[jdev] jabber @ google talk ?

[Bart van Bragt]

Bart Matthaei wrote:
> I agree that it would be really neat if google would enable S2S, but
> blocking google in xmpp clients until they do isn't the way to achieve this.
That's not what I meant. IMO blocking Google if they keep their network 
closed as a last resort could be a way to put some pressure on them. But 
I would _much_ prefer other solutions. My main point is that it would be 
just bad if Google would only allow communication with people within the 
Google network or with some (large) partners that they have agreements 
with. That way we'll only have yet another network owned by a large 
corporate entity. Sure, it uses XMPP but in what way would that be 
better than MSN/AIM/ICQ? Sure those protocols aren't open but I can use 
other ICQ/MSN clients which is the only advantage that a closed Google 
Talk using XMPP would have.

Remko: IMO only allowing some servers (providers) that you have a 
(legal) agreement with is a Bad Thing. This way one large entity 
controls who can and who can't play in the XMPP network. Sure you don't 
need Google's permission to talk to jabber.org but if Google Talk ends 
up having 80% of the XMPP users then it will be a very, very bad thing 
to an open technology if you need their permission before you can talk 
with that 80%.

In my opinion it should be possible for everyone to talk with the 
gmail.com users if they truly want an open network. If they want to 
reduce spam then there are better ways of doing that than starting a 
federation of Google Approved Service Providers.

Open technologies are great until large companies try to do a kind of 
'embrace and rape' strategy. Just look at what MS did to Java. I'm not 
saying that Google is trying to do something like that to XMPP, I just 
think that we should be careful with all this. Google can either make or 
break XMPP and (financially) it won't matter to them which way it goes.

IMO the JSF should start talking to Google ASAP to resolve this 
federation thing.

Bart