Why aren't messaging apps created like email and sms, where you can send messages between multiple service...
I can send emails from GMail to YahooMail or to ProtonMail etc. I can send SMS'es to any mobile number irrespective of whether the number is owned by Vodafone or any other telecom providers.
However, I can't send instant messages between WhatsApp and Google Hangouts or Telegram or WeChat etc.
Is there a technological barrier or security issues related to this lack of functionality? I noticed many of them use their own protocols, but shouldn't it be possible to create a common protocol like POP3 or IMAP, for instant messaging? The current state of instant messaging just seems silly, that I can't receive an instant message from a WhatsApp user to my Hangouts account.
instant-messaging protocol
asked Dec 4 '18 at 6:25
NavNav
4933824
closed as off-topic by Máté Juhász, grawity, Dmitry Grigoryev, PeterH, Twisty Impersonator Dec 4 '18 at 15:13
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is not about computer hardware or software, within the scope defined in the help center." – Máté Juhász, PeterH, Twisty Impersonator
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 1 more comment
I can send emails from GMail to YahooMail or to ProtonMail etc. I can send SMS'es to any mobile number irrespective of whether the number is owned by Vodafone or any other telecom providers.
However, I can't send instant messages between WhatsApp and Google Hangouts or Telegram or WeChat etc.
Is there a technological barrier or security issues related to this lack of functionality? I noticed many of them use their own protocols, but shouldn't it be possible to create a common protocol like POP3 or IMAP, for instant messaging? The current state of instant messaging just seems silly, that I can't receive an instant message from a WhatsApp user to my Hangouts account.
instant-messaging protocol
asked Dec 4 '18 at 6:25
NavNav
4933824
closed as off-topic by Máté Juhász, grawity, Dmitry Grigoryev, PeterH, Twisty Impersonator Dec 4 '18 at 15:13
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is not about computer hardware or software, within the scope defined in the help center." – Máté Juhász, PeterH, Twisty Impersonator
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
3
Compare XMPP, decentralization and addressing.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Dec 4 '18 at 6:32
@KamilMaciorowski: That's perfect! I wonder why chat messengers aren't allowing each other to talk to each other.
– Nav
Dec 4 '18 at 6:37
3
Also note that it is often in the interest of bigger providers to have their own walled garden. In particular WhatsApp (at least after it has been taken over by Facebook) has repeatedly blocked any attempts for third party apps to use their infrastructure.
– dirkt
Dec 4 '18 at 8:43
1
@Nav Example from experience, I'm one of those people. I have little interest in Whatsapp because I already have other means to communicate with those friends that use it. The App itself takes up valuable storage space on my phone for very little benefit. Doesn't stop people asking why I don't use it though.
– Rowan
Dec 4 '18 at 13:31
1
@Nav As far as I understand, the requirement is not merely "Whatsapp was installed on the phone"; it's a much more stringent "The phone is on, connected to the internet, and Whatsapp is running in background".
– Federico Poloni
Dec 4 '18 at 13:49
|
show 1 more comment
I can send emails from GMail to YahooMail or to ProtonMail etc. I can send SMS'es to any mobile number irrespective of whether the number is owned by Vodafone or any other telecom providers.
However, I can't send instant messages between WhatsApp and Google Hangouts or Telegram or WeChat etc.
Is there a technological barrier or security issues related to this lack of functionality? I noticed many of them use their own protocols, but shouldn't it be possible to create a common protocol like POP3 or IMAP, for instant messaging? The current state of instant messaging just seems silly, that I can't receive an instant message from a WhatsApp user to my Hangouts account.
instant-messaging protocol
asked Dec 4 '18 at 6:25
NavNav
4933824
I can send emails from GMail to YahooMail or to ProtonMail etc. I can send SMS'es to any mobile number irrespective of whether the number is owned by Vodafone or any other telecom providers.
However, I can't send instant messages between WhatsApp and Google Hangouts or Telegram or WeChat etc.
