upvote
> I am genuinely interested in hearing why we collectively ditched XMPP

We didn't. It was never very popular, and is today more popular that it has ever been.

reply
Depends if you mean just the technology or using it in the small federated spirit. Google Talk and Facebook Messenger were XMPP all the way through and worked with vanilla XMPP clients. Slack wasn't XMPP but supported it via a gateway until it was dropped.

Not sure how popular the small federation was back then, but I know Mac OS X Server touted an XMPP server and that was a first-class feature of iChat.

reply
Facebook was also a gateway like slack, but not as good as slack's gateway.

Google Talk was real and federated XMPP before they killed the product.

reply
> Google Talk and Facebook Messenger were XMPP all the way through and worked with vanilla XMPP clients

I remember this, it was great to connect to absolutely every chat platform with bitlbee and pretend that all my chats were just DMs on some irc server somewhere

reply
It wasn’t popular? I remember using pidgin to talk to friends on google chat, facebook and my work contacts. It was glorious.

I haven’t had a reason to use an xmpp client in over a decade.

reply
Pidgin is a multi protocol client. Not an XMPP client.
reply
Likely you do or have without knowing it. The protocol is used in telecom quite a bit for all sorts of things. Jitsi is built on XMPP. Lots of games use it for chat - league of legends and unreal engine I believe. Xmpp shows up in all sorts of places if you look.
reply
Same! Pidgin was such a great piece of software
reply
XMPP had rather bad name. Well-known design issues causing message losses, fractioned ecosystem due to varying implementation of extensions, unsuitability for mobile clients, absence of synchronization between clients, absence of end-to-end encryption. Most of these issues were (much) later fixed by extensions, but Matrix (or Signal for those who do not require federated one) was already there, offering E2EE by default.

Even today, E2EE in XMPP is rather inconvenient compared to Matrix due to absence of chain-of-trust in key management.

reply
Google Talk support for XMPP: 2005-2013

Facebook Messenger support for XMPP: 2010-2015

Jabber.org support for new accounts: 1999-2013

First-class integration with two of the world's largest social networks put XMPP in practically everyone's hands for a time, but when all the major hosts left, network discoverability and typical account longevity dropped drastically. The landscape is bleak today.

And since then, our collective needs and expectations of a chat platform have expanded. XEPs have been developed to bolt much of that functionality onto the base protocol, but that has led to a fragmentation problem on top of the bleak server landscape.

This unfortunate situation might be navigable by a typical HN user, and perhaps we could guide a few friends and family members and promise to keep a server running for them, but I think the chances of most people succeeding with it are pretty slim today.

reply
Facebook never had "first-class integration". It was just a client bridge - you could login into Facebook Chat using your XMPP client, but it was a completely separate network, unlike Google Talk which was an actual federating XMPP server.
reply
Fair enough. (Although all the XMPP clients that I used supported multiple accounts, so it made little difference from where I was standing.)

In any case, it contributed significantly to XMPP's reach and utility, and it's gone now.

reply
(And my point regarding support on Google/Facebook was that their users could chat with me over XMPP without having to leave their familiar sites, sign up for anything new, or do anything else special. That put it in easy reach of the masses.)
reply
We didn't. Big tech did, as XMPP broke down barriers so they lost their moats.

I.e. it worked too well.

reply
Decent overview (& more broadly but the heart is about XMPP & good ol’ capitalist corpo greed): https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-netwo...
reply