
Overrun With Messaging Apps  - awwstn
http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/06/overrun-with-messaging-apps/?ncid=twittersocialshare
======
chrisballinger
What really disappoints me about the current crop of VC funded messaging apps
is that none of them care very strongly about user privacy. Even apps that
claim to keep your messages "encrypted" are closed source and don't include
details about their encryption techniques.

There are open source encrypted messaging apps like ChatSecure [1][2], and
TextSecure [3] but they lack some of the modern vanity features that users
expect and they can seem difficult to setup for an average user.

1\. [https://github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-
iOS](https://github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-iOS)

2\.
[https://github.com/guardianproject/ChatSecureAndroid](https://github.com/guardianproject/ChatSecureAndroid)

3\.
[https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/](https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/)

~~~
Guest9821
It's amazing the most crucial applications in our day to day lives are
absolutely awful. Why is there not a great messenger application available,
that's simple, well designed, and secures our data? Why is there not a proper
alternative to Skype, offering free group video calling, while protecting our
privacy? Why does e-mail feel so dated and sloppy? I sent out a handful of
e-mails last week, my mail server said they were sent, but none of the
recipients received them. I sent another message to a friend the other month,
and she missed it because it went to her spam folder. Why do I even receive
spam? I know you can setup a whitelist only, but why isn't this more of a
standard, where I build a contact list with friends, and we can leave messages
back and forth, receive proper confirmation they're received, read, etc. It
would be nice if I could login to my e-mail, and see I have 20 friends, 10
sites that are able to message me, and then manage that list by adding or
removing.

We have some incredible apps and software out there, but the most important
ones are those lacking the most.

~~~
cdcarter
> I know you can setup a whitelist only, but why isn't this more of a
> standard, where I build a contact list with friends, and we can leave
> messages back and forth, receive proper confirmation they're received, read,
> etc. It would be nice if I could login to my e-mail, and see I have 20
> friends, 10 sites that are able to message me, and then manage that list by
> adding or removing.

This actually is pretty much how Facebook messaging works.

------
jeremie
A pretty relevant article about what myself and temas are working on now:
[http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/4/5173726/you-have-too-
many-...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/4/5173726/you-have-too-many-chat-
apps-can-layer-connect-them)

IMO, interop/federation is going to be a tremendous long-term effort and
include many standards, but is definitely feasible, inevitable even. There's a
lot of innovation happening in messaging again thanks to mobile, we just need
to start taking the best of what we've all learned already and work together
to improve everyone's stack collectively.

~~~
chrisballinger
Layer seems interesting but I think the reason XMPP ultimately succeeded was
because of federation and a healthy open source ecosystem. We are drafting a
federated, minimal knowledge push server design for privacy-minded chat apps:
[https://github.com/ChatSecure/ChatSecure-Push-
Server/tree/ma...](https://github.com/ChatSecure/ChatSecure-Push-
Server/tree/master/docs/v3) (a little out of date)

------
Pxtl
Everythign old is new again. Remember the days of MSN vs ICQ vs AIM etc etc
etc?

~~~
AznHisoka
Yes... Why can't people just download Trillian and stop giving Snapchat and
Whatsapp billions of dollars. le sigh

~~~
Pxtl
SnapChat makes sense because it's got the whole deletion-driven ephemral
images model. That doesn't really require its own protocol, though.

Now I'm fantasizing about some kind of extensible system that allows that kind
of special messaging. Making a cross-platform system for that would be _hard_.
HTML5+JS message bodies (omg security!)? Plugin architecture? Idunno.

~~~
robzyb
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Messaging_and_Presen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Messaging_and_Presence_Protocol)

~~~
Pxtl
TIL what XMPP stands for. Neat! I thought Google said they dropped it because
they had trouble extending it to do the things they wanted with Hangouts...
when the whole point of the protocol was extensibility? That's unfortunate.

------
xur17
All of these apps are essentially doing the same things - sending text,
pictures, and status notifications. It's a hard sell, but we really need a
standard like email or xmpp to allow interoperability.

