to
>> offer serverside tranports for an ISP. Apart from the instability, they
>> make themselves a target for blocks and maybe even legal action from
>> AOL. On top of that they'll have to put up with question from users
>> about why the groupchat/filetransfer/etc. doesn't work. They'd be
>> better off I think, hacking GAIM a bit to give it a nice skin with
>> their company logo and such. Or some agreement with Trillian to give
>> away a version with their skin.
> 
> *innocent whistling* *gazes skywards*
> 
> Actually, all goofing around aside, what would be really cool to see is if
> someone put together a comprehensive communications server for ISPs.
> 
> Something that uses a single user database and provides (as an example)
> IMAP/POP3 mail access, web-mail access, mail filtering, user-run mailing
> lists, NNTP, Jabber, etc.  A nice, comprehensive package like that --
> especially if it did things like let a user run, say, five personal mailing
> lists without sysadmin interference, and maybe even exported those mailing
> lists as newsgroups on the NNTP server -- would be very attractive to ISPs,
> and the Jabber portion included would therefore encourage Jabber adoption.
> 

Yeap this kind of stuff!

What I have wanted since I first saw SMS years back is a MUC room that
dynamically sends to best try - online or else SMS to the phone.

 E.g. "Tim's Friday Nite pub crawl" room where I can select who is in for
that particular night. I send one message and it is distributed to the
party. People can then SMS once only to send to all the people and so manage
the status of the event, change of venue or time etc.

Once we get 3G or 4G this kind of private room could be hot with the concept
of multi user voice chat/voice bites as well as texting.

The issue of getting transports firm is a given. Blocking? Well this might
therefore suggest a personal server to provide the transports after
all...but with account details held centrally to enable multipoint access
with one logon.

Tim
> The beauty of this is that then your e-mail and Jabber addresses would be
> the same (one less address/name for people to remember), you could do
> things like set up on the mailserver rules for your account 'if I get mail
> matching <x> rules, I want to be notified by Jabber' and so on.  ISP system
> maintenance announcements could be targeted via Jabber and e-mail to
> specific customers (if Speakeasy ever offers a service to IM me when
> there's going to be system maintenance, I will sign up in a heartbeat), all
> sorts of stuff.
> 

> Right now, Jabber's not as easy to get into as just signing up for an AOL
> screen-name.  A lot of ISPs, if they do offer Jabber, don't make it readily
> apparent.  Making it possible for ISPs to provide Jabber and, more
> important, to provide Jabber in some way that gives significant value to
> the end customer (maybe offer automated tech support over Jabber?) is going
> to be one of the major steps in encouraging adoption.
> 
>> Once you have a fair slice of the pie, you can compete on features.
>> Then it also get's more attractive for both commercial and non-
>> commercial entities to offer jabber-based services. (For examplee, I
>> can imagine one day Trillian will offer Jabber-acounts for a small fee,
>> that integrate with the rest of their own communities (forums and
>> such)). 
> 
> *whimpers softly*  Our bandwidth bills are bad enough as it is...!  But
> yes, that's been discussed as a future possibility, a trillian.cc Jabber
> server at some point for Pro users.