Slashdot Mirror


Google Drops XMPP Support

Cbs228 writes "During last week's Google I/O conference, the company announced a replacement for its aging Talk instant messenger: Google Hangouts. Hangouts, which is only available for Android, iOS, and Chrome, offers closer integration with Google+. Unfortunately, the new product drops support for the XMPP instant messaging protocol, which has been an integral part of Talk for over ten years. XMPP delivers instant messages to desktop clients, like Pidgin, and enables communication between users on different instant messaging networks. Hangouts users attempting to communicate with contacts on non-Google servers, such as jabber.org, have found that all communications have been suddenly and inexplicably severed. A Google account is now required to communicate with Hangouts users. Google Hangouts joins the ranks of an already-crowded ecosystem of closed, incompatible chat products like Skype." Interesting, because Google Wave was based on XMPP and Google was integral to the creation of the Jingle extension that enabled video chatting over XMPP. Note that no end date has been set for Talk yet, but the end must surely be nigh given Google's recent history of axing products like Reader and CalDAV support from their calendar app without much notice.

416 comments

  1. not surprising by berashith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My phone told me that an update to google talk was available, and that it would be replaced with hangouts. Google+ hasnt had a lot of traction with me, so I am not really sure if this is just going to be one less google product that I will be using now.

    1. Re:not surprising by Georules · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find the new hangout app on android to be unusable. It looks nice, but there is no way to simply sort up to the top people who are online / available. This makes me a lot less likely to want to chat because I don't want to bother people who might be busy.

      The hangout thing in gmail is also pretty, but I could not find a way to disable the sounds. *BLING* every time my window is not focused.

      They are dropping reader, gchat is gimped. If they mess up gmail/calendar I might wonder why I even use google.

    2. Re:not surprising by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Google+ hasnt had a lot of traction with me, so I am not really sure if this is just going to be one less google product that I will be using now.

      It's going to be a lot more interesting, and presumably compelling when it's completed. Hangouts isn't intended as a simple chat client replacement.

      Google dropping XMPP support is only mildly interesting, but the reason behind it is far more ambitious than TFA discusses. The Verge has a better article, but TLDR is that It's part of a long-term plan to change the way communication works on phones and computers.

      XMPP obviously won't be suitable for unifying so many different communication paths. Given Google's efforts with WebRTC, I suspect that'll be the underlying standard for their new platform, though it hasn't been stated as such anywhere I'm aware of.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's a direct link to the relevant section of the video the Verge made:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=g2Nw9dIsq6E#t=298s

      No mention of allowing users to communicate with friends on Hangouts without a Google account, but they will be keeping Talk around "for the foreseeable future".

    4. Re:not surprising by GNious · · Score: 1

      (Since moderating seems to be broken right now)
      THIS! The new client is useless for initiating conversations!

      Utter Piece Of Crap!

    5. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verge:
      > Once upon a time, Google was at the forefront of the messaging game. In 2005, the company launched Talk,
      > essentially the best experience in what was then the hottest category: instant messaging.

      Wikipedia:
      > In 2001, ICQ had over 100 million accounts registered.

      I'm sorry, but this Verge article is pure PR, and most likely paid and written by Google.

    6. Re:not surprising by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      In my mind, the problem is it is a missed opportunity. I know XMPP has been around for a very long time, but I notice our small business just hit the critical mass for deploying jabber to support remote workers... and we are on Google Apps. The problem with Google's proposed solution is that it still ignores the desktop in all meaningful ways.

      Sure, I understand: it doesn't help sell advertising. It also reduces the value of google apps.

    7. Re:not surprising by bkaul01 · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Microsoft keeps upgrading its services (Outlook.com, Skydrive, etc.) while Google keeps crippling or screwing up its services. That could be part of the explanation though: Google removes EAS support so Windows/Windows Phone won't work as well as Android and iOS with its services; Microsoft adds Gchat support to Outlook.com, Google decides to drop XMPP to break interoperability; Microsoft announces added support for CardDAV/CalDAV to WP to work around the lack of EAS, what's Google's next move? etc., etc.

    8. Re:not surprising by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is a trojan horse to force you to use Google+. I think it's the beginning of Google trying to position Hangouts as a more major project in its own right, rather than a small offshoot of Google+.

    9. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XMPP obviously won't be suitable for unifying so many different communication paths

      Fuck this "communication paths" ass hatery. I want email, instant text messages and voice talk. There are open protocols that support all three. Fuck video talk. I don't need to connect my fridge to Twitter or an equivalent walled garden. I will have fingers and ears for the foreseeable future, so all I need is this: email, i.m and voice. All should be secured with some form of low maintenance opportunistic encryption, be integrated and painless, use an open protocol and be spam free for the right price. Just do it already, stop bricking people into bullshit proprietary solutions.

    10. Re:not surprising by lipanitech · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean. I got an Android because of all the great features and now Google is killing all of them off I am not happy.

    11. Re:not surprising by berashith · · Score: 1

      Im sure you are right, but this almost feels like the equivalent of shutting down gmail in order to have pushed people into googletalk. I havent been using hangout because I didnt really like it. Forcing me to turn off the IM that I did use isnt going to make me use hangouts, it is going to make me use one less google product.

    12. Re:not surprising by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      That's sort of the point of WebRTC.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    13. Re:not surprising by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      The did mess with calendar. They're dropping support for CalDav.

    14. Re:not surprising by Georules · · Score: 1

      Never used that aspect, so I guess I don't mind there personally. I do feel for those who got hit by that though.

    15. Re:not surprising by techneeks · · Score: 1

      I couldnt agree more .. finding the contact you wish to communicate with takes far too long. This idea of continual integration of all products into some homogeneous soup, is axactly that .. looks like shit, smells ok, but its still shit

    16. Re:not surprising by Georules · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go that far. The feature I want that's missing is extremely simple. If they added it back, I would love the new app.

    17. Re:not surprising by techneeks · · Score: 1

      Talk still went with whatever system color theme i had, less swiping and touching with more typing .. it had video/voice .. what else do you need ? Only thing ontop that would have made it awesome was group chat.. In my opinion, they have royally hosed "Hangouts"

  2. So long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and thanks for all the fish...

    1. Re:So long... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's my signature! ;)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. How does this help Google+? by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:How does this help Google+? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Non-Google Jabber accounts are less common than Google accounts, so I'm guessing most people won't notice. It certainly can't help, though, since it'll drive away non-Chrome users. As well as everyone who fears Google+ for its real name policy controversy junk.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:How does this help Google+? by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      I mean, it's great 'n all, but almost nobody I know uses it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a social network

      The anti-social network?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:How does this help Google+? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the majority of your GTalk contact list are people from other XMPP/Jabber servers, you're in a tiny minority of overall users.

      Most people using GTalk these days are doing so because it came on their Android phone, and they needed a Google account to buy apps. Most of their contacts are in the same boat. They may not be aware that this Google account they have is also a G+ account, and that's precisely what Google is pushing for here - notice that one of the features Hangout adds is the ability to send freshly snapped photos, and the way it does it is by means of a G+ photo album...

    4. Re:How does this help Google+? by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      I'm asking myself the same question about Picasa - Google has made it very difficult to share pictures outside of their ecosystem.
       

      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.

      Google has demonstrated, repeatedly, that they don't "get" social - and equally has demonstrated a stunning inability to learn from their past mistakes.

    5. Re:How does this help Google+? by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      That's not the point, the point is that if Google+ (or whatever they're naming their "standard") isn't open, then the cottage industry of third party IM clients (some of them are actually pretty decent) would roll over and die.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    6. Re:How does this help Google+? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not the point, the point is that if Google+ (or whatever they're naming their "standard") isn't open, then the cottage industry of third party IM clients (some of them are actually pretty decent) would roll over and die.

      That's what puzzles me about the move: If Google said '95% of 3rd party XMPP servers are spam bots, we aren't doing federation unless you are a Google Apps customer or otherwise verifiably unlikely to do something dramatically stupid', that'd be annoying but not wildly surprising. Dropping XMPP entirely, though, both kills 3rd-party clients and suggests that they were either unable to shoehorn what they wanted into XMPP(even as a proprietary extension, with the standardized subset allowing partial compatibility), or they saw breaking compatibility as a virtue.

      I suspect that federation(at least outside of paying customers, who are both more important to listen to, and less likely to be spambots), is viewed as more trouble than it's worth; but dropping XMPP entirely is an entirely different game.

    7. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Keep in mind that you can *still* plug your Google Account credentials into any XMPP chat client and use that account to talk to others who have a Google Account. Google isn't -yet- pulling the plug on XMPP client support; they're pulling the plug on XMPP server-to-server federation.

      This move by Google is still a bowl of shit, but you retain the power to use the client (and plugins) of your choice when talking on the Google Network.

    8. Re:How does this help Google+? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I like G+ because I can organize my social circles and contacts without having to be social. I don't give a fuck about a feed of what people are fucking doing, reading, thinking, wishing, vomiting out into text and I don't care enough about anything I'd share to actually share it with a bunch of people who aren't going to give half a shit. I wouldn't say "for hermits". I would say "for people who aren't vapid attention whores and don't need to share or view everything everyone ever does at every second of the day and have things to actually do"... ... well, except for all the technorati attention whores who spam the shit out of G+ with their "brand".... ... and Robert Scoble...FFS...

    9. Re:How does this help Google+? by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      Actually, there are several degenerate cases of social networks which could be thought of as anti-social.

      First, there's the romantic option of a social network with only two members. Then, there's the narcissistic option of a social network with only one member. A true anti-social network, however, would have no members.

      Excuse me while I go register nullspace.com.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    10. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      And other than winning the fucking popularity contest, tell me exactly how Facebook is any different from this social network offering.

      Just because it's not the most popular tool out there doesn't mean Google is doing a damn thing different from any of them who are leading the popularity contest, so try and not be ignorant and blame the (un)popular tool next time.

      They're all closed, proprietary, and likely soon to be (not so) free. Get used to it, social lemming. You're driven towards a brand-name cliff no matter which direction you choose.

    11. Re:How does this help Google+? by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most people using GTalk these days are doing so because it came on their Android phone, and they needed a Google account to buy apps.

      Most people I know are using Google Talk because it works anywhere. It has an Android client, and a MacOS client (Messages), and a Linux client (typically Pidgin), and even a web client which works if you're behind a corporate firewall.

      Admittedly, most people I know aren't most people. Nonetheless, dropping XMPP makes Google Talk much, much less useful.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    12. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Google is just as evil as the rest of them then.

      Yay for open. Or something.

    13. Re:How does this help Google+? by icebike · · Score: 1

      and I'll be confined only to my excruciatingly small circle of Google+ friends...

      Not, that part is wrong. The Hangouts replacement for Google Talk has no dependency on Google+.

      At least not yet, but it looks like its heading in that direction.

      It used to be that google was satisfied with simply and email address in exchange for all the advertising the dump on you.
      But its clear the bargain has changed and they want to know everything about you in exchange for that email address.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    14. Re: How does this help Google+? by taharvey · · Score: 0

      Not so. I use apple messages. It talks via apples own iMessage network, xmpp, bonjour, icq, yahoo, aol and others via plugins.

      The xmpp support was a good means to chat with people who live in the google sphere.

      Look who is the real walled garden...

    15. Re:How does this help Google+? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The anti-social network?

      Well, there's something to be said for that. I have no particular desire to be part of Google's ecosystem, and I'm certainly not going to start using their products if I can't depend on them still being there tomorrow or the day after. Google is developing quite a habit of pulling the rug from under its users, and we shouldn't reward that.

    16. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STOP USING THAT BULLSHIT ARGUMENT!

      "If you are not retarded and surrounded by retards, you are wrong and meaningless."

      Do you see how retarded that sounds?? You want the few people that still aren't the scum of the earth to *also* become scum, because... and here's the kicker... most people are scum?

      WTF is /WRONG/ with people like you?

      YOU and only you spineless groupthinking pieces of shit are the reason we livie in an Idiocracy. You were the ones that let the Nazis to come to power. You are the ones letting every other dictator and corporate fatcat abuse the people. You, the mollusk.

    17. Re:How does this help Google+? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Just as long as the GTalk support in AIM still works. Its better than Google's crappy GTalk windows client, doesn't run in a web browser, and yes I still have family using ye olde AIM.

    18. Re:How does this help Google+? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    19. Re:How does this help Google+? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it never had a decent iOS client, and now it does. And their web client also works as a separate app if you have Chrome...

      Don't get me wrong, I personally hate these changes also. But I think that we don't really make the majority of people, and Google is firmly in the "go for the bigger crowd" camp now, along with all other major tech companies.

    20. Re:How does this help Google+? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I explained Google's line of thinking. Nowhere did I say that I approve of it or personally like it.

    21. Re:How does this help Google+? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      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.

      GTalk/Hangout actually now works on more platforms than before, in an officially supported way, since they've added an iOS client; and the web one can handle all desktop platforms. The problem, rather, is that you can't pick the client that you want anymore; you can only use what Google tells you to use.

      In terms of platform portability, though, I have found Skype to be very handy lately. Proper rich clients on all desktop OSes (including Linux, even!), and on all major mobile OSes as well. And, ironically, the only platform where it works poorly is Windows Phone 8.

      But, of course, it's still a closed source app with a proprietary closed protocol.

    22. Re:How does this help Google+? by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      > 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.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    23. Re:How does this help Google+? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      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+.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    24. Re:How does this help Google+? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    25. Re: How does this help Google+? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I use Pidgin myself. Doesn't meant we're in the majority though.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    26. Re: How does this help Google+? by FlamerPope · · Score: 1

      When you chat with Google via XMPP, are you logged in with a Google account or using federation somehow?

      --
      "If they send someone here, I'll arrange the usual 'accident.'" -- Alice, "Dilbert"
    27. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Client side XMPP still works for me. Although I'm also using a (grandfathered) free hosted domain.

    28. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's okay, I've already registered ^@.com. For some reason, I can't seem to store the real ASCII value of the address in a string, which has the unfortunate side effect of most web browsers not being able to navigate to the site, but that is viewed as a trivial concern presently.

    29. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skype still does not allow for inline images or formatting.

    30. Re:How does this help Google+? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      GTalk did not allow for inline images either, until Hangouts. Formatting is not that big of a deal, I think.

    31. Re:How does this help Google+? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that there was never a decent iOS XMPP client until recently. But dumber things have happened, I guess.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    32. Re:How does this help Google+? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The problem, as I understand it, is that iOS background model for apps is not conductive to pre-existing protocols like XMPP. For networking, if you want to react while in background, you have to use Apple's push notification service. On the other hand, for a compliant XMPP client, you have to keep a network socket to the server open at all times. All iOS XMPP clients that I've seen connect to app developer's server instead, which serves as a gateway; but, of course, this means that you are handing your credentials to the middle man, and they can spy on your communication if they want to.

      Apple does allow apps to keep a background socket open indefinitely if they declare themselves as "VoIP", but they do actually check whether the app uses this capability for its intended purpose. I believe an XMPP client would only qualify if it's using the socket in question for voice traffic; it still can't use it for text.

    33. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. That's how IM is supposed to be.

