Loading User Information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading User Information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
mrichman
Mark A. Richman
So I sniffed my chat session, and lo and behold, it's just Jabber. I used Ethereal and Netmon to dump out the Jabber XML.
Here is my chat session with Matt Baldwin:
<message to="baldwinmathew@gmail.com" type="chat">
<body>Long live MSN Messenger!</body>
<active xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/chatstates"/>
</message>
Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde
Lame? What's wrong with Jabber?
Lame??? How is using a standard protocol lame??
And you didn't have to sniff anything, you could have just looked on the Google talk page to figure that out.
http://www.google.com/talk/otherclients.html
Larsenal
ready to give an answer
Google talk should be understood for what it is. This beta is not that innovative. Don't let that bother you. This is no doubt just part of their ongoing tooling that will enable further innovation.
Their reasons for using a fairly accessible protocol make sense to me. What would have we said if they had developed their own Google protocol? In about 6 hours, we'd see some dev boasting that he had
figured out the protocol. As with maps.google.com, you can see that Google wants its services out in the open so other devs can innovate.
symonc
symonc
My thoughts exactly...Maurits wrote:Lame? What's wrong with Jabber?
W3bbo
Work hard; increase production; prevent accidents, and be happy.
Larsenal wrote:Google talk should be understood for what it is. This beta is not that innovative. Don't let that bother you. This is no doubt just part of their ongoing tooling that will enable further innovation
Minh
WOOH! WOOH!
This is what they made for that $4 billion they just raised? I want my money back.
Larsenal
ready to give an answer
W3bbo wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, GoogleTalk is innovative to a point.
Larsenal wrote:
Agreed, but this kind of innovation is not as readily recognized outside of the geeksphere.
Harlequin
http://twitter.com/TrueHarlequin
Minh wrote:This is what they made for that $4 billion they just raised? I want my money back.
What I see here is yet another company getting profits out of someone else's work for free.
1. Mozilla is going to charge for advertising.
2. Linux for name usage.
3. Google gets more market data out of people's chat.
All of these move have something in common all are based on free or open source software (meaning, it costs almost nothing) and some company uses it to get huge revenues by charging for something else,
Sure! not the software of course, somebody may say. How naive they are!! I think the charging for something else and not from the software is just disguising the deal.
cravikiran
Ravi Chodavarapu
Well, I'd think that Google developed their own software for an open and standard protocol in this case. And being an open standard, I think the point is for both commercial and noncommercial entities to use it. What I would appreciate is if they released
some of their code on Google Code as another library for the XMPP protocol. And to the originial author, seriously, what's lame about using an open protocol?
Tyler Brown
Bullets change governments far surer than votes.
I think that it's great that Google has ventured into the IM arena. Why? Not because they've added another IM client to the mix, but because they're simply built a client on an open protocol. This is the way I personally believe IM should be done. Competing
standards don't achieve anything in the end. They divide really, forcing you into using a single, or possibly multiple clients based on which clients your friends use.
Using an open protocol will eventually result in a better experience for the end-user in the long run. Instead of having the MSN protocol, AIM protocol, etc., why not have a single protocol with multiple clients? This way each company can still implement their
proprietary features if they wish, but you won't have to be forced into using a client because your friends use it.
I can see the IM scene eventually using a single protocol, and once it starts happening, and people start switching, those left behind will soon be faced with lower and lower numbers of users.
JanM
Jan
I totally agree why not use a standard protocol like Jabber/XMPP for instant messaging. And if you as a provider want to differentiate from the rest, implement your own messages. Only Jabber clients that understand your messages will be able to show them
or do something else with them.
And for the fact that using Jabber/XMPP is not innovative... maybe the protocol isn't really innovative but you can certainly use to make innovative applications with it. I work for a telecommunications company that uses the Jabber/XMPP protocol for messaging
in our innovative applications like AmigoTV, an iTV applications that makes it possible to do IM with your friends while wathing a TV show. And yes we also use SIP for handling the voice communication. So in the end our AmigoTV could be used to talk to your
Google buddies using Google talk. So Google talk might not be innovative but the things you can hook unto can certainly be innovative from my point of view.
© 2012 Microsoft. Except where designated as licensed by
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License,
Microsoft reserves all rights associated with the materials on this site.
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.