[jdev] Facebook XMPP

[Scott Lewis]

Hi Nick,

Although I don't think an open letter would do much harm, I'm not sure 
it would do much good, frankly.  Although I agree with you that lock-in 
strategies are diminishing in their importance in software given the 
net, in my experience it is *very* hard to convince commercial 
orgs...who are fighting with one another for these audiences...for 
different reasons...to change these ways.  IMHO, for many it's built 
into their way of thinking about business (unfortunately).

But I don't wish to be discouraging (even if that's the effect).  
Perhaps an open letter would be a reasonable idea...especially if it 
came from a non-commercial entity.  I would support it.

Scott

P.S.  correction:

Also, such an approach minimizes the effort in creating multiprotocol 
clients...not that it doesn't eliminate it, but it does reduce it to a 
more manageable level for client developers.

should be:

Also, such an approach minimizes the effort in creating multiprotocol 
clients...not that it eliminates the effort, but it does reduce it to a 
more manageable level for client developers.


Nick Vidal wrote:
> How can Facebook (and others) win by adopting XMPP to its full potential?
>
> If we can answer this question and write an open letter to Facebook, 
> Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Twitter, etc, successfully making them 
> realize that this is the way to go, inviting them to have access to 
> these valuable resources created by the XSF, then we all win. Are 
> lock-in strategies still benefitial for them in this new scenario? I 
> don't believe so, and I believe we can convince them of that. So how 
> about writting an open letter to these influential companies? Who 
> thinks this is a good idea?
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Scott Lewis <slewis at composent.com 
> <mailto:slewis at composent.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Folks,
>
>     (Lurker materializes)
>
>     One comment I would like to make about this discussion of whether
>     or not to work on multiprotocol clients/i.e. whytransportsmatter.  
>     It's not realistic IMHO to expect that the whole world will
>     transfer to open protocols/XMPP overnight...as much as some of us
>     would like to see this happen.  Rather I think the key to making
>     this happen is make such transitions as easy as possible...by:
>
>     1) Having lots of clients (whether single protocol or
>     multi-protocol) so that UI innovation can occur and create new
>     user value
>     2) Having lots of good clients
>     3) Having open clients (open protocol at least...and preferably
>     open source implementations)
>
>     As important as it is, I think it's still very hard to convince
>     users that they should choose interoperability over UI features.
>      So for interoperability to matter to users, open clients have to
>     be as good, numerous, and innovative as well as support
>     interoperability.  Further, multiprotocol clients can expose the
>     value of interoperability to users while still giving them what
>     they want:   easy/familiar connectivity to others.
>
>     In order to help 1, 2, and 3 along, I/we have taken the approach
>     of creating protocol independent communications APIs as part of
>     the ECF project:  http://www.eclipse.org/ecf.  It's our hope that
>     by creating a protocol-independent, open and extensible 'presence'
>     API (as but one example) it makes it possible for developers to
>     create either single protocol or multi-protocol clients more
>     easily/quickly/with higher quality, and without taking a least
>     common denominator approach to features (because both the core and
>     all ECF APIs are extensible at runtime via OSGi either in servers
>     or client applications).
>
>     Also, such an approach minimizes the effort in creating
>     multiprotocol clients...not that it doesn't eliminate it, but it
>     does reduce it to a more manageable level for client developers.
>
>     Anyway...I'm happy about the Facebook announcement too :).
>
>     Scott
>
>
>
>     Sander Devrieze wrote:
>
>         2008/5/15 Nick Vidal <nick at inf.ufrgs.br
>         <mailto:nick at inf.ufrgs.br>>:
>          
>
>             Sanders: you do support users who use AIM and MSN, since
>             you *waste your
>             time* making sure coccinella works with transports. And
>             you do support users
>             of Microsoft Windows, since you *wast your time* making
>             sure coccinella
>             works in Windows. And this is a good thing! Thank you! :)
>                
>
>
>         My reply is here as already said before:
>         http://coccinella.im/whytransportsmatter
>
>          
>
>
>