    34. Re:How does this help Google+? by aaron552 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They aren't dropping client-server XMPP, just server-server XMPP. 3rd-party clients still work with Google servers (albeit only for one-to-one text chat). AFAIK, that is not going anywhere for the foreseeable future. See: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/hands-on-with-hangouts-googles-new-text-and-video-chat-architecture/

      --
      I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
    35. Re: How does this help Google+? by shitzu · · Score: 1

      I have been online with a jabber compliant program (mostly ichat, and actually through my own jabber to jabber gateway) as long as this has been possible. I will not be online once this ceases to function. I will not start to run a browser tab just for this. I was also online with ichat on FB xmpp, but i hear that is going away as well. I see this as a very sad time for standards we are moving backwards. Instead of increasing the interoperability between communication networks, it is decreasing.

    36. Re:How does this help Google+? by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      I guess that makes sense. So what open standard shall we replace XMPP with?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    37. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google has demonstrated, repeatedly, that they don't "get" social - and equally has demonstrated a stunning inability to learn from their past mistakes.

      They don't get social for anything. They continuously mess up YouTube's layout, despite massive outcry from the users. They changed Google Play to force people to have Google+ accounts just to post reviews, despite user outcry. They messed up the layout of Gmail, making it about 10x slower and harder to navigate, despite user outcry. They messed up Google Image Search by taking away options and censoring everything, despite user outcry. They messed up Google Search so that relevant results are harder to find while ads at the top have been disguised to look like results. And now this dropping support for IM clients to force people to create Google+ accounts if they want to stay in touch with their Google Talk contacts.

      Basically Google loves to make changes for no reason other than to make changes and they don't give a shit about what the users want. I have already dumped all of their services and when I buy a new phone this year, it won't be another Android.

    38. Re: How does this help Google+? by shitzu · · Score: 1

      Antisocial network is not defined by the number of members. It is defined by the social interaction (or lack thereof). My idea for an antisocial network was that it can have millions of members who can post anything. But they can be reasonably sure that no one sees what they post.

    39. Re: How does this help Google+? by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      Sounds like Twitter.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    40. Re: How does this help Google+? by shitzu · · Score: 1

      Gtalk (service) has always allowed formatting. At least when i used ichat as a client.

    41. Re: How does this help Google+? by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      Google account, which isn't necessarily activated as a Google+ account.

    42. Re:How does this help Google+? by 21mhz · · Score: 1

      The problem, as I understand it, is that iOS background model for apps is not conductive to pre-existing protocols like XMPP. For networking, if you want to react while in background, you have to use Apple's push notification service. On the other hand, for a compliant XMPP client, you have to keep a network socket to the server open at all times.

      There is nothing about it that cannot be fixed with an extension standardized through the XEP process.

      But I guess "being open" is too much trouble for Google these days. Look at their U-turn about CalDAV, not long after delivering a lecture on openness to Microsoft when EOLing their public Exchange support.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    43. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - I'd guess this is really to kill federation with Microsoft Lync and similar.

      (After all, every Lync 2013 installation can federate with XMPP; and Lync 2010 can with an optional, free, MS provided, gateway.)

    44. Re:How does this help Google+? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's no need to replace XMPP with anything, it's good enough. It's getting the big players to support it that's a challenge. A different standard would face the same exact problem.

    45. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The libpurple wrapper adium worked very well for me.

    46. Re: How does this help Google+? by Threni · · Score: 1

      You don't need to start a browser tab, there's a chrome extension which runs in the background, even if you quit chrome, so that Hangout continues to function.

    47. Re:How does this help Google+? by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 1

      well that escalated quickly......

    48. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      precludes

      You keep using that word.

      I do not think it means what you think it means.

    49. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy your FailPhone then, and enjoy being told what software you can and can't run by the rotting corpse of The Lord Our Steve. And enjoy having to send your phone to him for repair too when it's 13 months old, due to Apple's shitty batteries and the fact that HERP DERP UR NOT SMART ENUFF TO CHANGE UR OWN BATTERY DERPETY DERP.

      "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." - rms

      Unless you plan to buy a CackBerry, in which case, enjoy your mobile phone from 1995. Apps, what were those again?

    50. Re:How does this help Google+? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      That's what puzzles me about the move: If Google said '95% of 3rd party XMPP servers are spam bots, we aren't doing federation unless you are a Google Apps customer or otherwise verifiably unlikely to do something dramatically stupid', that'd be annoying but not wildly surprising. Dropping XMPP entirely, though, both kills 3rd-party clients and suggests that they were either unable to shoehorn what they wanted into XMPP(even as a proprietary extension, with the standardized subset allowing partial compatibility), or they saw breaking compatibility as a virtue.

      Google have always been pretty ruthless about culling services that aren't getting enough traction, but in the last year I think it's been more visible - and rather than being just services that few people are using (Wave), it's been targeted at services that can be somehow monetised or otherwise made directly relevant to the business.

      Off the top of my head:

        - There's no longer a free Google Apps for Domains tier. Existing domains have been allowed to stay but nobody new can register for free.
        - Those who are still on the Free tier have had ActiveSync turned off. Works for existing devices, will break when you try and set up a new one.
        - CalDAV is in the process of being discontinued. Quite what this will mean for iPhone owners is anyone's guess - it still works at this stage but I wouldn't be too surprised if Google are using this behind closed doors as a bargaining chip with Apple: "You want all your iPhone users to be able to sync their devices with Google? Well, I guess you'd better stop suing all the Android handset manufacturers."

    51. Re:How does this help Google+? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Non-Google Jabber accounts are less common than Google accounts

      Not entirely representative, but on my Jabber roster about 30% are Google people, and about half of them are Google employees. I wonder how many Google Talk users have no non-Google people on their roster, and will be happy to learn that Google has just decided that they can no longer talk to them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    52. Re: How does this help Google+? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Here's a hint: If it's a Chrome extension, you're still running it when you "leave" it and Hangout's still up.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    53. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said I was going to get an iPhone? Your absolutely wrong assumption makes you look like a moron, but then I imagine you don't need much more help than to simply appear somewhere.

      It's a phone (something everyone seems to forget), why would I need apps?

    54. Re:How does this help Google+? by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      I found the Google+ app on my Android (Gingerbread) to be rather unstable. It freezes and crashes frequently. Talk works great, and I use it frequently. I hope the app itself doesn't go away.

    55. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are NOT DROPPING XMPP. Only serverserver federations, and mostly because of spam.

    56. Re:How does this help Google+? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I hear what you're saying, but I can see the argument that future network protocols should be designed with mobile battery life in mind.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    57. Re:How does this help Google+? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, we need some generic standard for push notifications first, and we need that standard to not require a centralized server - which kills it right away, since e.g. both Apple and Microsoft insist on people using its servers for all notifications on iOS, Win8 and WP8. Unfortunately, this whole battery optimization business resulted in a kind of lock-in for the new generation of high-level networking protocols.

    58. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Google account is not a G+ account. I know it would be easy to make it one, but I don't want to use Google+.

    59. Re:How does this help Google+? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Your Google account is a G+ account, it just has a bit flag "don't tell me about G+" set in it, courtesy of Google.

    60. Re:How does this help Google+? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Ugh. Skype. Well, it's better than Steam as a chat client, I'll give it that (Steam is terrible), but it pales compared to the other options.

      My problem is with 3rd-party integration, especially under Linux. See, I don't want to use the Skype client. I don't want to run a Skype client, an AIM client, a Yahoo client, an IRC client, a... etcetc. I just want one client, that has all my contacts on various networks together with a client I control, logs things in the same format to the same location... etc. Pidgin does this for me. It's fantastic(ish). But unfortunately, skype is not a purely-open protocol, and you still have to run the 'official skype client.' Then, a plugin bridges pidgin and skype. I guess I'd be ok with that, except the skype client is kindof buggy. Sometimes it just hangs entirely, and it'll take awhile before I notice, kill, and restart it. I can't debug it to figure out what it's doing; it's closed source, so who knows. Or sometimes it'll still be working, but it'll silently disconnect from skype, then when I kill the client and reconnect, I get a flood of messages that had been sent that I'd missed. Never had these sorts of problems on other chat networks, and the closed nature is why I'm a bit down on skype compared to open-protocol networks.

    61. Re:How does this help Google+? by d1on1x · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's move from MSN to Skype isn't helping either. You are forced to merge MSN and Skype accounts or decide to only use 1 (where having seperate ones was easy for people like me who seperated business and personal accounts).. .

    62. Re:How does this help Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the majority of your GTalk contact list are people from other XMPP/Jabber servers, you're in a tiny minority of overall users.

      Most people using GTalk these days are doing so because it came on their Android phone, and they needed a Google account to buy apps. ...

      Not sure what the source of your information is. Google has deployed 5-10 million DIDs, all of which use XMPP for communications. These DIDs interconnect Google Talk, Asterisk, FreeSwitch, and Yate servers and clients all around the globe. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This ranks up there as Google's dumbest move ever, particularly for a company that exclaimed its love for open source protocols less than two weeks ago.

  4. Closed protocol? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone know whether the new protocol will be undocumented or if it is documented, if there is any resemblance to xmpp? Hopefully Google will allow xmpp bridges.

    I am just worried that Google is trying to do more to force us to use their tools, rather than allowing us to use our favourite messaging clients., but with their service.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Closed protocol? by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      From what I've read, it's still XMPP, but they've just severed server-server communications so you can only talk to Google+ accounts over XMPP.

    2. Re:Closed protocol? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      From what I've read, it's still XMPP, but they've just severed server-server communications so you can only talk to Google+ accounts over XMPP.

      I suppose with the lack of big names federating, there probably wasn't much to lose with this action?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    3. Re:Closed protocol? by game+kid · · Score: 1

      I am just worried that Google is trying to do more to force us to use their tools, rather than allowing us to use our favourite messaging clients., but with their service.

      ...and just a month after the FSF "commend Google for doing the right thing and respecting the importance of full federation", after they reversed a Jabber invite block they started in March as an "anti-spam" measure. I guess it's now an "anti-privacy" measure, right Google? Or is it an "anti-Facebook" one? Oh, Larry Page...

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    4. Re:Closed protocol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run my own OpenFire server, and I've used my Google account in the past for testing, so it's a contact on my server's account. When I enter the crappy Google jungle of social networks, it logs me in to what was GTalk, and my Jabber client shows this Google account online. Server to server with XMPP simply means no group chats. But XMPP doesn't even need an account of any sort to allow that, if you have a server of your own set up to accept anyone.

    5. Re:Closed protocol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft Exchange, Lotus Notes, and Sun Java Communications System (or whatever Oracle calls that now) all work with server-to-server XMPP, and (used to) be able to talk to Google users in both directions. If anyone tries to tell you none of the big names were federating, they're lying.

      What's more, it's an historically ignorant view even to the extent it's true among so-far ignorant consumers. The "big names" in email were all playing this "our island has more features" game in the 90's, but it didn't save them. They all became irrelevant once people realized SMTP offered the feature of "one inbox, and no bullshit needed to reach your friends" which no one else could do, by design. The only one still around is AOL, a crappy kids' gamers' network back then, because they were the first to get rid of the island approach and make SMTP first-class.

    6. Re:Closed protocol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only time will tell.

      I think it sucks. I run my own XMPP service, just as I run my own e-mail, web, and VCS services. GTalk was never going to be around forever. Neither will "Hangouts", Github, or Facebook be a viable alternative forever. Just ask AIM, Sourceforge, MySpace, or Geocities.

      The spam is a cop-out. So what if 95% of XMPP was spam. 95% of e-mail is spam (or was, perhaps its like 80% now). But XMPP could have been fixed easier, such as requiring trusted SSL certificates, proofs of work, etc.

  5. iCal support in Calendar? by jrumney · · Score: 2

    It's news to me that Google is dropping iCal support from Calendar. The whole rationale for them dropping support for ActiveSync was that standards based iCalendar support was available and most devices support that now (ie noone uses Windows Phone, they are all using Android or iPhone). So does someone have a supporting reference for that, or is the Unknown Lamer just confused?

    1. Re:iCal support in Calendar? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      They may be thinking of CalDAV - which you'll have to be whitelisted for.

    2. Re:iCal support in Calendar? by Sancho · · Score: 4, Informative

      Google's dropping support for CalDAV which I think was the primary supported way of syncing with iCal.

      http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-second-spring-of-cleaning.html

    3. Re:iCal support in Calendar? by Unknown+Lamer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, I mixed up the file format (ical) with the sync protocol (caldav). Thanks for catching that.

      --

      HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
    4. Re:iCal support in Calendar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is really a /bad/ thing. I despise the web interfaces for both gmail and google calendar, so I use a thick client and it works very well for me over IMAP and CalDav. It really sounds like they want to force users to always use the browser, making sure they keep the tracking cookies alive.

      What's next? Dropping IMAP and POP support in gmail?

    5. Re:iCal support in Calendar? by caseih · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My google calenders are all still working with Thunderbird. I went to the parent link and at the bottom of that blog post, they have an update where they reversed their decision to end CalDAV support. They say: "Update March 15, 2013: We worked with the developers who provide 98 percent of our current CalDAV traffic to assure access to the CalDAV API, which means many popular products will not be impacted. We remain committed to supporting open protocols like CalDAV."

      So I guess making a stink really can make Google change their minds.

    6. Re:iCal support in Calendar? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I'll admit that I just searched long enough to find the blogspot post that I originally saw.

      That statement doesn't make it clear to me that they are supporting CalDAV for the future, though--just that they've worked with the developers responsible for 98% of their CalDAV traffic. This is consistent with their previous statement--that CalDAV developers can get whitelisted. It sounds like iCal probably won't be affected (surely Apple is in that 98%) but it looks like new applications will be unable to use that protocol.

    7. Re:iCal support in Calendar? by _merlin · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's weasel-worded and misleading. You still need to get whitelisted to be allowed to access CalDAV - you have to write them a letter justifying yourself, otherwise you have to use the proprietary Google calendar API. They're just trying to create lock-in.

    8. Re:iCal support in Calendar? by kllrnohj · · Score: 1

      No, the only thing weasel-worded and misleading is the claim that Google dropped/is dropping CalDAV. They never said that, and all they did was switch from "everyone has access by default" to "you have to register with us first". That's only unreasonable if they are restrictive about who can sign up for CalDAV, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about not being able to register. Of course they want people to use their own API, but that's *very* different from dropping support for standards.

    9. Re:iCal support in Calendar? by _merlin · · Score: 1

      They *are* being restrictive: you have to justify yourself if you want to access Google calendars using an open standard protocol. Even if they approve every single request, requiring this additional step will discourage developers from using the standard protocol as it requires more effort to get access to. Pushing people to use your proprietary API in this way is just paying lip service to supporting open standards.

  6. Posting a message on a forum by suso · · Score: 0

    I'm afraid posting a complaint on Slashdot will do nothing about this issue.

    1. Re:Posting a message on a forum by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Still better than talking to a hand. Google doesnt listen to the users, they dont even have a place to post any concerns/complaints (probably because there was no way to automate it).

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    2. Re:Posting a message on a forum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do have a place actually. Right after you ask them to delete your account (or disable G+ for example) they ask you why.

      I used it just the other day.

  7. IRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nothing beats its simplicity to me.

    It sure isn't easy getting all your friends on it, but sooner or later they will come back when they get tired of their current service trying to be everything at once, spreading itself too thin.
    Having tons of different services for everything is hard to remember and work with, but the same is true for one service that does tons of different things.