Is there a technological barrier or security issues related to this lack of functionality? I noticed many of them use their own protocols, but shouldn't it be possible to create a common protocol like POP3 or IMAP, for instant messaging? The current state of instant messaging just seems silly, that I can't receive an instant message from a WhatsApp user to my Hangouts account.
instant-messaging protocol
instant-messaging protocol
asked Dec 4 '18 at 6:25
NavNav
4933824
asked Dec 4 '18 at 6:25
NavNav
4933824
asked Dec 4 '18 at 6:25
NavNav
4933824
asked Dec 4 '18 at 6:25
NavNav
4933824
asked Dec 4 '18 at 6:25
NavNav
4933824
4933824
closed as off-topic by Máté Juhász, grawity, Dmitry Grigoryev, PeterH, Twisty Impersonator Dec 4 '18 at 15:13
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is not about computer hardware or software, within the scope defined in the help center." – Máté Juhász, PeterH, Twisty Impersonator
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off-topic by Máté Juhász, grawity, Dmitry Grigoryev, PeterH, Twisty Impersonator Dec 4 '18 at 15:13
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is not about computer hardware or software, within the scope defined in the help center." – Máté Juhász, PeterH, Twisty Impersonator
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
3
Compare XMPP, decentralization and addressing.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Dec 4 '18 at 6:32
@KamilMaciorowski: That's perfect! I wonder why chat messengers aren't allowing each other to talk to each other.
– Nav
Dec 4 '18 at 6:37
3
Also note that it is often in the interest of bigger providers to have their own walled garden. In particular WhatsApp (at least after it has been taken over by Facebook) has repeatedly blocked any attempts for third party apps to use their infrastructure.
– dirkt
Dec 4 '18 at 8:43
1
@Nav Example from experience, I'm one of those people. I have little interest in Whatsapp because I already have other means to communicate with those friends that use it. The App itself takes up valuable storage space on my phone for very little benefit. Doesn't stop people asking why I don't use it though.
– Rowan
Dec 4 '18 at 13:31
1
@Nav As far as I understand, the requirement is not merely "Whatsapp was installed on the phone"; it's a much more stringent "The phone is on, connected to the internet, and Whatsapp is running in background".
– Federico Poloni
Dec 4 '18 at 13:49
|
show 1 more comment
3
Compare XMPP, decentralization and addressing.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Dec 4 '18 at 6:32
@KamilMaciorowski: That's perfect! I wonder why chat messengers aren't allowing each other to talk to each other.
– Nav
Dec 4 '18 at 6:37
3
Also note that it is often in the interest of bigger providers to have their own walled garden. In particular WhatsApp (at least after it has been taken over by Facebook) has repeatedly blocked any attempts for third party apps to use their infrastructure.
– dirkt
Dec 4 '18 at 8:43
1
@Nav Example from experience, I'm one of those people. I have little interest in Whatsapp because I already have other means to communicate with those friends that use it. The App itself takes up valuable storage space on my phone for very little benefit. Doesn't stop people asking why I don't use it though.
– Rowan
Dec 4 '18 at 13:31
1
@Nav As far as I understand, the requirement is not merely "Whatsapp was installed on the phone"; it's a much more stringent "The phone is on, connected to the internet, and Whatsapp is running in background".
– Federico Poloni
Dec 4 '18 at 13:49
3
3
Compare XMPP, decentralization and addressing.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Dec 4 '18 at 6:32
Compare XMPP, decentralization and addressing.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Dec 4 '18 at 6:32
@KamilMaciorowski: That's perfect! I wonder why chat messengers aren't allowing each other to talk to each other.
– Nav
Dec 4 '18 at 6:37
@KamilMaciorowski: That's perfect! I wonder why chat messengers aren't allowing each other to talk to each other.
– Nav
Dec 4 '18 at 6:37
3
3
Also note that it is often in the interest of bigger providers to have their own walled garden. In particular WhatsApp (at least after it has been taken over by Facebook) has repeatedly blocked any attempts for third party apps to use their infrastructure.
– dirkt
Dec 4 '18 at 8:43
Also note that it is often in the interest of bigger providers to have their own walled garden. In particular WhatsApp (at least after it has been taken over by Facebook) has repeatedly blocked any attempts for third party apps to use their infrastructure.
– dirkt
Dec 4 '18 at 8:43
1
1
@Nav Example from experience, I'm one of those people. I have little interest in Whatsapp because I already have other means to communicate with those friends that use it. The App itself takes up valuable storage space on my phone for very little benefit. Doesn't stop people asking why I don't use it though.
– Rowan
Dec 4 '18 at 13:31
@Nav Example from experience, I'm one of those people. I have little interest in Whatsapp because I already have other means to communicate with those friends that use it. The App itself takes up valuable storage space on my phone for very little benefit. Doesn't stop people asking why I don't use it though.
– Rowan
Dec 4 '18 at 13:31
1
1
@Nav As far as I understand, the requirement is not merely "Whatsapp was installed on the phone"; it's a much more stringent "The phone is on, connected to the internet, and Whatsapp is running in background".