~~~
dpritchett
Google killed Talk (XMPP), replaced it with hangouts, and is suddenly offering
to replace my SMS app and send them all through hangouts. I get that this
works as a direct competitor to Messages, but I'd really rather just see
Jabber or something like it here.

~~~
xur17
I agree. I'm pretty much okay with any standard, as long as it's, well
'standard'. It just seems a bit ridiculous to have all these different apps
essentially doing the same thing, but with different front end interfaces, and
unable to communicate with each other.

~~~
rakoo
XMPP _is_ standard. Grab a client for the platform of your choice [0], open an
account on ddg.gg (duckduckgo's xmpp server), and you're done. I personnally
use pidgin on the desktop and chatsecure on Android.

The only thing XMPP is lacking is marketing. Multi-billion-dollars-level
marketing; shouldn't be too hard to do, right ?

[0] [http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/clients/](http://xmpp.org/xmpp-
software/clients/)

~~~
dmdeller
XMPP is not technically well-suited to mobile devices. It was designed with a
base-level assumption that any client will maintain a constant TCP connection
in order to receive messages. This doesn't fit well with mobile devices, which
spend most of their time 'off' and try to have as little software running
concurrently as possible in order to save battery life. Some mobile XMPP
clients have come up with various clever workarounds, but all of them are
hacks. For example, by keeping the 'real' XMPP connection open indefinitely on
a remote, third-party server, and then communicating with the mobile app using
a custom proprietary protocol that doesn't have this assumption.

A new protocol is needed. In fact, just the other day there was a story on HN
where the original creator of XMPP said the same thing:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6849755](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6849755)
The merits of his proposed solution are another matter, though.

~~~
rakoo
So, BOSH [0], aka XMPP-over-HTTP ? Originally intended to allow XMPP in the
browser, it turned out [1] to be solving a lot of other problems, including
the frequent disconnections of a smartphone.

[0]
[http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0206.html](http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0206.html)
[1] [https://metajack.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/xmpp-is-better-
wit...](https://metajack.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/xmpp-is-better-with-bosh/)

------
tobylane
For a while I was heavily using Adium, with many extensions, theme packs, and
Whatsapp. I'm now just using Messages on mac/iphone and much prefer it. Bells
and whistles are only interesting for so long. Text and emails, on computer
and phone beats any long feature list.

Same for music, I had customised Winamp and another one I can't remember the
name of, but now I'm back to iTunes. I do need a new podcast client now that
iTunes makes it difficult to know which episodes are downloaded. Any
suggestions?

------
malandrew
Oh where or where is the IETF. This is the kind of thing that needs a standard
for the message content in a way that is extensible. Maybe plain HTML/CSS is
sufficient for most stuff. Does anything from the Jabber world work for this?

I hate the million inboxes I have. It would be nice if you could at least use
one application to manage all the inboxes of all the devices.

Seems like Google Wave was a good first attempt at an open-source standard
that could have worked here.

------
lnanek2
Google is making a play too, with Hangouts now handling SMS. Although the
people I've talked to who try that hate it, because it often sends a chat
message when they wanted to text the person. Texts are just seen as much more
personal and immediate where are chat texts aren't much different from email.

~~~
skinnycow
Maybe they should put a big SMS label on it so you know, or put "SMS
000-000-0000" at the top to signify it's an SMS chat rather than the Hangout.
(This is how it is today, btw)

~~~
hansy
There's a toggle at the top of the app that lets you choose whether you want
to send your contacts an SMS or an IM.

I've been using the Hangouts app for a few weeks now and am pretty impressed
with it so far. It's become my go-to messenger. All of my friends usually keep
their Gchat open during work, so switching seamlessly between chat and SMS has
been a pretty good experience so far.

The app, though, is a little slow to load and send SMS's, but not enough to
warrant disuse.

------
neakor
It's sad none of them offers anything interesting. Snapchat was novel for 5
seconds, and now it's just old and stupid...