    1. Re:IRC by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Simple sure, but IRC suffers from the same problems as other IM services - fragmentation, there are far too many unrelated irc servers out there and it becomes a major pain in the ass to sit on several at once.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  8. Bad call, loss of users by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shame on you Google. I've used Gtalk since it was released. I don't care about the cross platform communication much, but do have a few friends that I know connected to me through other platform. I have convinced several rather computer illiterate friends to use Gtalk so that we could keep in touch by IMs and know when each other was available, introducing them to Google and getting them a Google account in the process. I have no interest in Google's "social media" offerings, or any social media platform for that matter, including Facebook (let the NSA get their info on me in other ways, I'm not going to do their job for them). I really don't even know what Google Hangouts is, but the name tells me that I don't want to know and I will not switch to it when Gtalk goes away (although that seems to not even be an option since my main desktops usually run Windows).

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Bad call, loss of users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear frovingslosh,
      Fuck you and thanks for your free advertisment.
      Cordially,
      Larry Page CEO at the Google corporation

      Seriously, did you expect them to care? Embrace, extend and extinguish. We been in that movie before. This time it's shame on you.

    2. Re:Bad call, loss of users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I on the other hand welcome this news. The majority of xmpp users were only spammers and I was tired on getting messages on my phone from them.

    3. Re:Bad call, loss of users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what, genius.. Google talk wasn't even just for talking! Somehow you managed to find the service anyway. Maybe there is more to something than the name.

    4. Re:Bad call, loss of users by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      I am in the same boat, i have always run my own XMPP server and have introduced several people to google as somewhere to get an XMPP account from. If google is going to become just another proprietary unconnected im service then i certainly won't be recommending it to anyone in future.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  9. I thought they were XMPP federation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I thought that what they were eliminating was XMPP federation, which is what's used to link all the different XMPP servers

    But that's a far cry from eliminating XMPP entirely. I understood that they were continuing to use XMPP, with some extensions, and since those extensions were not supported by others, they were disabling the federation to other systems.

    1. Re: I thought they were XMPP federation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is correct. This article / post is misleading.

    2. Re:I thought they were XMPP federation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought that what they were eliminating was XMPP federation, which is what's used to link all the different XMPP servers

      But that's a far cry from eliminating XMPP entirely. I understood that they were continuing to use XMPP, with some extensions, and since those extensions were not supported by others, they were disabling the federation to other systems.

      If you are right, then for all practical purposes XMPP != XMPPwithGoogleExtensions.

      Just like Java != JavaWithMicrosoftExtensions (a.k.a. J++). Sigh - it seems that Google has finally discovered Embrace/Extend/Extinguish.

    3. Re:I thought they were XMPP federation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot. FUD for nerds, it's propaganda that matters.

    4. Re:I thought they were XMPP federation by MrMickS · · Score: 1

      I thought that what they were eliminating was XMPP federation, which is what's used to link all the different XMPP servers

      But that's a far cry from eliminating XMPP entirely. I understood that they were continuing to use XMPP, with some extensions, and since those extensions were not supported by others, they were disabling the federation to other systems.

      If you are right, then for all practical purposes XMPP != XMPPwithGoogleExtensions.

      Just like Java != JavaWithMicrosoftExtensions (a.k.a. J++). Sigh - it seems that Google has finally discovered Embrace/Extend/Extinguish.

      I don't know why you're posting as an AC, this seems to be pretty standard procedure for Google these days. They have done some cool things, but so has Microsoft. Google have got a long way on "Do no Evil", so far in fact that people who should know better let it blind them.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    5. Re:I thought they were XMPP federation by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      But XMPP Federation is what makes XMPP interesting. I understand why Google would like to remove Federation, but that doesn't make it right. I would much rather Google provide a mechanism for providing XMPP Federation without the SPAM bots. Perhaps web of trust of some sort. Blind acceptance of Federation is not good, but there ought to be a way to make this work, simply and easily.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  10. Thanks google for the open web. by NotBorg · · Score: 0

    which is only available for Android, iOS, and Chrome

    If I have to use Chrome to use g+ features then fuck off. And that goes for any service that requires a specific browser. Fuck you and your closed protocols. You are IE6 to me now.

    --
    I want this account deleted.
    1. Re:Thanks google for the open web. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now? You've been asleep to the abuse that Google deals out.

    2. Re:Thanks google for the open web. by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      They have an Android app, an iOS app, a Chrome plugin, and a browser agnostic web page.

    3. Re:Thanks google for the open web. by NotBorg · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't understand. The summary said "only." Here on Slashdot we celebrate only having read the summary and flying off the handle.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
    4. Re:Thanks google for the open web. by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 4, Funny

      My apologies. I must be new here.

    5. Re:Thanks google for the open web. by NotBorg · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing that out; 829820 < 1233886. I clearly had the right to be harsher on you, heathen. :P

      --
      I want this account deleted.
    6. Re:Thanks google for the open web. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until, of course, you meet him in meatspace and he pushes your teeth down your throat, which is something I think should happen far more often.

  11. MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My friends and I used to be on Hotmail using MSN Messenger. Then we moved to Gmail when Messenger died, using Pidgin to keep everyone in the same circle (Yahoo, Gmail, and the few Hotmail stragglers). Now XMPP is gone, that leaves everyone looking for a new chat protocol, hopefully one within Pidgin.

    It feels a bit like an open chat registry might be the way to go, as companies phase out their support for pure chat clients. I still need to chat and Facebook isn't going to cut it.

  12. Google HANGOUTS drop xmpp support by kwerle · · Score: 2

    It's not clear to me whether or not they're totally going to drop it.

    Still, I think this blows.

    1. Re:Google HANGOUTS drop xmpp support by Seumas · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "whether or not they're totally going to drop it"...?

      They're replacing their chat client with Hangouts and that won't be supporting XMPP. How much more dropped can you get than that?

      it would impact my ability to chat with about two thirds or more of the people I know . . . on the other hand, I chat with people via IM (outside of work, that is) all of maybe two months a month on average. IM was a big thing for about a decade, but in the last few years, it seems that most people have either gone full dumbass with "txting" or just use email. So I guess I kind of dislike this on one hand, but don't give a fuck when it comes to actual practical impact.

    2. Re:Google HANGOUTS drop xmpp support by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      They're officialy dropping it. It was recently announced in an interview:
      http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/15/4318830/inside-hangouts-googles-big-fix-for-its-messaging-mess
      (see video, circa 5:09)

    3. Re:Google HANGOUTS drop xmpp support by terpri · · Score: 1

      From the Google Talk Developers page: "Hangouts will replace Google Talk and does not support XMPP."

    4. Re:Google HANGOUTS drop xmpp support by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Several folks point out that they are "Replacing google talk with hangouts, which won't support xmpp."

      Right.

      I have a chat client that supports xmpp that I use with my gmail account. In my case that's ichat. Will my ichat client still be able to connect to a google xmpp server and do its thing? Note, this isn't a hangout client. I won't be able to talk to hangout users. But will I still be able to xmpp through google with other xmpp users?

    5. Re:Google HANGOUTS drop xmpp support by Cbs228 · · Score: 1

      But will I still be able to xmpp through google with other xmpp users?

      Maybe, maybe not. But I imagine that most GTalk users connect via GMail, Android, or can use Chrome. When they've all jumped ship for Hangouts—and on these platforms it is no more complicated than pushing a button—will there be anyone left on XMPP?

      A public, federated XMPP server is probably the way to go. There are lots to choose from, and they all interoperate. Does ichat support such servers?

      --
      At our school, we don't earn a degree when we graduate—we earn pi/180 radians
    6. Re:Google HANGOUTS drop xmpp support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GTalk still works with open XMPP servers, and of course iChat, Adium, Pidgin, Trillian etc. will work with any of the open servers. I'd recommend everybody moves their stuff over to open servers (or run their own Jabber server!) before Google completely shut down XMPP.

    7. Re:Google HANGOUTS drop xmpp support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

  13. Always innovative by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pretty soon they'll drop HTML support

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Always innovative by Cbs228 · · Score: 1

      Pretty soon they'll drop HTML support

      In all seriousness, I think IMAP is next on the chopping block.

      --
      At our school, we don't earn a degree when we graduate—we earn pi/180 radians
    2. Re:Always innovative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Web clients typically use IMAP to display the mailboxes, so perhaps not. But as somebody above said, they've already started replacing HTML with apps, so we'll probably get a Google client replacing everything at some point ;)

    3. Re:Always innovative by omnichad · · Score: 1

      They were working to get rid of HTTP.

  14. Nothing to do with Google+ by tuppe666 · · Score: 1, Troll

    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

    ...calm down, Ignoring the fact that Google+ has 390Million Active accounts...or that Android has passed 900Million Activations (Facebook has 700Million Active users). It works straight from gmail which has over 425Million users...hell there is even an iPhone app. Hell you can load it up...and still chat to people only using talk!

    There are advantages to having a Google+ account, but its pretty limited...you can chat to 10 users at once. The bottom line though the success of Google+(growing faster than twitter, While Facebook suffers fatigue) its not part of this discussion.

    1. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by samkass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... Ignoring the fact that Google+ has 390Million Active accounts...

      I'll buy that if by "active" you mean "someone said I should try it so I signed up and checked it out for an afternoon" or "I was forced to join Google+ to read the messages of a Groups thread someone pointed me to" or "I have a Google+ account? When did that happen? Oh, I guess I accidentally signed me up yesterday!" then sure.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    2. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by flimflammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...calm down, Ignoring the fact that Google+ has 390Million Active accounts

      Which doesn't mean a whole lot, since having a Google account at all now is basically a Google+ account. Signing up for Youtube means you are an "Active" google+ account.

    3. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by geek · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ah the Google+ haters. I and millions of others use Google+ every day. We just use it for things other than whining about stupid shit and complaining about High School like what you find on Facebook. Unlike Facebook I find Google+ to actually be useful. Hate all you want, bitch about how Grandma and little Tina in 10th grade aren't using it. I really don't give a fuck. I'm just glad you and the other whining bitches aren't on it. Thanks for staying away.

    4. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I'm sure Google is *really* happy they have the nasty elitist crowd locked down.

    5. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tuppe666 is here for his hourly Google fluffing. Amazing that this post is free of Apple bashing too, how out of form!

    6. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol - if only you could realize how your comment makes your appear. just for one fraction of a second.

      apple fanboys are the lowest of the low, but as google begins to eat itself, a new breed of idiot is emerging from the shadows. not as dense maybe, but wow, every bit as pathetic.

    7. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With that attitude, it's a wonder that you continue to be employed by Google.

    8. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was forced to join Google+ to read the messages of a Groups thread someone pointed me to

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en/firefox/addon/bugmenot/
      http://www.mailinator.com/ (Use the alternate domains if necessary.)

      You're welcome. :)

    9. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't mean a whole lot, since having a Google account at all now is basically a Google+ account. Signing up for Youtube means you are an "Active" google+ account.

      Actually it does not. I have a YouTube account, but no Google+.

    10. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Wow, the level of idiocy you bleed out in your post kind of surprised me there for a moment. I was not aware that pointing out factual inaccuracies brands someone a "hater" and a "whiny bitch." I like how you also apparently gleaned from my message that I'm a Facebook user who is openly opposed to Google+? Cute.

      For someone who "doesn't really give a fuck," you sure seem to be pretty uppity and defensive.

      I don't even hate Google+, but the active account statistic is worthless.

    11. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by flimflammer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Only older accounts were able to remain separate. Any new accounts (be it YouTube, Gmail, or any other services they offer) are Google+.

    12. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    13. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      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?"

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    14. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah the Google+ haters. I and millions of others use Google+ every day. We just use it for things other than whining about stupid shit and complaining about High School like what you find on Facebook. Unlike Facebook I find Google+ to actually be useful. Hate all you want, bitch about how Grandma and little Tina in 10th grade aren't using it. I really don't give a fuck. I'm just glad you and the other whining bitches aren't on it. Thanks for staying away.

      I hate it for the same reasons I hate every other social network (and why I don't use any of them): privacy and data control. I don't trust companies enough to give them that much data about me, and if somehow I did it would be because I can fully erase my data from them at any time for any reason. Since that's never going to happen (even if they did have a way to fully erase every speck of data about me, who knows who may have saved that data already) I'll never willingly belong to a social network.

    15. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Question: you need to have a google+ account (as all google accounts are google+ accounts) to activate an android device with google.

      Yet you claim that there are 900.000.000 android activations but only 390.000.000 google+ accounts. That means that more then every other android phone is actually bound to the same account IF we think that all the existing accounts are created on an android phone.

      And since that is an edge case that simply cannot be true, and we know that a lot of google+ accounts are throwaway accounts that became google+ accounts only by virtue of google making all its accounts into google+ accounts, the question is how many of those accounts are actually using google+. Heck, how many of people with those accounts even KNOW they have a google+ account attached to their youtube, gmail, play store etc?

      I didn't until I started reading this thread and I have two google accounts and one separate youtube account that I didn't fuse with a google account. Which freaked me out big time, because I'm big on not being on any social network.

    16. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      "why do I need this?"

      Why to relive the glory days of /. of course!

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    17. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a new breed of idiot is emerging from the shadows. not as dense maybe, but wow, every bit as pathetic.

      It's not really a new breed, since his comment is not essentially different to the Youtube standard of commentary, namely "STFU NOOB LOL". He's discovered some longer words, but the inability to hold an adult conversation remains the same. That part of the gene pool has existed for a long time.

    18. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Word up homey, fuck dem weak ass little bitches on da Facebookz! Google+ where da real Gz at!

    19. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Aha, you mean, the same way that most people got Facebook accounts? Because they had to check the wedding/baby/new puppy pictures of someone and then never used the account again?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    20. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You use it because you have low self-esteem and constantly need validation from people you haven't even met and will never meet.

    21. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend's phone broke, so I loaned her an old Android one I had. She needed LINE, so I setup a Google account for her so she could download it from the app store. When you setup a Google account now, it automatically signs you up for Google+. There is no way of just creating a "regular" account anymore. Fortunately, they still let you delete the Google+ data, which I promptly did.

    22. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "I and millions of others use Google+ every day. We just use it for things other than whining about stupid shit and complaining about High School like what you find on Facebook."

      Looking at my G+ right now, looks like everyone's still bitching and moaning and +1 stupid memeish bullshit.

      And that's from the people NOT in any of my circles, just the shit Google tosses out.

      What sort of crack are you smoking? Put it down you ignorant tool.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    23. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      I got an "active" google+ account.

      why? google played me. by "upgrading" my youtube account attached to gmail. that's right, pressed "yeah blabla use the realname" and *boom* I'm an "active" google+ user. it didn't make it clear. up until that point I had been able to avoid my gmail account from being turned into a g+ account. with extra effort.

      so the google+ userbase that they publicly tout is pretty much the number of gmail and youtube accounts in use.

      yeah, so to re-iterate: google+ account numbers are bullshit and inflated because some google execs had a bonus tied to how big they can make the number. has nothing to do with actual active users who are using google+ services. just today they activated hangouts for me - without asking - by changing talk to hangouts on my gmail account. so now I'm "in google hangout" and they'll claim me as a successful user recruitment. such bullshit.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    24. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a mindless sheep and a tool. Do the world a favour and end your worthless existence.

    25. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You missed the set of people (like me) who after being repeatedly bugged clicked OK instead of the fuckoff button by mistake.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    26. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same goes for my wife, who used blogger.com for her food blog. One day the site refused to accept new photos and the only suggestion from site was to convert her account to g+. Of course, the pictures still couldn't be uploaded after account conversion, which was naturally a irreversible operation. The real solution to upload problem was to downscale pics to less than 2048 pixels per side.

    27. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by KGIII · · Score: 1

      True story... I woke up with a hangover and a Google+ account. Now if I'm logged in and I rate YouTube videos or comment on them it happily insists on using my real name. Bastards... All I can guess is that I slept with Google that night and that G+ is an STD.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    28. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yes. I hate that.