– Federico Poloni
Dec 4 '18 at 13:49
@Nav As far as I understand, the requirement is not merely "Whatsapp was installed on the phone"; it's a much more stringent "The phone is on, connected to the internet, and Whatsapp is running in background".
– Federico Poloni
Dec 4 '18 at 13:49
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
There is a common protocol, several in fact – a popular one being XMPP (aka Jabber); another is SIMPLE, a variant of the SIP protocol used for VoIP. (Some of the oldest ones, such as Talk, Zephyr, or Gale – even IRC – were also built with cross-domain communications in mind.) Rather, commercial services don't want to use a common protocol, both for technical and commercial reasons it seems.
Here's some historical examples of Jabber usage alone:
- Originally, Google Talk (pre-Hangouts) was a standard XMPP service and could connect to other domains using XMPP – they even introduced the voice/video-over-XMPP extension (Jingle).
- Originally, Facebook Chat was an XMPP-compatible service, although did not support inter-server federation (presumably so that more people would have to sign up for a Facebook account).
- For a short while, even AOL's AIM tried to support XMPP alongside their (proprietary but partially open nevertheless) OSCAR protocol.
- Signal is XMPP-based, but they have a blog post about the decision to not support this feature. Signal's main argument is that a federated protocol becomes very difficult to change, other than adding small features here and there. (Which is... indeed true for SMTP and DNS, for example.)
If I had to guess, because it didn't become a "killer feature" during the birth of the Internet (eventually being instead "solved" on the client side, using multiprotocol chat apps such as Trillian, Miranda, or Gaim/Pidgin), federated instant messaging missed its chance to become a core Internet protocol and instead is just considered to be another commercially-nonviable feature that a very small percentage of users care to ask for.
(IRC is contemporary with SMTP and had a massive federated network back in the day, so why didn't it become 'the' protocol? Well, its server-to-server protocols are completely unsuitable for untrusted environments, as they form a tightly-synchronized system rather than a loose mesh of independent domains. It could be made to work with purely one-to-one messaging, but IRC's focus is channels and it's not good at that.)
Finally... spam. I remember having read some mailing list threads by XMPP server operators, describing Google Talk as the main source of all spam messages by a huge margin – they didn't do a good job at dealing with abuse reports sender-side, and they were such a large provider that you can't afford to outright block it, but due to the format of chat messages vs emails (short, arriving in parts, very little metadata), it's apparently impossible to decently filter it recipient-side, either.
You can certainly install an XMPP server (ejabberd, Prosody) much like one would install an email server, and be reachable as Nav@example.com through anyone else's XMPP server. There are XMPP clients available for many operating systems, from Windows to Android. (Though you will have some difficulties making push notifications available, and if you don't, it will drain your battery.)
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There is a common protocol, several in fact – a popular one being XMPP (aka Jabber); another is SIMPLE, a variant of the SIP protocol used for VoIP. (Some of the oldest ones, such as Talk, Zephyr, or Gale – even IRC – were also built with cross-domain communications in mind.) Rather, commercial services don't want to use a common protocol, both for technical and commercial reasons it seems.
Here's some historical examples of Jabber usage alone:
- Originally, Google Talk (pre-Hangouts) was a standard XMPP service and could connect to other domains using XMPP – they even introduced the voice/video-over-XMPP extension (Jingle).
- Originally, Facebook Chat was an XMPP-compatible service, although did not support inter-server federation (presumably so that more people would have to sign up for a Facebook account).
- For a short while, even AOL's AIM tried to support XMPP alongside their (proprietary but partially open nevertheless) OSCAR protocol.
- Signal is XMPP-based, but they have a blog post about the decision to not support this feature. Signal's main argument is that a federated protocol becomes very difficult to change, other than adding small features here and there. (Which is... indeed true for SMTP and DNS, for example.)
If I had to guess, because it didn't become a "killer feature" during the birth of the Internet (eventually being instead "solved" on the client side, using multiprotocol chat apps such as Trillian, Miranda, or Gaim/Pidgin), federated instant messaging missed its chance to become a core Internet protocol and instead is just considered to be another commercially-nonviable feature that a very small percentage of users care to ask for.
(IRC is contemporary with SMTP and had a massive federated network back in the day, so why didn't it become 'the' protocol? Well, its server-to-server protocols are completely unsuitable for untrusted environments, as they form a tightly-synchronized system rather than a loose mesh of independent domains. It could be made to work with purely one-to-one messaging, but IRC's focus is channels and it's not good at that.)
