On 14/6/03 8:41 pm, "Tijl Houtbeckers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rachel Blackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 14-6-2003 20:03:04: >> >>> Are you looking for way of making a better user experience? >>> Different users want different things, and I still don't see how >>> Jabber can tempt users away from all-in-one chat programs like Fire >>> or Trillian without putting in several times as many developer-hours >>> of work. That's not to say that those clients are better, only that >>> they're better suited to some people's needs. >> >> This is the key point, right here. Jabber's transports have a very >> good, beneficial feature for people who don't need more than basic >> messaging; the ability to store your legacy IM userlists and account >> info on the server, so that you only ever need to provide your jabber >> login and voila, you're on everything. >> >> This is countered by the fact that the average IM user, who you want to >> spur to adopt Jabber, does not care about that as much. Your average >> IM user is probably using the system from one computer; my dad only >> ever logs onto MSN Messenger from his own computer, so he wouldn't >> care about multiple systems. What he does care about is the ability >> to pull my sister-in-law and I into group-chats on MSN, and the >> ability to send files to us over it. Jabber with an MSN transport...? >> Even if I get him to go 'ooh, pretty' at Rhymbox, there's no way I'd >> get him onto >> Jabber if he couldn't have working group-chats and file transfers to >> his existing contacts. > > Exactly.. I agree with Rachel. > : : > > You don't need one big portal for this. We'll need good Jabber servers > ofcourse. I don't think portals are a bad idea but personally I believe > more in local portals. Just call it the polish model ;) Everyone who > will "switch on" a Trillian user onto the Jabber network will know a > server what server is good for that Trillian user (they use it > themselves ofcourse). An option could be to target ISPs so they can provide a multi-transport service to their customers. Why? ISPs (apart from AOL) have very few vehicles to maintain awareness but a giveaway IM skinned with their branding connected to their servers would be a very useful and sticky feature. The local portal route. I am keen to see Jabber as the enabling technology for intercommunication - the next level on the IP stack as it were - not have it relegated to just another Chat community, which is what client-side transports imply. > > In the end, I think a lot user will switch to using Jabber, at least > alongside other networks, wich will make things a lot easyer for those > of us that want to use a Jabber client that does not include client- > side MSN/ICQ/etc. implementations like Trillian. Ofcourse, users of > such messengers still have a bigger reach than Jabber-only messengers, > but that's the whole idea behind such messengers. > > Jabber will never "win" in a marketing battle, nor can we use an OS > monopoly to force our client on users. But with a mix of good servers, > local portals, and just as critically, decent support for Jabber in the > multi-protocol clients, we can reach a "critical" mass, where > competition will be more on features and possibilities. And I think we > *all* agree that Jabber with it's advantage of being an open standard > that is open for use can have a big lead on the competion when it comes > to that. I would say that I have almost all buddies on MSN and Yahoo. All have moved off ICQ (where I too started) and none are on AIM! Tim > _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