      I'm not a happy shary person and do not want to share my viewing habits with all and sundry. I do have a youtube account with my real name (for professional stuff), but now google wants to link all my youtube activity with my real name.

      It's really bloody annoying.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    29. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's slashdot's #1 google shill tuppe666!

    30. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I just stopped rating and commenting.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    31. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even that. My older youtube acount is (some years) now inaccessible, because I refuse to link it with a google (gmail) account.

    32. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      You missed the "I got an Android phone, so I've got a G+ account now..." people in this list- which are liable to comprise most of that 390 Million 'subscribers' they're claiming.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    33. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Worse, I have two separate Google accounts which, for various reasons, I want to keep completely separate. Somehow Google figured out that I wanted to combine them in some sort of single-signon -- I know for sure I would never have done that intentionally. Now my real name is linked with that alternate account, which -sucks-, and I don't know how to decouple them again, or if the damage is already done.

      That STD spreads really easily.

    34. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Ah the Google+ haters. I and millions of others use Google+ every day. We just use it for things other than whining about stupid shit and complaining about High School like what you find on Facebook. Unlike Facebook I find Google+ to actually be useful. Hate all you want, bitch about how Grandma and little Tina in 10th grade aren't using it. I really don't give a fuck. I'm just glad you and the other whining bitches aren't on it. Thanks for staying away.

      "millions" of users? If you think anything other a minuscule fraction of Google's "390 million" figure are actually active accounts, then you are either hopelessly naive, have drunk the kool-aid fanboy-style, or are getting kickbacks from Google.

    35. Re:Nothing to do with Google+ by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I was drinking, heavily, and have no idea what I did. I really need to learn to stay away from the keyboard while drunk.

      It certainly does seem to behave like an STD I guess. Did you add it as a second account?

      https://mail.google.com/mail/#settings/accounts

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  15. Do evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They really should change their company slogan.

    Where is the difference to asshole MS of the 90s? Can't see it.

    How any serious geek can defend or use google is beyond me.

    1. Re:Do evil by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Dropping XMPP support is "evil"? Your threshold for doing evil is set very low.

    2. Re:Do evil by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call this "evil". But they should, if they're acting in good conscience, drop the phrase "universally accessible" from their corporate mission statement.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Do evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the drop of XMPP. With a pun : google for everything Google did in the last 2 years. You will find a pattern, a trend. And it's ugly.

    4. Re:Do evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Going from open, competitive, letting the user choose, to closed, anti-competitive, "do as we tell you, or go away" is evil.

  16. Google closing gates to its walled garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The old days of Google acting as a good net citizen are long gone. Money always corrupts, and its envy of Facebook and Apple walled gardens became irresistible.

    Android is a sort of open garden, but Google got a taste of running a walled one with Android's Market/Play, and cemented its walls with Google+ and by making a full Google Account mandatory for it, Gmail's pseudonymous users absolutely not welcome. In the end, it'll be just another Facebook for a captive audience as advertising targets. Very profitable.

    Dropping XMPP is just part of this process. A window to the walled garden was open and it was allowing federation to be done out of control by the Google empire. Easy to see this block coming and the window being closed.

    The IETF specifically mentions interoperability as a founding goal in its Mission Statement. By dropping interoperability with other IM providers through XMPP, Google is making very clear where it now stands. It wants the whole cake, and being a good net citizen be damned.

  17. I wonder what's going on at Google's management by fufufang · · Score: 2

    This is a 180 degree term to their old philosophy of open source / open protocols.

    1. Re:I wonder what's going on at Google's management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's even more infuriating given:

      "I've personally been quite sad at the industry's behavior around all these things. If you take something as simple as IM, we've had an open offer to interoperate forever." - Larry Page, May 15, 2013

    2. Re:I wonder what's going on at Google's management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Developers are no longer listened to. Only the MBA fuckwads.

    3. Re:I wonder what's going on at Google's management by cbhacking · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't usually say this, but mod this AC up! I don't know what the hell Larry is smoking, but it's like he's trapped inside a reversed RDF that completely hides the real world from him. Well, either that or he's the most two-faced liar I've seen outside of a career politician in years...

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    4. Re:I wonder what's going on at Google's management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's like [Larry Page is] trapped inside a reversed RDF that completely hides the real world from him

      Um, yeah, it's called being rich and powerful.

      Rich, powerful people who don't have this problem are the exception. I guess. I can't actually think of one right now.

  18. Google+ has 390Million Actice users by tuppe666 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Google+ hasnt had a lot of traction

    This is nothing to so with Google+ in fact you can use it from your Gmail account, as for Google+ its been going through some changes just lately...and its getting a lot of traction from other users. There are advantages of using Google+ which are group video calls; Sending Photos to everyone in your hangout; Start a hangout with the right people (Circle :)

    Of course you would know that if you used Google Talk

    1. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course you would know that if you used Google Talk

      You have always been able to add multiple users to Google Talk without needing Google+.

      There are some serious privacy concerns with Google+, and a lot of people smart enough to avoid the whole Facebook clusterfuck are not at all keen to surrender to Google even if Google appears to be somewhat more responsible with your data.

      I've never found a problem sending pictures to people, even groups of people. Why do you feel you need to surrender all your privacy instead of just emailing a photo?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      There are advantages of using Google+ which are group video calls; Sending Photos to everyone in your hangout; Start a hangout with the right people (Circle :)

      No, the only advantage of Google+ is: It's not facebook.

    3. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by schnell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've never found a problem sending pictures to people, even groups of people. Why do you feel you need to surrender all your privacy instead of just emailing a photo?

      This is something a lot of Slashdotters - especially the "privacy" tinfoil hat crowd, not that I'm saying that includes you - fail to grasp about the popularity of Facebook. The fundamental tradeoff of social networking sites is that you willingly give up some of your privacy - on the information you choose to make public - in exchange for making the information you consume from others less obtrusive.

      For example: I use Facebook and have accumulated around 200+ friends, ranging from best friends to interesting people I met at a conference or my child's preschool. If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch, or some cause they wanted to support, or some other piece of datum they felt like sharing with the world, it would be chaos. I would blacklist them all from my mailbox to avoid hundreds of spams a day and would only communicate with my very closest friends.

      But with Facebook (or Google+ if anyone else I knew actually used it), people can post as much or as little as they like and I can consume that content as much or as little as I like. For you, the experience all depends on how often you want to check your social networking site. Many of my friends are Facebook-obsessed zombies, and they can check and post to FB all day, commenting back and forth all day on each others' cute cat pictures. For me, I check FB every week or so when I'm bored, and it will only show me updates from the friends I correspond with the most - but if I have time to kill and want to see what my freshman year roommate is doing, I can keep reading to see. Or if I'm going to meet a friend I haven't seen in a while, I can skim through their profile to catch up. At any rate, I have a feed of "social" information that I can pay as much or as little attention to as I like, and can easily keep in touch with a much broader range of people than I otherwise would have if I had to restrict the list to just the people I wanted to get regular e-mails from.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    4. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example: I use Facebook and have accumulated around 200+ friends, ranging from best friends to interesting people I met at a conference or my child's preschool. If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch, or some cause they wanted to support, or some other piece of datum they felt like sharing with the world, it would be chaos.

      And for those who care about what such acquaintances might share, Facebook is a good thing. Personally, if I don't want some person I happened to chat with at a conference to send me their baby photos or whatever else to my email, why would I want to see any of that on some website either? I wouldn't and don't, and it doesn't bother me at all if I'm the minority.

    5. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are amazing.

    6. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kind of people who would post photos for people who aren't their close friends are narcissistic and insecure. Unless you're one of my good friends, I don't give a shit about your pictures.

      If I'm catching up with someone I haven't seen in a while, I don't want to read about it on the net, I want them to tell me about it in person. Why? Because I care. Because it's personal. Because it's actually social. I don't consider it to be a waste of time to discuss these things in person because, in fact, it's the exact opposite.

      Fuck Google. They've been steadily ruining all of their services. Now my IM client isn't going to work for my Google Talk contacts and I will be forced to sign-up with Google+? No thanks, I'll just transition completely over to Skype.

    7. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by mcrbids · · Score: 2

      Your expletive-laden post makes clear your generally a-social tendencies. You have a small circle of close friends and F--- everybody else.

      Fine. But don't think you are the majority.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    8. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your expletive-laden post makes clear your generally a-social tendencies.

      You don't get out of the house much, do you? Take a peek some time, because most people speak that way.

      You have a small circle of close friends and F--- everybody else.

      Pretty much. Quality over quantity and all of that.

      Fine. But don't think you are the majority.

      Don't give a shit, but thanks for your opinion.

    9. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For example: I use Facebook and have accumulated around 200+ friends, ranging from best friends to interesting people I met at a conference or my child's preschool. If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch, or some cause they wanted to support, or some other piece of datum they felt like sharing with the world, it would be chaos. I would blacklist them all from my mailbox to avoid hundreds of spams a day and would only communicate with my very closest friends.

      This demonstrates a concept I have always thought correct:

      communication barriers are good, they filter out bullshit. Just like everything you listed in the above example.

    10. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For example: I use Facebook and have accumulated around 200+ friends, ranging from best friends to interesting people I met at a conference or my child's preschool. If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch,

      Why would someone you met at a conference send you a picture of their lunch?

      The tradeoff with facebook is not what you think it is. It's not about making the content you consume from others less obtrusive, it removes the burden to them of figuring out who to share things with.

      In other words, I'm saying life is not better when someone posts every piece of crap online without thinking and relies on their "friends" to sort out what they want to see.

      To me, anyone who does, is saying they are too lazy to even think about who they want to communicate with.

      That interesting person from the conference, if he was required to think about it, would never decide to send you photos of his lunch in the first place. So the burden of deciding whether or not to see it has been shifted off him entirely and onto you.

    11. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, a website or blog with rss, a fully featured rss reader, and an integrated webrtc system for chat would beat social networks on all metrics, including ease of use.

    12. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by discord5 · · Score: 2

      If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch, or some cause they wanted to support, or some other piece of datum they felt like sharing with the world, it would be chaos.

      If people I knew started e-mailing me pictures of their cats I'd be most obliged to redirect their mail to /dev/null. However, if people ran their own website or blog or whatever I would happily subscribe to their RSS feed and ignore the junk I didn't care about. And the best part of it is that there's no middle man, making money from it, datamining it, or whatever.

      None of the features facebook/Google+/whatever offers wasn't available before all of this "social networking" craze took hold. Somehow I was able to attend BBQs, see pictures from people's holidays (and cats), discuss stuff that mattered to groups of people (and with less inane bullshit in between on how the kids just puked on the carpet, including a video on youtube). Somehow people seemed to be more aware of the fact that when they put things on a website it's there for the world at large to see, but instead now we get people complaining "My privacy options".

      I get the feeling eternal september got upped to a whole new level, where "Me too" has been replaced with +1 or "Like".

    13. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... you willingly give up some of your privacy - on the information you or anyone else you interact with choose to make public ...

      FTFY

    14. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would someone you met at a conference send you a picture of their lunch?

      Perhaps it was a conference of chefs? Just because there are people who post useless information on Facebook doesn't mean all users of Facebook post useless information.

      Have I kept up with all my friends from highschool who I am "friends" with on Facebook? No. Will I still be interested and reconnect with them to congratulate them when they get married / have a child / finish their masters? Sure I will.

    15. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1

      None of the features facebook/Google+/whatever offers wasn't available before all of this "social networking" craze took hold. Somehow I was able to attend BBQs, see pictures from people's holidays (and cats), discuss stuff that mattered to groups of people (and with less inane bullshit in between on how the kids just puked on the carpet, including a video on youtube). Somehow people seemed to be more aware of the fact that when they put things on a website it's there for the world at large to see, but instead now we get people complaining "My privacy options". I get the feeling eternal september got upped to a whole new level, where "Me too" has been replaced with +1 or "Like".

      This is about the wisest thing I've seen written about the subject in a while, but your comment about Eternal September betrays your age/generation and I think this is a generational thing. I was generally into Google until recently, but I notice a trend of them removing or deprecating open protocols in favor of new closed protocols or services that don't interoperate. Maybe that's how you make money in this round of "Internet Monopoly Game" but it means I'll be using Google less. I'm already forced to have an account for use with the Play store, but otherwise I've paid for alternatives:

      1. Fruux for calendaring and contacts (CalDAV, CardDAV)
      2. Fastmail for IMAP email
      3. Until today, Jabber for chat - that's going to be a problem or maybe I just won't chat anymore
      4. And I maintain a blog for when I want to write, and a Coppermine photo album for photos I want to share (giving me the power to remove photos when I'm done with them; they don't stay in anyone's database).

      But constantly having to avoid the quicksand in this ever-changing map of traps is quickly becoming a hassle.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
    16. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google+ has 390Million Actice users

      Good joke. Being automatically signed up as a Google+ member when you open a Gmail account does not make one an active user. That you believe Google's overinflated figures is hilarious. But what else would one expect from a blinded fanboi?

    17. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your expletive-laden post makes clear your generally a-social tendencies.

      You don't get out of the house much, do you? Take a peek some time, because most people speak that way.

      Perhaps this is so in the circles you frequent, when you're outside the house; but I can assure you there are many places and times where "most people" definitely do not speak that way.

      Communication is a skill; optimal communication is an art. Overuse of superlatives or expletives shows a lack of both skill and artistry. These words are intended for extreme emphasis, not merely for vocal punctuation. Using language badly might help you blend with a poorly educated peer group (and perhaps that is a valid goal in your circumstances - rich rappers are said to "dumb down" their speech purposely, and at least one US President famously spoke quite differently in private than in speeches) but it will never gain you more than that.

    18. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the more pressing concern be that information doesn't get shared with you, especially in the conference context? It'd be much more interesting to actually have an extended set of information that may or may not be interesting (kind of like mailing lists that have many posts, or RSS/Atom feeds), which you can pick around in when you feel like it (or not).

    19. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to wonder how people's brains work. Hundreds of email messages arriving containing pictures and tidbits of information is considered spam but hundreds of notifications on your facebook page isn't?

    20. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by kllrnohj · · Score: 1

      There are some serious privacy concerns with Google+, and a lot of people smart enough to avoid the whole Facebook clusterfuck are not at all keen to surrender to Google even if Google appears to be somewhat more responsible with your data.

      Only by people that don't understand that you can have a G+ account without filling out a profile or using the social stream stuff. There's no privacy concerns with having a G+ account - if you don't want to give Google your information, then don't. But you can still have a G+ account to use all the latest toys. And you can share G+ photo albums with people that aren't on G+, the old Picasa "unlisted" albums still exist and still work with G+ albums. You can still create them, and you can still share them. Only it's even easier to do so now, as you just hit "Share" on a G+ photo album and type in an email address.

    21. Re: Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking twat!

    22. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grammar nazi swooping in for the kill: if you're already distinguishing between singular and plural, there's no reason (and in fact, it is ungrammatical) to refer to "a piece of datum". We use "a piece of" when we have a word in English where the plural and singular are the same/no distinction is made, eg: information, advice, etc.

      Compare to "piece of orange", for example. A piece of orange is a smaller piece than a whole orange. If you wish to refer to an entire orange (as with an entire datum), you must say "an orange" (or "a datum").

      If, on the other hand, you were prepared to accept the more modern usage of data as grammatically equivalent to information, then "a piece of data" would be acceptable.