Finally... spam. I remember having read some mailing list threads by XMPP server operators, describing Google Talk as the main source of all spam messages by a huge margin – they didn't do a good job at dealing with abuse reports sender-side, and they were such a large provider that you can't afford to outright block it, but due to the format of chat messages vs emails (short, arriving in parts, very little metadata), it's apparently impossible to decently filter it recipient-side, either.
You can certainly install an XMPP server (ejabberd, Prosody) much like one would install an email server, and be reachable as Nav@example.com through anyone else's XMPP server. There are XMPP clients available for many operating systems, from Windows to Android. (Though you will have some difficulties making push notifications available, and if you don't, it will drain your battery.)
add a comment |
There is a common protocol, several in fact – a popular one being XMPP (aka Jabber); another is SIMPLE, a variant of the SIP protocol used for VoIP. (Some of the oldest ones, such as Talk, Zephyr, or Gale – even IRC – were also built with cross-domain communications in mind.) Rather, commercial services don't want to use a common protocol, both for technical and commercial reasons it seems.
Here's some historical examples of Jabber usage alone:
- Originally, Google Talk (pre-Hangouts) was a standard XMPP service and could connect to other domains using XMPP – they even introduced the voice/video-over-XMPP extension (Jingle).
- Originally, Facebook Chat was an XMPP-compatible service, although did not support inter-server federation (presumably so that more people would have to sign up for a Facebook account).
- For a short while, even AOL's AIM tried to support XMPP alongside their (proprietary but partially open nevertheless) OSCAR protocol.
- Signal is XMPP-based, but they have a blog post about the decision to not support this feature. Signal's main argument is that a federated protocol becomes very difficult to change, other than adding small features here and there. (Which is... indeed true for SMTP and DNS, for example.)
If I had to guess, because it didn't become a "killer feature" during the birth of the Internet (eventually being instead "solved" on the client side, using multiprotocol chat apps such as Trillian, Miranda, or Gaim/Pidgin), federated instant messaging missed its chance to become a core Internet protocol and instead is just considered to be another commercially-nonviable feature that a very small percentage of users care to ask for.
(IRC is contemporary with SMTP and had a massive federated network back in the day, so why didn't it become 'the' protocol? Well, its server-to-server protocols are completely unsuitable for untrusted environments, as they form a tightly-synchronized system rather than a loose mesh of independent domains. It could be made to work with purely one-to-one messaging, but IRC's focus is channels and it's not good at that.)
Finally... spam. I remember having read some mailing list threads by XMPP server operators, describing Google Talk as the main source of all spam messages by a huge margin – they didn't do a good job at dealing with abuse reports sender-side, and they were such a large provider that you can't afford to outright block it, but due to the format of chat messages vs emails (short, arriving in parts, very little metadata), it's apparently impossible to decently filter it recipient-side, either.
You can certainly install an XMPP server (ejabberd, Prosody) much like one would install an email server, and be reachable as Nav@example.com through anyone else's XMPP server. There are XMPP clients available for many operating systems, from Windows to Android. (Though you will have some difficulties making push notifications available, and if you don't, it will drain your battery.)
add a comment |
There is a common protocol, several in fact – a popular one being XMPP (aka Jabber); another is SIMPLE, a variant of the SIP protocol used for VoIP. (Some of the oldest ones, such as Talk, Zephyr, or Gale – even IRC – were also built with cross-domain communications in mind.) Rather, commercial services don't want to use a common protocol, both for technical and commercial reasons it seems.
Here's some historical examples of Jabber usage alone:
- Originally, Google Talk (pre-Hangouts) was a standard XMPP service and could connect to other domains using XMPP – they even introduced the voice/video-over-XMPP extension (Jingle).
- Originally, Facebook Chat was an XMPP-compatible service, although did not support inter-server federation (presumably so that more people would have to sign up for a Facebook account).
- For a short while, even AOL's AIM tried to support XMPP alongside their (proprietary but partially open nevertheless) OSCAR protocol.
- Signal is XMPP-based, but they have a blog post about the decision to not support this feature. Signal's main argument is that a federated protocol becomes very difficult to change, other than adding small features here and there. (Which is... indeed true for SMTP and DNS, for example.)
If I had to guess, because it didn't become a "killer feature" during the birth of the Internet (eventually being instead "solved" on the client side, using multiprotocol chat apps such as Trillian, Miranda, or Gaim/Pidgin), federated instant messaging missed its chance to become a core Internet protocol and instead is just considered to be another commercially-nonviable feature that a very small percentage of users care to ask for.
