I am all Scobled out, so a change of topic ..
I have been wondering recently why Microsoft never paid any attention to XMPP (formerly Jabber), even before Google started using it for GTalk. For those that don't know XMPP is an XML protocol, normally sent as a stream to the server and is used for Messaging
and Presence information (hence the Xml Messaging and Presence Protocol in the name), and typically uses federated servers for the distribution of clients - allowing me to run my own Jabber server whilst talking to someone using Google's.
Is there a reason that Microsoft has decided to avoid using XMPP that goes beyoned NIH? It is obvious that Microsoft are up near the top in IM installations, and I wondered why it has decided to not use an existing protocol that (on the surface from this
far away) fulfill all of the needs for messaging (and presence) - obviously as it has now gone through IETF it might be more open that some would like.
I only bring this up as I am currently looking at the possibilities of using XMPP as a message bus (with service presence info) and it made me wonder.
-
-
PaoloM
Hypermediocrity
As far as I remember (and this is stuff from 1999 or something) the MSN IM protocol was out way before XMPP and "if it ain't broke..."
-
PaoloM
Hypermediocrity
Rossj wrote:I only bring this up as I am currently looking at the possibilities of using XMPP as a message bus (with service presence info) and it made me wonder.
I'd be interested in knowing more about this
-
PaoloM wrote:
Rossj wrote:I only bring this up as I am currently looking at the possibilities of using XMPP as a message bus (with service presence info) and it made me wonder.
I'd be interested in knowing more about this
As soon as I've formulated my plan of action (it is for a wide area distributed network of autonomous machines ) I shall write a post so everyone can shoot me down and tell me that it can't possibly work
The thing that really got me excited (yes I am a nerd) is the server federation, I don't have to have one machine handling 4,000 connections (although I've seen servers that don't seem to have much trouble with that).
-
Microsoft seemed to back SIP instead, since that was the way Live Communications Server went. Shame, because XMPP seemed easier to build upon last time I looked.
-
sirhomer wrote:Could it be that Microsoft simply does not want to follow standards? Or is that a complete impossibility to everyone here?
Hardly, SIP == RFC3261 -
PaoloM
Hypermediocrity
sirhomer wrote:Could it be that Microsoft simply does not want to follow standards? Or is that a complete impossibility to everyone here?
There was NO standard to follow, at the time. -
PaoloM wrote:
There was NO standard to follow, at the time.
I don't believe there is now, is there? Last I heard ISO were considering SIP, PRIM or APEX for the IMPP standard (notably not XMPP) -
Bas
It finds lightbulbs.
sirhomer wrote:Could it be that Microsoft simply does not want to follow standards? Or is that a complete impossibility to everyone here?
PaoloM wrote:
MSN IM protocol was out way before XMPP
MSNP: 1999
Jabber: 2000
XMPP: Formalization started in 2002, four specs accepted as proposed standard by the IESG in 2004. Not standardized as of yet.
-
Bas wrote:
Jabber: 2000
XMPP: Formalization started in 2002, four specs accepted as proposed standard by the IESG in 2004. Not standardized as of yet.
These two are essentially the same, and do have RFCs at the IETF from end 2004 - what more do you need
I take the point that MSM was available before Jabber/XMPP ...
-
Bas
It finds lightbulbs.
Rossj wrote:
Bas wrote:
Jabber: 2000
XMPP: Formalization started in 2002, four specs accepted as proposed standard by the IESG in 2004. Not standardized as of yet.
These two are essentially the same, and do have RFCs at the IETF from end 2004 - what more do you need
I take the point that MSM was available before Jabber/XMPP ...
I know they're essentially the same, but if I had just said that XMPP formalization started in 2002, somebody would have cut in with something to the extent of 'but Jabber was around longer than that.' Hence my listing of Jabber's first release: yeah, they were around longer, but it was still impossible for MSN to base their protocol on the one from Jabber.
And yeah, they have RFC's, but the complaint was that perhaps Microsoft didn't want to stick to 'standards' regarding IM protocols, while there was and still is no such standard. -
Bas wrote:
And yeah, they have RFC's, but the complaint was that perhaps Microsoft didn't want to stick to 'standards' regarding IM protocols, while there was and still is no such standard.
That wasn't really my point, at least not intentionally. It was more about the NiH rather than standards. Of course Paolo pointed out that Jabber was late to the party, but I was under the impression that originally XMPP/Jabber was developed in order to circumvent some of the *possible* flaws with the other protocols and provide a higher level view of IM for interoperability.
-
blindlizard
monsterlizard.com
I just googled to find market share in the IM market and fonud this:
- AOL: 53 million
- MSN: 27 million
- Yahoo: 22 million
- Google: 866,000
I don't know how accurate those numbers are, but that is what I have. Now, why would Microsoft want to use the protocol that is used by the player that has like 1% market share? Where is the incentive to using an open protocol when they only add 866,000 potential customers. If anything, MS did the right thing makeing Messenger interoperable with Yahoo. Isn't IM about the users, not what communication protocol that powers it?
-
That's not a lot of users for Google, but then Google are not the only people who run an XMPP serverblindlizard wrote:I just googled to find market share in the IM market and fonud this:
- AOL: 53 million
- MSN: 27 million
- Yahoo: 22 million
- Google: 866,000
I don't know how accurate those numbers are, but that is what I have. Now, why would Microsoft want to use the protocol that is used by the player that has like 1% market share? Where is the incentive to using an open protocol when they only add 866,000 potential customers. If anything, MS did the right thing makeing Messenger interoperable with Yahoo. Isn't IM about the users, not what communication protocol that powers it?
It also probably doesn't reflect the position of the IM market 7 years ago.
Yes IM is about the users, so how about we open up the MSN API so anybody can write their own client? Umm... no answer? Maybe they should have used an open technology - NOW can you see why I am asking? It isn't just the technology I am interested in, it is the attributes of the technology.
Please don't jump to the conclusion that I am a technology fanboy.
Thread Closed
This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.