      Pedantry wins you few friends, especially when you do it wrong.

    23. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can assure you there are many places and times where "most people" definitely do not speak that way.

      Yes, at your annual philistine convention in Salt Lake City.

    24. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1
      Until today, Jabber for chat - that's going to be a problem or maybe I just won't chat anymore

      First thing I installed on Android was xabber. Maybe second, as I tried one or two free XMPP clients more, but stayed with xabber. I haven't used GoogleTalk since. Not sure if I even installed it.

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    25. Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users by Dextrously · · Score: 1

      Why do you think the above post shows asocial tendencies? I can't see that when I read it. The way I read it, this person is quite social but has high, yet not completely unreasonable standards to their social interactions. Based on what was said, it seems that the AC has friends who are also like minded. What is asocial about that?

      The way I understand it, someone who is asocial would avoid all sorts of social interaction, and not just have standards that differ to your own.

      I'm just curious about what makes it asocial, because I experience similar tendencies, though I do not require that people meet me in real life. I do maintain a small knit of friends rather than a large one. It is just rare for me to find people who I really connect with, and when I do find such people, I tend to like to spend most of my time with them. Due to that fact, I don't have much time for others, not that I couldn't find something interesting about someone else as well. Everyone is interesting in their own ways -- though there are a few things I can't stand about some people, but that list is pretty short.

      Would I be considered asocial as well then? Most of my friends seem to think I am very sociable though. It's not that I don't care about people outside of my small knit, I just can't focus on multiple people one after the other because doing so leaves me feeling tired, and stressed out.

  19. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by Seumas · · Score: 2

    I always thought it was so weird when people used shit like MSN or Yahoo! for their chat. When someone gave me that as their IM contact, I would just tell them "look, I'm probably never going to end up talking to you, then, because I'm not going to setup an account on a proprietary service just to talk to one person".

  20. Bad news for Google Voice by Aug+Leopold · · Score: 1

    Anyone that uses Google Voice for voip outside of gmail is routing their calls through Google Talk. This is pretty popular on Android using SIP and a pbx account but there are also some standalone applications that handle it. If Google ends up dropping Google Talk there are going to be a lot of pissed off Google Voice users.

    1. Re:Bad news for Google Voice by MoxFulder · · Score: 2

      Actually, I think you're routing your calls through Google Talk even if you make your VoIP calls from within Gmail. If you "Try the new Hangouts" from within Gmail, you'll find that you can no longer make GV calls until you switch back to the old Google Talk interface.

      I'm glad to see that Nikhyl Singhal of Google reassuring users that the cutting-off of GV is only temporary, and that it will be integrated with Hangouts/Gmail later: https://plus.google.com/106636280351174936240/posts/DG6h32BWaQW

  21. Embrace and extend XMPP, block competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're embracing and extending XMPP, but by denying federation it's no longer XMPP, just based on it.

    Although this is not exactly MS-style "embrace, extend, extinguish", it's not very different in practice. It's still deliberately obstructive of standards and interoperability.

  22. Microsoft still evil by tuppe666 · · Score: 0

    Where is the difference to asshole MS of the 90s?

    I'm sorry to correct you Microsoft went nowhere, in fact it got worse after the 90's. It fact Microsoft is the dame abusive Monopoly it always was. It just has to compete with Google and Apple who it can neither bribe or Bully, and it has been unable to leverage its monopoly onto Mobile, where Google and Apple dominate.

    1. Re:Microsoft still evil by Georules · · Score: 1

      MS has a monopoly on what today?

  23. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by samkass · · Score: 1

    I still need to chat and Facebook isn't going to cut it.

    Maybe not for you, but for most people I think it will. Most of the Internet users on the planet have Facebook accounts and it's increasingly the best way to chat or contact anyone. Google is pretty much just driving people back to Facebook with this. As long as it's all proprietary, you might as well go with the one with the biggest available group.

    --
    E pluribus unum
  24. Embrace.. extend.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..how did that go again?

  25. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by cdl · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, that's the nice thing about XMPP - there are LOTS of XMPP servers (sometimes also called Jabber servers). A list of public (free) servers can be found at https://list.jabber.at/ The great thing about Jabber/XMPP (and the thing that Google just shut off), is that jabber servers can find each other on the net. Therefore, if you have an account as alice@jabber.org, and your friend has the account bob@example.com, you can message each other just as you do now. the XMPP server at jabber.org will find the XMPP server at example.com and give it your message for bob to deliver. It's just like e-mail - only in real (or close to) time.

  26. Well fsck you too Google by johnck · · Score: 1

    Just deleted Google Chrome off my computers and have never felt so happy I run my own jabber server.

    I wonder how long until Google will retire Gtalk for good so that Google+ can take over in a bid to get more than 4 users.

    1. Re:Well fsck you too Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It kind of pisses me off, I use the gtalk account to chat with family, and yahoo for work and friends. Pidgin was cool because it integrated both together so well.
      I wonder how gnome shell will cope with this.

      And now, I have to wonder, what's next? Google Docs? Google Sites? Honestly, I'm curious. For the better part of a decade Google has been a steady influence. Something stable. People check if the internet works by going to google.com, with all those "changes" some of that trust is fading fast, they're losing people they can't afford to lose.

  27. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    I've been using AIM since the 90s... I was using the 5.9 version which was basically meant for Windows 98 because all it did was chat, opposed to their newer monstrosities. I only recently started using Trillian instead of the old aim client, which is just another client similar to Pidgin in functionality.

    I'm kind of curious how long AIM will last.

  28. Old news? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

    This is old news. This was one of the first comments on the "Google releases Hangouts" a few days ago.
    I've lost contact with about 40% of my contacts so far. Of those whom I can still talk to, about 20% use google with an xmpp client, and the other 40% are not google users (they use some other XMPP server).

  29. Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook by aaronmarks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This mostly comes down to a battle between 2x platforms: Google vs. Microsoft. I consider myself a pretty avid Microsoft supporter, but if you look at the facts, I kind of think that Microsoft started this fight by:

    1) Buying Skype and pitting Skype against Talk.
    2) Their Scroogled campaign that pitted Outlook against Gmail
    3) Connecting Outlook.com to the Talk API when Google would have preferred that Microsoft federate skype/outlook/hotmail/live/passport via XMPP.

    It's that third point surrounding XMPP federation that this all comes down to. When Microsoft decided to not federate via XMPP with the Outlook/Skype consumer products they were saying that they only wanted to establish 1-way communication with Google's platform. There is no doubt that this pissed Google off because Microsoft is trying to take away their market share while also taking advantage of their services and open architecture. Google's offered up XMPP for many years and Microsoft never connected until they had a mail product that was capable of trading market share (in one direction).

    Microsoft is clearly not against XMPP because they do support XMPP in their commercial IM product, Lync (which I'm a regular user of and competent in supporting/deploying). I've considered many scenarios but can't figure out why Microsoft wouldn't want to enable XMPP for its consumer products as a way of communicating with Google Talk contacts other than to discourage interoperability with their consumer products; e.g. keep everyone on Skype.

    I know that some might argue that Microsoft connected to Google the way they did so that it could pull over all of your Google Contacts and already authorized XMPP invites, but in my opinion they could have just showed you a list of all your current Google Talk XMPP contacts and asked you to place check marks next to any that you wanted to invite to your Microsoft Account contact list. With all that said, maybe its as simple as that someone in the right position at Microsoft failing to comprehend the scenario.

    1. Re:Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook by dhavleak · · Score: 1

      1) Buying Skype and pitting Skype against Talk.

      I think Skype was around quite a bit longer, so you'd have to put it the other way around -- Google realized Skype's potential and came up with a competitor. Microsoft realized Skype's potential as well, and purchased them.

      ...they could have just showed you a list of all your current Google Talk XMPP contacts and asked you to place check marks next to any that you wanted to invite to your Microsoft Account contact list...

      As of today's announcement from Google, they would have done all that work in vain. Perhaps MS realized that Google's commitment to XMPP was not something that could be relied upon?

    2. Re:Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook by aaronmarks · · Score: 1

      1) Buying Skype and pitting Skype against Talk.

      I think Skype was around quite a bit longer, so you'd have to put it the other way around -- Google realized Skype's potential and came up with a competitor. Microsoft realized Skype's potential as well, and purchased them.

      For sure, Skype was around first, but I think that it isn't as much of what Skype stands for as what Skype stands for when Microsoft owns it. Google fears Microsoft more than it feared Skype.

      ...they could have just showed you a list of all your current Google Talk XMPP contacts and asked you to place check marks next to any that you wanted to invite to your Microsoft Account contact list...

      As of today's announcement from Google, they would have done all that work in vain. Perhaps MS realized that Google's commitment to XMPP was not something that could be relied upon?

      Nothing is for sure when you're working with competitors, but I don't think that Microsoft would have had a lot (if anything) to lose by attempting to incorporate XMPP. XMPP should have been added a long time ago by Microsoft, way back in the Messenger days. I can't remember what year (2008?) Microsoft offered up XMPP for the first time with Office Communications Server (it was in 2007 R2), but they should have offered XMPP at that time. By my measurements, if Microsoft did everything right with respect to XMPP, Skype should have been getting XMPP in 2013.

      I like open IM and will miss being able to chat with my Gtalk contacts from Lync.

    3. Re:Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook by dhavleak · · Score: 1

      Nothing is for sure when you're working with competitors, but I don't think that Microsoft would have had a lot (if anything) to lose by attempting to incorporate XMPP

      True..

    4. Re:Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook by Vintermann · · Score: 5, Informative

      This was it. I remember from the I/O keynote, complaints about Microsoft exploiting some open standard to establish one-way compatibility, but I couldn't remember the details. Thanks. This comment ought to be at the top, it's most likely the reason XMPP support was dropped.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    5. Re:Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      > This mostly comes down to a battle between 2x platforms: Google vs. Microsoft. I consider myself a pretty avid Microsoft supporter

      If you think Microsoft is a competitor in any battle then you are an avid Microsoft supporter.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    6. Re:Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook by aaronmarks · · Score: 1

      This was it. I remember from the I/O keynote, complaints about Microsoft exploiting some open standard to establish one-way compatibility, but I couldn't remember the details. Thanks. This comment ought to be at the top, it's most likely the reason XMPP support was dropped.

      Thanks. In my dreams last night, Balmer came up on stage with Page and apologized to the world for not seeing a need for S2S XMPP federation and they announced a partnership between Hangouts and Skype/Lync via S2S XMPP. Then they pulled a "but there's more" and announced that they open-source extended XMPP/Jingle so that both products could handle Multi-way chat/audio/video. In my dreams!

    7. Re:Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another example of history repeating itself. Recall what MS did with Kerberos? I think we can safely say MS hasn't withdrawn from its evil behavior, I just hope Google is in a good enough position to win...

    8. Re:Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Google should be strong enough to shrug the one-way migration off. People who would migrate away from open standards to lock-in are not worth keeping anyways... and for the few who regret it, you should keep the enticing option available. Shutting XMPP off is a weak and reactionary move. Whoever made the decision (or allowed the decision to be made) should be moved to a position where they can do no more harm to Google.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    9. Re:Talk/Hangouts/Gmail vs. Lync/Skype/Outlook by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Larry Page would love for Google to be strong enough to shrug off such pettiness. In many areas it is. But against Microsoft/Skype on videoconferencing, no, it isn't.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  30. Re:Bad Google by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I saw it happen, plus the resulting confusion. What's really shocking is how long ago it was. It was around 1985. English teacher gave hard assignment. Student said "that's so gay!" meant as a generic pejorative. Teacher thought he was being called a homosexual and student was in deep shit.

    It happened, over a quarter century ago. I can cut the 1985 teacher some slack for not knowing. I can cut a 2013 teacher some slack for disciplining a student for bitching about homework. But I can't cut anyone slack in 2013 for not knowing "gay" is a generic pejorative. If you don't know gay is a generic pejorative by now, then you also probably missed the memo that it means homosexual. You probably think it means "happy."

    Words. They're like tech skills. Keep up or be left behind.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  31. Common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really retarded isn't it? The point of social networking is to have as much as your social network be connected, even it means they are using a different provider. Limiting the support is effectively asking their users to only socialize with people in the platform. Not a very bright move if you're trying to increase user base to overtake the incumbent...

    Google seems to be thinking like Microsoft/Apple these days..

  32. The world won't miss Google by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    This isn't evil; it's stupid. It's not even embrace/extend/extinguish. It's embrace/back_off/get_forgotten. Google is kidding themselves if they think anyone cares about .. what's the name of their obscure niche chat product again?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:The world won't miss Google by Vintermann · · Score: 2

      Hangouts. And yes, it would be forgotten pretty quickly if you could call your hangouts contacts on skype, but not your skype contacts on hangouts. Which is exactly how Microsoft used Google's XMPP support.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  33. Hangouts runs just fine on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had the interesting experience not long ago of being interviewed for a job via Hangout Video Chat. I just had to install the Google Video plugin.

    I thought it was all very silly because I was using the wireless in a cafe not a quarter mile from the company I was interviewing with. Why on earth they didn't just have me into their office is beyond me. But I got a second interview, and am now awaiting their decision.

    I used Firefox, and didn't have any trouble with it.

    However, I had already signed up with Google+ from a different email account. I didn't really want to register for Google+ from the account that I used to apply for the job, as it is a secret email I give to very few, so as to keep a lid on spam.

  34. Re:Bad Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is, despite attempts by the PC police to make it otherwise..

  35. Thinking Like Google by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    Google seems to be thinking like Microsoft/Apple these days..

    Well actually Google is not thinking like either. Apple managed to cash in on early adopter money three times...but failed to compete in a mature market, its early monopoly status thrown away for sitting on huge about of cash, Microsoft throwing it all away to chance mobile market share by dumbing down its Desktop experience to that of a tablet :), Google is doing neither of those things.

    Neither Apple or Microsoft is competing in the social networking sphere (ignoring photo sharing sites) and both were happy to ride the Facebook integration, the thrust of your post...although both have stepped back their integration in light of certain developments around the Andoird Phone/App Facebook thing whatever that was. In fact Google is the only one taking on Facebook and is doing a great job at it.

    Ironically to need a Google+ account to use Hangouts

  36. idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i dont wonder google has to do some move like this with so many people not getting it.

    I loathe them for this, but they have been trying to play nice with all the rest of the chats echo systems... but others, like microsoft, only allowed communication in one direction... rendering yourself irrelevant... with enough of them milking google and google looking the irrelevant one being the one playing nice, it just got tired and said...... okay, i have the largest dick around... if you dont want to play nice, lets play rude instead...

    I dislike this move, but i hope it kills some of his enemies milking so much without giving anything is not nice

  37. Time to start moving away from Google anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Google starts projects and kills them off as much as people change their underwear...

    But there is a challenge to GMail coming that is privacy based!.
    See:
    https://startmail.com

    I can't wait untill the beta testing starts - which is soon based on the email I got tonight. I use https://startpage.com instead of Google, and soon I'll be able to dump GMail. I don't mess with Google+ - why would anyone.....

  38. Time to start moving away from Apple/Microsoft by tuppe666 · · Score: 0

    Google starts projects and kills them off as much as people change their underwear...

    Microsoft Kills Products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Discontinued_Microsoft_software
    Apple Kill Products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_discontinued_by_Apple_Inc.

    Get over it

    I do think its sensible to invest time into open source products(and more importantly formats), but do not expect proprietary software to be the same. Although suggesting Goolge is unique or alone at replacing unprofitable software is simply laughable.

