XMPP's Real Problem Isn't Features—It's That Nobody Knows It Exists

Jabber/XMPP started to suck at the moment we've started using smartphones that keep reconnecting between wifi and mobile networks as i move around. relying on that single persistent TCP connection does not make sense anymore. This is huge pain with IRC as well... And no, i will not run server-side proxy irc client that is supposed to keep me reachable while im reconnecting.

Also sending media (or even rich text) never really worked as each client implemented it differently. While whatsapp just works...

I hope more people realize, protocol is not the problem, user experience is.

The Telegram client leads in every aspect by far. It's just easy to use.

I use XMPP (with OMEMO) extensively and my main problem with it is absence of some basic key trust chains and bad handling of group chats

1) With OMEMO, each client/device of a user has its own key, but there is no trust relationship between them or some common master key. I can verify and trust counterparty key, but then counterparty adds another client/device and i have to do manual verification again.

2) Group chats do not have group key, but one encrypt messages for each group member (pairwise), which means that everybody has to do key exchange with everybody. This does not scale, especially with 1), which means that even if membership is stable, new keys may appear. Some clients (Conversations) do not allow to send message to a group when they do not know some keys of some group members/devices, which is fail situation that happen pretty often.

I'd like Jabber to establish itself as the federated, non-E2EE chat platform. OMEMO is too little too late. You want E2EE so badly, you use Signal which has figured it out better than anyone else and is still glitchy. There's a reason Telegram is more popular; most people take stability and features over security.

Some use cases like business chat actually can't have E2EE, and that'd probably be Jabber's foot in the door because no other open solution has taken off in business, and businesses don't need so much network effect. This was a main Jabber use case back in the day too.

Make decent official Jabber clients, called Jabber and not something else like a bird, and server that implements the right spec with default settings. Now is the time, you can AI slopcode entire native apps if you want to. If someone really want to put extensions on a server, it's called XMPP and isn't compatible with Jabber; the X stands for excommunicated.

> There are only two features people actually care about: reliable message delivery and the ability to reach their friends.

Sorry to be a pain, and with full recognition that I don't probably represent the majority, but I care about emoji reactions, reply support, ability to send & receive images and video, ability to see that video later, a reasonable set of access control features for group chats; reply-privately for group chat messages, and a dozen other things. And I care about not making someone download an app I've never used that talks the protocol, because I can't support them getting started. So a single cross platform UX is needed too before you can hope for traction.

Some of this is UX; some requires infra (eg. storing & forwarding media)

But to produce a "complete" messaging tool is harder than it looks and the protocol layer, while important, should not be the focus of discussion. There needs to be a holistic conversation that includes UX, infrastructure capabilities, branding, and network effects.

I remember when I connected my XMPP client, Pidgin I think, to the Facebook XMPP server and all my Facebook "friends" appeared in Pidgin as chat contacts. That were the times. Eventually Facebook turned this possibility off...

Probably the Facebook chat is still XMPP internally even today.

traction? the xmpp moment was 20 years ago. it's over now