This could be an xkcd skit.
Facebook can't even be the next Facebook, these days.
Well, of course it's actions are delaying the inevitable. That's all any company's actions do. Just like, we're all dying, just some faster than others.
What I haven't seen discussed is the effects of this decision on Google Apps users, in other words, (paying!) business users. With Google shuttering XMPP federation, you instantly lose the ability to communicate outside your organization (unless your customers/partners are also using google). As federated XMPP is much more heavily used in the business world, this drastically alters the value proposition of using Google Apps since you lose the very interoperability that used to be a selling point.
I'd love to see Google answer that particular question. All "enterprise IM" solutions out there are built on (federated!) XMPP. Even Microsoft's.
This isn't a theoretical question -- My last two employers used federated XMPP to communicate, both internally and with external clients/vendors.
Bingo. It's the interoperability, and the ability to use it anywhere (including outside the company intranet) which makes Google Talk valuable in the enterprise, and the reason many workgroups use Talk instead of the company supported Office Communicator. I don't understand why Google would jeopardize that.
Hey, don't look at me, my company tried to give me an i-phone, and I gave it back. I have used an android phone for a couple years now. The point of all of this is that I have friends who are... a little obsessive about their privacy or something, and insist on using one of the alternates instead of gtalk. It'll be interesting to see what they do. Actually, it'll be more interesting to see what *I* do. I'm looking for an alternate to
Good point. My daughter skypes. I really have to look into it. She might even start talking to me again.
Or, maybe she skypes because I *don't* use it. I'll have to think this through.
I'm with you, man. We had a Beta machine. I supported Laserdisc from the late seventies until DVD came out. I insisted on AC-3 when everyone else switched to DTS. I understand about lost causes. The problem is, with (say it with me) a social network, the operative word is social. This means that if you're using a tool to socialize, and nobody else uses that tool, you can't socialize. It may be cool and all to push the buttons and watch things change, but the purpose of the tool is interaction, which precludes someone with which to interact.
So, it really doesn't matter, in this case, who's better, or how many child molesters are using this tool vs that tool. What matters is what Joe and Tom and Jane and your mom can be talked into using. And I don't know about you, but nobody outside my private circle of geeks have even heard of Google+.
> And other than winning the fucking popularity contest, tell me exactly how Facebook is any different from this social network offering.
As a practical matter, the difference, exactly, is this: My friends are over there. My friends are not on Google+.
I mean, I personally consider the G+ interface a little screwy, but admit there are aspects that are undeniably superior to Facebook. But like Beta, G+ may be better, but in the world in which it chooses to compete, the number of users is important. Like VHS, Facebook is annoying, but there's a large enough selection (of users in this case) to make it viable. You may be lucky enough to have all your friends there. For those of us who can't convince our friends to move, G+ is a hermit's cave.
There's a saying: The good news is, your parents are on facebook. The bad news is, your parents are on facebook.
Similarly, the good news is, your parents are *not* on Google+. The bad news is, neither is anyone else.
Not "hater" (how I wish that PC term would go away) but just a non-user. I have a google account (who doesn't?) but I don't remember the last time I logged into Google+. Everyone I know is elsewhere. Friends have a G+ account, but they never go there, which kinda defeats the purpose.
That's not "hating", that's picking up a tool, looking it over, and saying "why do I need this?"
But... how many of those are actual users, or just people who created a google account because it's required to activate their phone? It's like Microsoft counting a pre-installed copy that was deleted and Linux installed in its place, as a Windows sale. Technically true, but not germane.
I think the main reason people use a protocol that works with gtalk (including gtalk) is that of the tools with the highest name recognition, gtalk is the most well known that isn't a spambot generator (yahoo messenger) or isn't confined to Apple gear (whatever Apple uses). I think Microsoft has something and I think AOL is still out there, but of the tools with name recognition, gtalk is the most likely choice.
Although, less now.
I mean, at my work, my group all ran out and got google accounts, even the Apple users, because gtalk worked everywhere and Office Communicator did not. Now, gtalk does *not* work everywhere, and now we have to rethink that.
Ok, so Google Talk is going away at some point, everyone I talk to who uses a different tool will no longer be reachable with "Hangouts", and I'll be confined only to my excruciatingly small circle of Google+ friends...
Why should I use Hangouts? It talks to only a few people in my circle of friends, all of whom also have accounts with some non-google resource.
Wouldn't this be yet another reason to abandon Google+? I mean, it's great 'n all, but almost nobody I know uses it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a social network. It's like, let's invent a social network for hermits. Nobody talks to you, but that's what, you know, is supposed to happen. I haven't heard of anything so useless since the Anarchists Union.
Share and enjoy.