    1. Re:Time to start moving away from Apple/Microsoft by higuita · · Score: 1

      If you look to both lists, you don't see many things that people miss or thing its useful! they are just obsolete or dead software/services

      with google list, you see several useful things, with still many users... just not enough for google to care (or hard to merged to google+)

      --
      Higuita
    2. Re:Time to start moving away from Apple/Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you work for Google, or just spend a great many hours wishing you did by shill posting on their behalf?

  39. Re:Bad Google by Dputiger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't get to decide when a word is pejorative to a group that's historically been targeted with it. I agree strongly with George Carlin when he talks about the ludicrousness of "bad words." There are no "bad words." But you know what there *are?* There are words that have been used offensively against a minority group so often that they've become hurtful *to* that group of people.

    You have a right to use those words anyway. You have a right to not care. You have a right to claim that because YOU don't find the word offensive, no one else has a right to do so, either.

    You also have a right to decide that decades of discrimination against a particular group were so awful, you'll avoid using a word or two -- not because those words are "bad," but because they serve as reminders of abuse, insults, and ignorance. You have a right to decide to change your speaking habits *ever* so slightly as a way of demonstrating to this person or persons that you don't agree with the way those words were used against them.

    You have a right to decide that empathy and acknowledgement is more meaningful than saying a certain collection of phonemes.

    Or not to.

  40. Only 1 key product by mattr · · Score: 1

    Seriously Google needs to look at how much shaving off the Do no Evil badge will impair their brand.
    Personally there are three products I use and think are important from Google.
    1) Google search - best search I know.
    2) Being able to ask a query (Google search) through the browser address bar, hence Chrome.
    3) Chrome - best browser I know (Mac)

    These are very heavily counterbalanced by the very close to evil if not evil level of disregard for / productization of private information.
    I also am feeling fatigue from how in your face Google is. If they have a dream of stealing eyeballs from Facebook fatigue well, Google is leading the pack on fatigue - being sold, being networked, etc. If they every happen to make a not-evil service that becomes popular for some group of people, it will be axed in a year. So I have stopped looking to Google for solutions and this has cost them a lot of good will / care about what they do in my book. They constantly cut themselves off at the knees and are becoming more microsoftian each year.

    If Google would focus on search and making things useful for people (like for example, contextual help and debugging through a knowledge base and context recognizer running on mac/pc/linux/android) they can do well. But their constant failures in the social and product development realm is a serious distraction. Google needs to reevaluate if they want to be seen as relevant. They don't actually have anything except the ad and phone business that seems worth their billions of cap.

    1. Re:Only 1 key product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously Google needs to look at how much shaving off the Do no Evil badge will impair their brand.
      Personally there are three products I use and think are important from Google.
      1) Google search - best search I know.
      2) Being able to ask a query (Google search) through the browser address bar, hence Chrome.
      3) Chrome - best browser I know (Mac)

      These are very heavily counterbalanced by the very close to evil if not evil level of disregard for / productization of private information.

      1 yes
      2 you can use any browser to query google through the address bar. Firefox does it, Opera does it, I suppose even IE does it. So no, you're not obliged to use Chrome.
      3 If you think Chrome is best, I have to question your poor judgement. Chrome is a usability nightmare, has a poor thought out UI and spies all over you. In what kind of freaking world is Chrome the best browser ?

      Google does one thing cool : finance open source projects during the summer months (and lets enjoy it while we can). Everything else they do is EVIL, was always EVIL and will be forever EVIL.
      How's this for a reality check ?

  41. Will Sophie of Dear Sophie grow up fast enough? by fluke11 · · Score: 1
    At the speed at which Google is shutting down services, it kind of begs the question if Sophie will grow up fast enough to ever read her dad's journal to her? It seems increasingly likely that the majority of services Google provides today will each be discontinued over the next 18 years (16 if you consider 2011 to be the year of "her" birth).

    Over the course of this year Googles has shown an quickly diminishing quality in handling how to treat and communicate with it's users:

    • Announced discontinuing of Google Reader due to lack of use/popularity (without ever having done anything to promote it)
    • Shut down Google SMS without any advanced warning due to lack of use/popularity
    • Announced shut down of XMPP regardless of amount of use/popularity and in violation of the claims of Larry Page that there exists an "open offer to interoperate forever"

    Maybe someone should teach Larry Page how to find the meaning of "forever." I heard there is a company that specializes in finding web pages about specific topics. I wonder if that could assist in teaching him what forever means. My understanding is forever is a very long time and not just until later the same day another employee decides to announce it will be discontinued.

  42. Re:People still IM? by DaHat · · Score: 2

    Other than SMS, people still use IM?

    I refuse to pay for a texting plan you insensitive clod!

    More so, why would I when I can do various messaging services from my phone via the data plan I'm already paying for? Anyone who needs to contact me has been taught that if they text me... I will yell and demand they pay me $0.25 per text sent... and that IM (or better yet email) is the best way to catch me.

    None the less... you speak like a person who is... 25+? While SMSing used to be all the rage of the cool kids in Jr & Sr high... it later moved to Facebook messaging... and even now to 'other' IM services which are less obvious to parental inspection and even more 'cool'.

    Judge not the world you do not understand ye still young'in who thinks they understand the world!

  43. browser agnostic web page by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Gtalk is a small light memory demand application. I generally set it up to run whenever a computer boots. A browser is much more memory intensive. To use the Gmail page as a Gtalk client you not only would have to keep the browser running whenever someone else might want to talk to you, but you would have to keep a browser window open on your Gmail page. And aside from the memory demand issue, that could also be a big security issue, particularly if you want to be available from computers that others might get access to, such as from work. I don't log out of my computer every time that I go to get a coffee refill, and don't want to, and sometimes those little trips outside of one's office can turn into multi-hour meetings or firefights. I wouldn't want to get into the habit of leaving my browser logged into my personal mail account (or have to have multiple ones that my friends are expected to search through to find me), it is just too much of a security risk.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:browser agnostic web page by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      Gtalk is a small light memory demand application. I generally set it up to run whenever a computer boots. A browser is much more memory intensive. To use the Gmail page as a Gtalk client you not only would have to keep the browser running whenever someone else might want to talk to you, but you would have to keep a browser window open on your Gmail page. And aside from the memory demand issue, that could also be a big security issue, particularly if you want to be available from computers that others might get access to, such as from work. I don't log out of my computer every time that I go to get a coffee refill, and don't want to, and sometimes those little trips outside of one's office can turn into multi-hour meetings or firefights. I wouldn't want to get into the habit of leaving my browser logged into my personal mail account (or have to have multiple ones that my friends are expected to search through to find me), it is just too much of a security risk.

      Um... where do I start? I was commenting on the availability of the Hangouts replacement, not Gtalk, there is no desktop application for Hangouts that I know of which would seem to go against NotBorgs complaint of requiring a specific application to access an online service. Also, how does security come into play here? If you're leaving your computer unlocked while logged into your Gmail page and worried that people might do something, lock your computer. Using the Gtalk application logged in instead of a browser doesn't prevent others from accessing your account.

  44. Re:People still IM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other than SMS, people still use IM? Is the Internet populated solely by 14 year old basement dwellers and 50 year old ASL pervs?

    People use SMS? Why the hell would you bother paying for an SMS plan when every smart phone has data and IM apps?

  45. Android,Gmail,Youtube,Nexus,Google Apps... by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    Personally there are three products I use and think are important from Google

    Ignore the poor use of "Do no evil" without showing evidence of the sucking the blood of virgins, or getting naked people to eat fruit.

    The products that I think are important, are Chrome OS - Hell the desktop needs more love, Android for obvious reasons(900 Million activations). I'm not even mentioning maps...or gmail...or youtube...the list just goes on. Hell I actually their most game changing product is actually Google Apps for Business. I am going to ignore the Nexus range/Glass/Q/Driverless Car?. Search and Chrome are now just a small part of what they do.

    You need to start paying attention to why Google continues to Grow, While Microsoft shares have been flat for forever, and Apple share have been dropping like a knife.

  46. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

    AIM 7.5 can link your Facebook and Google accounts and show them on the buddy list. Hopefully Google doesn't break the link, it actually works quite well if you like the AIM style interface.

  47. Re:People still IM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other than SMS, people still use IM? Is the Internet populated solely by 14 year old basement dwellers and 50 year old ASL pervs?

    People use SMS? Why the hell would you bother paying for an SMS plan when every smart phone has data and IM apps?

    Because I can use SMS to contact anyone whom I have the telephone number of. With IM you'll end up needing 10 acounts or more at this pace to cover all the possible closed IM networks your friends, coworkers, etc... are on. So yeah SMS is simplicity at best. And it just works.

  48. Google fears Pack of 4 if it fear anyone by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    Google fears Microsoft more than it feared Skype.

    Google face *competition* from the pack of 4 "Facebook,Apple,Amazon,Netflix" but not Microsoft, Microsoft currently are struggling to compete effectively against Google, and nothing seems to be changing that. Ironically one of the many reasons (the main being its not that good) form Windows Phone spectacular failure is its insistence on skype, something that the carriers despise.

    1. Re:Google fears Pack of 4 if it fear anyone by aaronmarks · · Score: 1

      Google fears Microsoft more than it feared Skype.

      Google face *competition* from the pack of 4 "Facebook,Apple,Amazon,Netflix" but not Microsoft, Microsoft currently are struggling to compete effectively against Google, and nothing seems to be changing that. Ironically one of the many reasons (the main being its not that good) form Windows Phone spectacular failure is its insistence on skype, something that the carriers despise.

      It is not possible that Google doesn't fear MS. I'd be willing to be that most of the people reading our comments here are doing so from a Windows computer.

    2. Re:Google fears Pack of 4 if it fear anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Keep telling yourself this. Google doesn't fear the company that it competes with directly for mail, document editing, and now chromebooks.

      You are worse than the Apple fanboys were in the Steve Jobs era.

  49. Google+ will be the death of Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Page seems to think he can compete with Facebook by turning every Google user into a Google+ user, but they're a different audience. Just because he wants them to be the same type of people doesn't make them the same type.

    I don't use FB, I think the people who do, are naive and have no idea how bad the loss of privacy is until they get kicked in the ass by it. I've seen a few, ex boyfriends problems, job problems, all kinds of problems and that's just the ones they find out about.

    So Page is busy forcing people into Google+, and has linked all that juicy data together, the more he does that, the less I want to use Google, because I'm not a FB profile of user. Plus he gave Microsoft ammo in their fail-war.

  50. Creaking Monopoly by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    MS has a monopoly on what today?

    Desktop...Apps :)

    1. Re:Creaking Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Google has the monopoly on raping your asshole.

  51. Re:People still IM? by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

    And if that person has (or primarily uses) a house phone, not a cell phone...?

  52. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the Internet users on the planet have Facebook accounts and it's increasingly the best way to chat or contact anyone.

    Yeah, and with Mark Zuckerberg saying privacy is over, what could possibly go fucking wrong?

    Sure, if you've got a protocol that can be cracked with concentrated effort and exploited, it's one thing, but this cosmic asshole is the one using pictures of your friends to fucking market things to you.. UNAUTHORIZED.. oh, I'm sorry.. maybe it was. Did you read the EULA completely? You did, didn't you? I work with attorneys all day long, and let me assure you, these cock suckers can engineer the most unreadable yet enforceable verbage you can imagine; they can write things that would put the most obfuscated C and x86 assembly language code to shame.

    Fuck Facebook, fuck their chat protocol, and fuck you for even suggesting it. Take your six digit user ID and shove it up your ass.

  53. Why stop at XMPP? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Apparently google is quickly striving to catch up to AOL having not received the walled garden memo some 20 years ago.

    Come on google... don't be stuck in the past.. throw away your crufty ole legacy support for POP3, IMAP and acceptance of SMTP messages from the few third party domains who dare not use gmail. It will be great.

  54. Re:Bad Google by macshit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not actually a generic pejorative though, it's a common pejorative among 13-year olds.

    The effect is that using it as an adult makes you sound childish...

    --
    We live, as we dream -- alone....
  55. What's XMPP? by GoldMace · · Score: 1

    I'd never heard of it before this article. I think that's a large, possibly the largest, part of the problem...

    1. Re:What's XMPP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The official name for jabber's protocol.

  56. Re:Bad Google by Charliemopps · · Score: 1, Insightful

    People are dicks. Get over it. I've been called a thousand different offensive names in my life. We're all different and it's in our evolutionary behavior to exclude those that seem "Different" in any way we can to keep dominance over the group/tribe whatever... They key is realizing this, and letting the dumb be dumb. Words really can't hurt you, only your own insecurities can.

    What's hilarious and ironic is that you here are doing the Exact Same Thing. You've chosen to single out those you feel are insensitive, you've categorized them and you're trying to exclude them. I'm willing to bet that you even have your own pet names for them as well... redneck, teabagger, white trash, bigot. You are as they are, human. If you've found a better way to live your life, then do so. Ridiculing those that don't follow your lead is... well... just as bad as calling them fags. It's just a different made up word meant to make them feel bad and not mate with your wife.

  57. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait a second... Are you saying that all the people who don't realize that they themselves are the product sold by FB/G+ are the smart ones?

  58. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When MSN fell, I had a raspberry pi, so I set up my own IRC server on it and have been using that ever since. If you don't want to go there to contact me, maybe you don't have to keep online contact with me.

    Luckily we are in a computer science class, so everything computer related is not "what is easiest" but "what is most fun". Setting up a facebook is boring, setting up your own IRC server not so much.

  59. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've never found a problem sending pictures to people, even groups of people. Why do you feel you need to surrender all your privacy instead of just emailing a photo?

    I am in kind of awe at this? I cannot dumb myself down enough to respond.

    Or are you just not intelligent enough to respond? While e-mail is not to be considered secure, it's a damn sight more secure than the social-network-flavor-of-the-month. Or do you only use Google's e-mail system and therefore they already know everything about you?

  60. Re:Fuck. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    I think it's safe to say that the state of instant messaging is truly fucked right about now.

    Google seems to keep making bone-headed moves it thinks will drive people to actually start using its moribund Google+ network; and, like all the past moves, it almost certainly will not work.

    I say this somewhat - but not completely - tongue in cheek: Will we see a day when Google decides Android phones can no longer do SMS, because "our new GMS (Google Messaging Service) provides a superior messaging platform through integration with your Google+ circles"?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  61. Wait two :) by tuppe666 · · Score: 2

    Wait a second... Are you saying that all the people who don't realize that they themselves are the product sold by FB/G+ are the smart ones?

    No I was referring to the fact that the individual, does not understand the fact that just because Hangout exists does not understand why email is suddenly not in existence.

    If you think you are *sold* Google+ you are not really smart. Google whatever you think of it makes billions by *selling targetted advertising space* if it sold and user data its business model...and the billions would vanish overnight.

    Facebook has different policies...and more worrying unscrupulous partners, who have there own large cashes of data. Without having alternative revenue streams. They are very different beasts.

    1. Re:Wait two :) by gagol · · Score: 1

      You are the product as in "we are selling brain time", not unlike TV.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    2. Re:Wait two :) by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Well, I tell ya, if I had large cashes of data I'd cache some out and retire to a more congenial place to live, for one thing. Maybe even by the parts for a new computer.

  62. Re:People still IM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if that person has (or primarily uses) a house phone, not a cell phone...?

    I'll call them on their house phone.
    The point is I don't have to subscribe to 20 different IM networks just to talk to some acquantaince.

    And if that person doesn't have a house phone but only a computer I'll email them.

