My take: http://www.google.fr/trends?q=xmpp No XMPP ain't dyin'... ;-)
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat Jul 10 22:39:23 2010, Yves Goergen wrote: >> >> Sometime in the last decade I saw a more or less great momentum towards >> open IM standards, with Google Talk and GMX/web.de introducing XMPP >> services or Apple iChat supporting the protocol. Recently, Facebook also >> joined the club (without s2s AFAIK), but I have the vague impression >> that the whole thing slowly falls asleep. There hasn't been real great >> leaps in the near past, or did I just miss them? Now even Google tries >> to introduce yet another messaging protocol that isn't as verbose as XML >> [citation needed]. > > Okay. Some observations: > > 1) There was a period in the recent past when virtually any major > organization with an online presence needed IM. Whenever that's happened in > recent years, they've picked up XMPP instead of rolling their own. There's > fewer big names left that haven't got IM one way or another now, hence less > noise to make - this will always be the most visible XMPP headline news. > Less obvious is the BBC's recent deployment, for web purposes, and many > similar ones. > > 2) XMPP deployment - in the IM space - is massive. Every major software > supplier in the IM space now provides XMPP - through gateways in the cases > of MSFT and IBM, but still XMPP. Although corporate enterprise IM has a > strong contigent of OCS, there's a significant portion of "pure" XMPP there, > and in the government/military space, XMPP is very much a hot topic. > > 3) In terms of movement in the specifications - new extensions, etc - we're > moving fast enough that it's actually quite hard to keep up, across the > board - we're certainly seeing clients specializing into various areas, and > I think it's happening to an increasing extent for servers, too - even if I > think all of the server implementors would generally say they're > unspecialized for now. > > 4) I would note that, as far as I can tell (bearing in mind I've not worked > with XMPP specifically for as long as many others in this thread), there are > about the same number of clients and servers under active, vibrant > development as there have been for ages. The population of the set is > volatile - but the numbers seem pretty stable. > > 5) In terms of Google specifically - Google is a large, broad-based, company > with a momentum all of its own. Very much like Microsoft, it's important to > remain objective when looking at what they're doing. So while Google have > insisted (on multiple occasions) that XMPP, using XML, is way too verbose > (and therefore power hungry) for mobile, I'd note that by contrast Nokia's > use of XMPP to the handset appears to be entirely standards-based. > > So in summary, although XMPP's progress and successes are a lot less > newsworthy, and the landscape is almost unrecognizable compared to a few > years ago, it's no less vibrant, and the future for XMPP is only > disappointing because it's a descent into mundane ubiquity. > > Dave. > -- > Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected] > - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ > - http://dave.cridland.net/ > Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade > _______________________________________________ > JDev mailing list > Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20 > Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > -- Nicolas Vérité (Nÿco) mailto:[email protected] Jabber ID : xmpp:[email protected] http://linuxfr.org/ - http://fr.wikipedia.org/ - http://www.jabberfr.org/ http://xmpp.org - http://april.org/ - http://qsos.org/ _______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20 Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