(IRC is contemporary with SMTP and had a massive federated network back in the day, so why didn't it become 'the' protocol? Well, its server-to-server protocols are completely unsuitable for untrusted environments, as they form a tightly-synchronized system rather than a loose mesh of independent domains. It could be made to work with purely one-to-one messaging, but IRC's focus is channels and it's not good at that.)
Finally... spam. I remember having read some mailing list threads by XMPP server operators, describing Google Talk as the main source of all spam messages by a huge margin – they didn't do a good job at dealing with abuse reports sender-side, and they were such a large provider that you can't afford to outright block it, but due to the format of chat messages vs emails (short, arriving in parts, very little metadata), it's apparently impossible to decently filter it recipient-side, either.
You can certainly install an XMPP server (ejabberd, Prosody) much like one would install an email server, and be reachable as Nav@example.com through anyone else's XMPP server. There are XMPP clients available for many operating systems, from Windows to Android. (Though you will have some difficulties making push notifications available, and if you don't, it will drain your battery.)
There is a common protocol, several in fact – a popular one being XMPP (aka Jabber); another is SIMPLE, a variant of the SIP protocol used for VoIP. (Some of the oldest ones, such as Talk, Zephyr, or Gale – even IRC – were also built with cross-domain communications in mind.) Rather, commercial services don't want to use a common protocol, both for technical and commercial reasons it seems.
Here's some historical examples of Jabber usage alone:
- Originally, Google Talk (pre-Hangouts) was a standard XMPP service and could connect to other domains using XMPP – they even introduced the voice/video-over-XMPP extension (Jingle).
- Originally, Facebook Chat was an XMPP-compatible service, although did not support inter-server federation (presumably so that more people would have to sign up for a Facebook account).
- For a short while, even AOL's AIM tried to support XMPP alongside their (proprietary but partially open nevertheless) OSCAR protocol.
- Signal is XMPP-based, but they have a blog post about the decision to not support this feature. Signal's main argument is that a federated protocol becomes very difficult to change, other than adding small features here and there. (Which is... indeed true for SMTP and DNS, for example.)
If I had to guess, because it didn't become a "killer feature" during the birth of the Internet (eventually being instead "solved" on the client side, using multiprotocol chat apps such as Trillian, Miranda, or Gaim/Pidgin), federated instant messaging missed its chance to become a core Internet protocol and instead is just considered to be another commercially-nonviable feature that a very small percentage of users care to ask for.
(IRC is contemporary with SMTP and had a massive federated network back in the day, so why didn't it become 'the' protocol? Well, its server-to-server protocols are completely unsuitable for untrusted environments, as they form a tightly-synchronized system rather than a loose mesh of independent domains. It could be made to work with purely one-to-one messaging, but IRC's focus is channels and it's not good at that.)
Finally... spam. I remember having read some mailing list threads by XMPP server operators, describing Google Talk as the main source of all spam messages by a huge margin – they didn't do a good job at dealing with abuse reports sender-side, and they were such a large provider that you can't afford to outright block it, but due to the format of chat messages vs emails (short, arriving in parts, very little metadata), it's apparently impossible to decently filter it recipient-side, either.
You can certainly install an XMPP server (ejabberd, Prosody) much like one would install an email server, and be reachable as Nav@example.com through anyone else's XMPP server. There are XMPP clients available for many operating systems, from Windows to Android. (Though you will have some difficulties making push notifications available, and if you don't, it will drain your battery.)
edited Dec 4 '18 at 8:49
community wiki
6 revs
grawity
add a comment |
add a comment |
3
Compare XMPP, decentralization and addressing.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Dec 4 '18 at 6:32
@KamilMaciorowski: That's perfect! I wonder why chat messengers aren't allowing each other to talk to each other.
– Nav
Dec 4 '18 at 6:37
3
Also note that it is often in the interest of bigger providers to have their own walled garden. In particular WhatsApp (at least after it has been taken over by Facebook) has repeatedly blocked any attempts for third party apps to use their infrastructure.
– dirkt
Dec 4 '18 at 8:43
1
@Nav Example from experience, I'm one of those people. I have little interest in Whatsapp because I already have other means to communicate with those friends that use it. The App itself takes up valuable storage space on my phone for very little benefit. Doesn't stop people asking why I don't use it though.
– Rowan
Dec 4 '18 at 13:31
1
@Nav As far as I understand, the requirement is not merely "Whatsapp was installed on the phone"; it's a much more stringent "The phone is on, connected to the internet, and Whatsapp is running in background".
– Federico Poloni
Dec 4 '18 at 13:49