  63. Did email break? by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    While e-mail is not to be considered secure...

    Let me stop you there...Did email break...cannot there be alternative methods of doing things...what is the difference to the two methods...are there advantages/disadvantages of the the two methods,...should more than one service exist.

    People want to share photos...Google+ recently did cool things from autogenerating panoramas, creating animated gifs, auto improving photos, autotagging perhaps sharing through that platform is a good idea, but the reality is you can still use email...that never went away.

    What is hilarious is Yahoo and Microsoft and Facebook have all spent big money getting into picture sharing because it is so *big* either acquiring companies for billions.

  64. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why you have no friends to talk to.

  65. Meh by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    It is not possible that Google doesn't fear MS. I'd be willing to be that most of the people reading our comments here are doing so from a Windows computer.

    I think its the fact that that Android Activations are set to eclipse those of Windows installs this year, and that is without any serious investment in Chrome...or Microsoft replacing a the Windows Desktop...with a windowless on.

  66. Active Google+ Users not Android Activations by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    But... how many of those are actual users, or just people who created a google account because it's required to activate their phone?

    You don't need Google+ to activate your Android Phone...In fact you can use hangouts, by just installing it on your iPhone (rolls eyes)

    1. Re:Active Google+ Users not Android Activations by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      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 ... what was the name changing to again? As I type.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Active Google+ Users not Android Activations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can use Google Hangouts in iPhone without a Google account?

  67. libpurple support? by mathew42 · · Score: 2

    The thing I most care about is if the "hangout protocol" will be supported by libpurple, preferably by google written code. It would be great if the protocol was open source to ease the implementation.

    I don't mind having a variety of IM protocols because it adds fault tolerance, but I want to run only one client. Several clients use libpurple now so it is even resistant to one development team's idea of what is the next best GUI idea.

    1. Re:libpurple support? by feranick · · Score: 1
    2. Re:libpurple support? by Cbs228 · · Score: 1

      It will be open

      I believe this post refers to the old Google+ Hangouts, which was the multi-party video conferencing service that launched with Google+.

      --
      At our school, we don't earn a degree when we graduate—we earn pi/180 radians
  68. return to basics by fikx · · Score: 1

    That's it, I'm just going to go back to talk....not Gtalk, just talk.

    --
    AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
  69. Re:Bad Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People are dicks. Get over it. I've been called a thousand different offensive names in my life.

    Me, too. And it's all water off a duck's back.

    Of course, as a heterosexual white protestant male in the US, I'm hardly in a position to judge how any minority group should react to epithets that have historically been used as part of a campaign of oppression against such people.

  70. Evil by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    The "don't be evil" has left the building. Cue evil Googlers to mod this into oblivion.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  71. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    At one moment in time, it was a really good way to get a hold of a high school or college kid (nephew, neice, cousin, whatever). Now it's SMS.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  72. Re:People still IM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the UK, if you send an SMS to a Land Line (House Phone), the phone rings, and the message is read out using text-to-speech.

  73. freetalk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using freetalk since xmpp was dropped (its scriptable).

  74. Re:Bad Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a generic pejorative in the sense that being gay "is a bad thing" because it is considered not masculine and that is why it started being used that way among young males.

  75. Re:Bad Google by Improv · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You have the right to decide that you should be able to control how others speak; that their mouth is put on the earth for your comfort and not for their expression. You have the right to decide to nag people who have no ill will towards you into talking in ways that you like. You have the right to conflate past oppressors with modern folk who have no such intent, and to try to control the latter.

    Doesn't make it cool.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  76. Good. by Foresto · · Score: 1

    Maybe this will give me the motivation to stop channeling my instant messaging through google servers.

  77. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah the Google+ haters. I and millions of others use Google+ every day. We just use it for things other than whining about stupid shit and complaining about High School like what you find on Facebook. Unlike Facebook I find Google+ to actually be useful. Hate all you want, bitch about how Grandma and little Tina in 10th grade aren't using it. I really don't give a fuck. I'm just glad you and the other whining bitches aren't on it. Thanks for staying away.

    Thank you for illustrating so vividly why we would want to stay away from Google+. You couldn't have underlined it more eloquently.

  78. Fuck you Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not going to fall for that tactic again. Next week you asshats will drop support for this new service too I bet. Even Microsoft is smarter than that.

  79. tuppe666 posting nearly 10% of responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tuppe666 is posting nearly 10% of responses on defending Google, telling you're not getting paid! cha-ching

  80. Google Open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is only open when it makes good business sense to do so, else they are becoming less open by the day. And more wealthy.

  81. Hangout will have open specifications by feranick · · Score: 1

    Relax, folks. Yes, XMPP may be dropped. But not to go completely closed-specs. According to a Google engineer, Hangout specifications for interoperability will come back, so third party apps can fully support it. XMPP needs to go because it is not extensible enough for the features needed. Besides, Hangout is nased partially on XMPP. More details here: http://juberti.blogspot.com/2011/07/hangouts-mailbag.html

    1. Re:Hangout will have open specifications by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 1

      According to a Google engineer, Hangout specifications for interoperability will come back, so third party apps can fully support it.

      That was two years ago. Still waiting for those open specs.

      And technically we don't know if the new Hangout will be based on the old G+ Hangouts.

  82. Re:Bad Google by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    (Hilarious and ironic? Is that a challenge?)

    What's hilarious and ironic is that you here are doing the Exact Same Thing.

    Whoa there, buddy. I'm an innocent witness! I told you something fascinating (IMHO) that I saw happen in 1985 and now you're giving me shit for it?

    Fine. Next time someone tells you they're concerned that "hackers" may have influenced their computer, I'll just let you go on thinking that they're bragging about how awesome their computer is. Then we'll see who looks like the insensitive clod.

    Later you'll find out, briefly wonder why Sloppy didn't tell you about the new meaning of "hacker," and then you'll remember this day. You'll come crawling back, on your hands and knees, offering to do to all sorts of gay things to earn my forgiveness.

    Genie's out of the bottle. You can whine and bitch it all you want about how stupid it might be, but "gay" has at least three meanings now, and some hipster (THERE! Now you can accuse me of labeling people) will come along and explain "gay" is up to five meanings now. And maybe then I'll join your side, saying, "Enough. I don't want to know."

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  83. Re:Bad Google by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Not to hijack this rant, but that's one of the problems with Google Talk: words have meanings. For instance:

    * talk
    * voice
    * chat

    See how someone might get a little confused by what "Google Talk" is? They've got a branding problem with the product, because many people still don't know what it is (as a product). Remember, we're talking about a population who probably, by and large, just thinks that a pop-up with a friend sending them a message in their email is just another email interface.

    Now ask yourselves, do you think "What do you mean you've got to put this @jabber.org email address at the end of your hangout to talk?" would go over well? I've heard people (younger people, granted) communicate with each other and say "what's your gmail address?" and they just share the prefix in return. Many of these people don't seem to realize there is anything out there aside from gmail for mail, or that gmail is in no way exclusive. For younger people, it's all there has been for as long as they remember. (People who were 8 when Google came out are now 18...)

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  84. Re:Bad Google by CAIMLAS · · Score: 0

    Precisely! Adults are a bit more creative, too. We might say something hyperbolic like, "What kind of faggotry is this?!" instead, for instance.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  85. Re:Bad Google by Y-Crate · · Score: 0

    People are dicks. Get over it. I've been called a thousand different offensive names in my life. We're all different and it's in our evolutionary behavior to exclude those that seem "Different" in any way we can to keep dominance over the group/tribe whatever... They key is realizing this, and letting the dumb be dumb. Words really can't hurt you, only your own insecurities can.

    I don't think you get what White Privilege and Heterosexual Privilege are, but you should maybe* look into that.

    *definitely

  86. Microsoft added just Google Talk support! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earlier this week, Microsoft announced it was adding Google Talk support to its Outlook.com email service. That addition did not sit well with Google's CEO Larry Page. During a Q&A session with people who attended the Google I/O keynote today, Page expressed his feelings on Microsoft's move in the context of promoting open standards for software.

    When asked by a keynote attendee from Mozilla about the future of web technology, Page said Google has invested a lot of time supporting open standards and said he was "personally quite sad" about how the industry has dealt with those standards. He then brought up the fact that Microsoft added Google Talk support for Outlook.com, stating that Microsoft was "... inter-operating with us but not doing the reverse, which is really sad. That not the way to make progress. You need to actually have inter-operation, not just people milking off one company for their own benefit." He also described Microsoft's activities as "milking off" of Google's innovations.

    http://www.neowin.net/news/larry-page-microsoft-putting-google-talk-in-outlookcom-is-sad/

  87. It's 2013 by bytesex · · Score: 1

    And we're *still* fighting *chat*wars? Bloody hell. You'd think the big boys would have found something better by now.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  88. uhm, email isn't private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uhm, email is never private. If you're worried about privacy why would you email a picture then? Anyone can look at your email when it's sent through the internet unless you encrypt it.

    1. Re:uhm, email isn't private by icebike · · Score: 1

      And you think sending thru some app is private?

      You poor delusional soul?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:uhm, email isn't private by Captain+Hook · · Score: 2

      email is never private..... unless you encrypt it

      *stratches head*

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
  89. i am disappoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i much preferred talk over hangouts always.

  90. Google Pay is also a goner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they won't publish that Google Pay is also canceled, after screwing thousands of small businesses.

  91. Re:Bad Google by kermidge · · Score: 1

    I might well have been naive, but I was shocked to find out, maybe somewhen in the Seventies, that "gay" referred to homosexuality. Ere then I'd thought it was among synonyms for "happy". Keeping up with shifts in language is not always trivial.

  92. Re:Fuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pidgin and Thunderbird support Facebook XMPP chat. If google drops it, it's the way to go. Or host your own server.

  93. Re:Bad Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are words that have been used offensively against a minority group so often that they've become hurtful *to* that group of people.

    What, like people with the last name Santorum? Remember, you're talking about the misuse of a word with intent to offend, not a casual misuse that just happens to offend someone.

  94. Re:Fuck. by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    The IM world is dropping compatibility like flies. What are these companies trying to do?

    They're trying to get you to use a client that they can show advertisements on. If you use a client that doesn't provide an ROI for them, why would they want offer up their electricity, spinning disks and the bandwidth of their service to you?

  95. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, IRC works just fine... and is supported by Pidgin from what I can recall.

  96. We're already there. by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pretty soon they'll drop HTML support

    One word. "Apps."

    1. Re:We're already there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, Internet. You've reinvented "client/server".

  97. Do no evil by peng0 · · Score: 1

    * Google Wave: RIP August 2010
    * Google Code Search: RIP January 15, 2012
    * Google Reader: RIP March 13, 2013
    * Google Talk: RIP ?

    Action speak louder than words..

  98. Re:Fuck. by Cbs228 · · Score: 1

    I would think that having access to real-time presence information (at keys versus not at keys), status messages, and personal communication would be a marketing winner for Google. All of this is information that can be used to direct targeted ads to you contextually, anywhere on the internet. There's no need to present ads in the client itself for the service to have a good ROI.

    --
    At our school, we don't earn a degree when we graduate—we earn pi/180 radians
  99. Please explain by rastos1 · · Score: 1

    I'm using Google Talk with a 3rd party client (Miranda) - configured to connect using my gmail.com account to talk.google.com using a Jabber connection - to talk to friends that are using web interface at gmail.com. Is that going to stop working? (it does work at the moment)

    1. Re:Please explain by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      Yes, it will stop working. It's only because Google Talk is based on XMPP that third-party chat clients can work with it.

    2. Re:Please explain by Yosho · · Score: 2

      Your 3rd party client will keep working fine. I can't believe Slashdot is actually using an article written by a Microsoft shill as a source.

      Google is ending XMPP federation support, which means that 3rd party XMPP servers will not be able to communicate with Hangouts users. This is NOT the same as dropping client support. XMPP clients will, at least for the foreseeable future, still be able to connect.

      There's no guarantee that Google won't drop XMPP client support in the future, of course, but that's not what the current news is about at all.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  100. Re:Fuck. by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

    I think it's safe to say that the state of instant messaging is truly fucked right about now.

    Google seems to keep making bone-headed moves it thinks will drive people to actually start using its moribund Google+ network; and, like all the past moves, it almost certainly will not work.

    I say this somewhat - but not completely - tongue in cheek: Will we see a day when Google decides Android phones can no longer do SMS, because "our new GMS (Google Messaging Service) provides a superior messaging platform through integration with your Google+ circles"?

    I wouldn't be surprised... Hangouts will eventually integrate SMS too.

  101. Re:Bad Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not what he suggested for a moment, but a douchbag's gotta douche I suppose.

  102. ICQ by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

    I have a 13 year old ICQ account.. still works great. Same as 13 years ago.
    Not very popular with 'common people' though, but I noticed.. nothing except facebook on desktop and line/whatsapp on mobile for chat, is very popular with common people.

  103. Re:Fuck. by Zouden · · Score: 1

    It's only fucked if you want to stay independent of a social network. Everyone I know is on facebook, so I use their XMPP system.

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
  104. The best protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is still IRC. Screw GTalk, AIM, Skype and all the rest.

  105. Re:Bad Google by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    somewhen in the Seventies... Ere then I'd thought it was among synonyms for "happy".

    Well, that's what happens when you get frozen in the 1800s and wake up in the 70s ;)

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  106. The product is the service by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    not unlike TV.

    Sorry the product is the service, and your right its exactly like the a TV *show*, they *sell* advertising space(the product) in that service. Everybody know it, You don't pay in any sort of form, if you did you did the government would tax you on it. In fact you are the *consumer*. Its why google apps for buisness is now a paid service :) they dimply *monetise* the product in a different way...like buying a DVD.

  107. Not happening by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    Question: you need to have a google+ account (as all google accounts are google+ accounts) to activate an android device with google.

    NO that is not true

    1. Re:Not happening by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Strange how it asked me to make one or attach to an existing account every time I activated one. Must be hallucinations.

    2. Re:Not happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it *asks* you to. I've activated and reactivated several very recently (mostly my existing one due to getting a new phone, but a few new ones for distant family), and not once has it ever actually *required* that I make them into Google+ accounts if they aren't already.

  108. Re:Fuck. by Vintermann · · Score: 2

    2010 called, they want their post back. Google+ is second only to Facebook in active users, it's not moribound by any stretch of the imagination. Though you could be forgiven for thinking that if you're not using it (as unlike e.g. Twitter and YouTube, it's not so visible from the outside, by design).

    They don't want to force people to Google+. They want to prevent skype from using the google talk address book without offering its own in return.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  109. Re:Bad Google by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

    Oh, and how did it become a "generic pejorative"? From bigoted thugs, calling out details of one's personal appearance as evidence that they were gay, and therefore should be beaten.

    That's my memory of high school in the late 80s. And college in the 90s. And, come to think of it, some incidents I've seen in the last month.

  110. And I just dropped Google by loufoque · · Score: 1

    I have no use for an instant messaging system that I can't use from dedicated third party instant messaging software.

    Ironically, it seems the only remaining large XMPP provider is Facebook.

    1. Re:And I just dropped Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you need a "large" XMPP provider? XMPP is, by definition, decentralized.

      You only need to plug into one of the federated servers and know what XMPP service the other person's on. Seriously. And...all you need do is educate your friends on why it's not half bad an idea to go use jabber.org as a chat server. No more games. No more using you as an information source to make money off of you. That sort of thing.

      Not to mention...I've not been using IM for much of anything these days. Few people to chat with- and it's more due to moving waay far away and drifting away from many of my "friends". Even if I did have that many...I'd be working on doing just what I talked to here in this reply to you.

  111. Paper Planes by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    tuppe666 is posting nearly 10% of responses on defending Google, telling you're not getting paid! cha-ching

    People who are paid, are incredibly easy to spot. The purpose is not to argue, or discuss...flame or win...spell correctly and don't swear. Its to convince *the Public* that your product is better...mainly by criticising the other. You expect phrases showing how often you use it "As a long time X User" or "I Use X everyday" "convinced others to use it"(the shame) Then you go on with with your you tried hard to like it and "you are reaching the end"/ "Just lately I have struggled" "Its my third version" then there is the vague nondescript complaint like its "slow" "buggy" "crashes all the time" "privacy" and my personal favourite "incompatible" and then the money shot *THE GUILTY CONFESSION* "I have notice how nice X it on a friends computer" "I have tried X out on a trial(seriously kill me) machine" "I borrowed X for a while"...and you don't actually switch because of some personality quirk defect "your too old" "fanatical about" or your a "geek"/"nerd" depending on your audience or a more brave "It does not work anymore" without providing proof or solid evidence...you can even spot them in this thread.

    ...and post Anonymous when attacking others ;)

    1. Re:Paper Planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, I see that in your previous post "As a long time Apple user"... cha-ching

  112. universal linux client? by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

    So after removing my MSN account from Pidgin, I can now remove my Google Talk account? Great, so only a private Jabber server remains. Unless I'm willing to have 3 separate IM clients running ... Bah. Anyone knows of a universal Linux client that can handle at least skype and jabber?

  113. Embrace, extend, and see ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty soon they'll drop HTML support

    Although funny, that's not actually such a stretch. They've been embracing and extending both the content side (O3D) and the protocol side (SPDY) of the Web.

    The only part of Microsoft's "embrace, extend, extinguish" that they don't do is "extinguish", although their equivalent of it is even more effective --- "implement our extensions or lose our free apps" --- so in practice they're extinguishing the pre-Google version of the Web. And they're much fleeter of foot than MS ever was, so it's working.

    It's pretty clear now that Google's goal isn't to be the biggest player on the Web, but to totally control what the Web does and how it does it, to own the standards by an unstoppable de facto process. In many ways that's worse than Microsoft ever was, because MS was easy to fight since it made really retarded corporate decisions, even illegal ones. Google is much more clever and uses greed as its hook, and that makes it much more dangerous.

  114. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Well, ICQ still works. I've used it since 1999 and don't intend to move anytime soon.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  115. Re:Bad Google by Sockatume · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Fuck rights, you both have the responsibility to learn to act in a way that doesn't offend either of you, because if you're causing offense, you've failed to communicate properly. Be conservative in what you do and liberal in what you expect from others.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  116. Re:Bad Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    White Privilege and Heterosexual Privilege

    They sound immensely racist and misanthropic to me. Oh, you mean there are other countries besides the US filled with impoverished white people who have nothing to do with your politics?

  117. keep doing this google... by higuita · · Score: 1

    keep doing this google... and you will learn the hard way!

    google keep axing service and features, they only work by statistics (what 90% of the people use stays, what doesnt reach that level is set to die... unless is related to google+)

    If they keep stripping their services and removing things, even if is little used, make their service dull and boring and other service for other entities with shiny features look a lot more attractive.

    They are not removing dead or broken features, they are removing things people use and like... even if its just 5% of the people, that is still millions of (soon unhappy) users

    google should know this, a service looks better when it have interesting features, even if little used! that is what makes people happy when the "search result is somewhat the same" compares with other services. XMPP talk, google reader, calendar caldav, block sites in search results, even the google cache are disappearing, along with other features... and what we will have in the end? another altavista? plain search, full of spam? a webmail like hotmail? instead of being number one, they are becoming just one more... and not because the others are getting better, google is getting worst.

    at least cached version of search results was put back (still very hidden, but better than nothing). google was "forced" to put it back, the due users complains.. probably from internal users, as outside users are just ignored.

    finally, with google axing things, people trust less and less in the google "cloud", as a feature/service today might be a lost feature tomorrow and a problem to be solved.

    So every time google axes one service or feature, is putting just one more nail in its coffin.

    i personally avoid being logged in google services, refuse to join google+ and started to also use other search engines too. If google keep worsening their service, it is easier to migrate to other services this way.

    --
    Higuita
  118. Would help if it worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That shitty Hangouts thing has never worked for me ONCE.

    I have a perfectly fine install of the browser, every time, never works.
    Screw them and screw Hangouts, Google+ and everything else.
    I will not become part of your shit network either, Google.

    I'd give anything to kill this new Google.
    Old Google was far better than this horrible mess of a company now.
    A company that cannot even monetize the simplest of things, so instead cancel them outright.
    Yeah, Google is dead. Long live Newgle.

    1. Re:Would help if it worked by Georules · · Score: 1

      Yeah, going to go ahead and have to say that you're doing something wrong. I've got a lot of complaints about Hangouts text-chat in gmail and android, but the video conferencing is by far the best I have ever used.

  119. time to move everything home from Google by Mirar · · Score: 1

    I'm starting to believe that I should cancel everything I have on/with Google and move it home.

    I use(d) Google Talk a lot. I use(d) Google Reader a lot, especially the sharing feature.
    I don't use Google Mail a lot, but I'll move that home as well now.

    I never used Google Office (whatever it's called), but now I never will. Seriously.

    And I think I'll try to switch search engine. Any tips? (Might as well get used to the search engine going away as well.)

  120. talk solutions to run on your own hardware? by Mirar · · Score: 1

    Are there any talk-solutions I can take home?
    Distributed, like mail? That I can get my friends to run?

    If not, are there any talk solutions that doesn't seem to die the corporate death?
    My default right now would be MSN, and I'm not too happy about that (and it probably has a limited lifespan as well, with Skype and all).

    1. Re:talk solutions to run on your own hardware? by msh104 · · Score: 1

      SIP en XMPP both work like mail.

    2. Re:talk solutions to run on your own hardware? by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Openfire is a fantastic open source XMPP server, so virtually every third-party messaging client (like Pidgin) can connect to it. It's also easy to set it up to federate server-to-server communications, so your friends can run their own servers if they really want to, although if this is a fairly small group of people using it, you're really better off just setting up a single server for everybody.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  121. Re:Bad Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Words really can't hurt you, only your own insecurities can.

    Guns can't hurt you, only your own choice to perceive pain, disability and death as bad can. I'm sure you'll disagree, but that's the exact same argument, and if you think about it for a bit, you might just realize that. Any bad thing is composed of something that happens and someone's perception of that thing as bad. So if you just don't see something as bad, then you can't be hurt by it, even if that something is getting shot in the knee. That's an entirely logical and correct argument. The error is in thinking that you entirely control and is entirely responsible for your own perception of reality, as though there is no natural connection between what happens and your perception of it. I am certain that there are words that can hurt you, even if I don't know what they are, and I'm sure you know that that is true.

  122. Just quit using google hangouts then. by ron-l-j · · Score: 1

    Go back to IRC like a boss. Be real again, stop drinking the coolaid and think for yourself.

    1. Re:Just quit using google hangouts then. by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Either that or sign up on jabber.org and use the core protocol like a boss...

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    2. Re:Just quit using google hangouts then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could put a Unix box online with open user creation, and just use the wall.

  123. How does this hurt Google Apps users? by Pizza · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    -- I ain't broke, but I'm badly bent.
    1. Re:How does this hurt Google Apps users? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  124. Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very evil.

  125. Re:Bad Google by Improv · · Score: 0, Troll

    Often if you're "causing offense", you're talking with a thin-skinned person who wields their pain and/or nuttiness as a mallet to shove others around.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  126. Re:Bad Google by war4peace · · Score: 0

    Yeah well some people get "offended" by pretty much anything, starting with normal conversations 10 feet away from them ("YOU MAKE TOO MUCH NOISE") and ending with walking your dog in a park ("KEEP THAT BEAST AWAY").
    I know a guy who was offended by the word "dude" (he said it was "disrespectful").

    I would tell them to "grow a pair" but that would be considered offensive too. Sigh...

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  127. IM is very good for technical discusssions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We use it fairly often. You can paste logs and code, and it's easy enough
    to say "I need 10 minutes to check this out". You don't get a sense of
    emotional tone -- well, except for response delay.

  128. Re:Fuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a jabber/XMPP account on an independent server.

  129. Re:Fuck. by greg1104 · · Score: 1

    Google+ is second only to Facebook in active users

    And Google+ is second to no one when it comes to counting incidental users as active ones! I have an "active" Google+ account attached to my work e-mail address now, because someone I do work with invited me to a Hangout once. People can't stay on the edge of Google's infrastructure for very long now before being likely to have a + account.

  130. Sametime chat ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never in a million years did I think there would be a silver lining to switching to IBM's Sametime. For shame Google. Even facebook has XMPP.

  131. and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google continues the slide towards irrelevance.

  132. Re:Fuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it? All one has to do is register with the XMPP federation network on jabber.org and resolve most of this.

    Oh, you're wanting to talk to your friends on services like Y!M and Google Hangouts. Well, you're going to have to convince your friends that they've got a better answer. That shouldn't be hard...

    It's not Facebook.
    It's not G+/Hangouts.
    It's not Yahoo!.
    It's not AIM.
    It's not MSN.

    And it doesn't present you as a marketable thing like all the others and uses the same framework GTalk used to use. Just simply register with jabber.org with your XMPP capable client. Heck, even voice and video technically are available from the tech and standards Google's discarding right now.

    Skip all the players with all their stupid games and go your own way. It's not hard...seriously.

  133. Active users not measured like that by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    You arn't, and that is not how active members are measured

  134. Re:Bad Google by azav · · Score: 0

    Lame. Lame and gay.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  135. Re:Fuck. by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    It's possible that other services aren't willing to invade your personal communications for the purpose of monetization, like Google is.

  136. WTF by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    This is getting ridiculous. I already use trillian because I'm sick of the balkanization of chat. I don't see why I need to load 50 different programs just to chat with different people. Now we're moving to systems where we can't even use 3rd party consolidators?

    I don't care if they want to 'reinvent communication'. There are very excellent use cases for having plain old text chat, and they arn't going to go away just because Google wants to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala". And there are plenty of other chat systems that don't (yet) pull this crap.

  137. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    SMS has one big advantage that all of these proprietary im services lack (and google seem to be moving away from)...
    It's actually an interoperable standard. I can use any handset with a multitude of operators, or i can use many third party online sms gateways. Regardless of the client or provider i choose, i can still talk to all other users of SMS, and i don't need multiple different accounts and/or devices to talk to different people.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  138. Re:Bad Google by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Guns can't hurt you, only your own choice to perceive pain, disability and death as bad can.

    One of the weaker Star Trek episodes, IMHO, but I gotta admit: it's memorable.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  139. Re:Fuck. by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Because IM federation is really no different to email, and they're happy to offer that.
    They don't offer the service to you, you simply communicate with someone else who is using their service.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  140. Re:Bad Google by kermidge · · Score: 1

    What can I say? I like somewhen for its aptness, and find ere useful. Just because some words have fallen into general disuse doesn't mean they've lost their utility - to me, anyway. 'Sides, "ere" saves ink. Or electrons, or whatever. [grin] I'm old enough and stupid enough to enjoy a bit of play with the language.

  141. In another world you'd have filtered spam... by Herve5 · · Score: 1

    Spamfiltering, would allow you to safely check mail "when you have time to kill".

    Alas, choosing Facebook means no spam filter will ever be available.

    Indeed, I buy your 'less obstrusive' argument -that's the first one I find in favor of FB.
    But, I fear it's an answer for the lazy ones: setting up a good spamfilter was long, involving training etc. Setting up FB is faster.

    And because it is faster, and almost all young adopters are lazy, FB will *undoubtedly* destroy the idea of spam filter itself. A bit like Google groups destroyed Usenet.

    Now why do I feel so old...

    --
    Herve S.
    1. Re:In another world you'd have filtered spam... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      A bit like Google groups destroyed Usenet

      Eh, I don't think Google Groups destroyed Usenet, newsgroups were well, well on their way out by then. The rise of the web destroyed newsgroups, and the rise of forums on individual websites.

      Spam also destroyed just about any non-moderated newsgroup; certainly all the ones that I paid attention to.

  142. Re:Bad Google by Kielistic · · Score: 1

    Gay is not a generic pejorative. It is a slur used to disenfranchise a minority group that is commonly vilified, discriminated and targeted against. It was used as a generic pejorative when you were in grade school because discriminating against the "gays" was actively encouraged. But now we've decided that discriminating against minority groups based on hate is in pretty bad taste.

    I can understand a 12 year old not fully understanding the words that they are using and needing to be brought aside and possibly punished to teach them the consequences of their words. I'm assuming (possibly incorrectly) that you are older than 12 and probably quite a bit older. Most people would expect you to know better.

    Society. It's like tech skills. Keep up or go extinct.

  143. Re:MSN -- Google Talk -- where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't leave XMPP: https://dukgo.com/blog/xmpp-services-at-duckduckgo

  144. Re:Bad Google by Drakonblayde · · Score: 1

    Just to nitpick - if my goal was to offend, and I'm causing offense with my words, then I daresay that I am indeed communicating properly.

    Which isn't to say I condone the use of certain words, but neither do I condemn. A person should be aware of the effect their words are likely to have, and be willing to deal with the consequences.

    On the other side of that argument, I think that going through life being concerned with what other people think or are going to think of you, whether it's because of your diction, your manner of dress, or anything else, is a cowardly way to approach life.

  145. I am ok with taht if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be ok with Google dropping XMPP inter communication with other open services but the fact that even JINGLE is going to be interrupted makes me frustrated. So, no more voice calls between Talk users and Hangouts users = big kaka.

  146. Re:Seriously by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    SNFOTM has a nice ring to it.

  147. Most of you really don't understand technology by degeneratemonkey · · Score: 1

    n/t

  148. Time to drop the Chocolate Factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's time to drop Google as a service provider. I am now looking for a gmail replacement. Fortunately, my normal email address is a forwarding address hosted by a major tech industry user organization. IE, I will point my address to a new provider as soon as I select one, or I will host my own email server if necessary. Google has lost me, permanently because of this crap!

  149. Re:Fuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you can still use apps like pidgin to talk to people on Google hangouts, as long as you sign in with a google account (client-server communication). You just can't set up your own jabber server and have it federate with Google (server-server communication).

  150. Re:Fuck. by evilviper · · Score: 1

    They don't want to force people to Google+.

    Really? Because I'm unable to rate or review apps in the Android Market unless I have a Google+ account. This despite the fact that this all worked perfectly fine for years, before Google+ came along.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  151. Re:Bad Google by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

    You don't get to decide when a word is pejorative to a group that's historically been targeted with it.

    FYI - it was a word adopted by the homosexual community (circa 1960's and 1970's) to try to replace the term "queer", and to convey a certain message in the process. Over time, though, it has come to be a synonym for "queer" instead.

    Just goes to show that one can call something anything they like, but the name will eventually mean the same thing as what was originally given it.

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  152. Should probably get the whole story first by anthm · · Score: 1

    I'd be surprised if they were really completely dropping it. It probably has more to do with rush to market on latest features than some attempt to slam doors on people's feet. XMPP for voice really is not all that great, I've implemented it myself.

    We've supported Googleifyed xmpp jingle in FreeSWITCH [http://www.freeeswitch.org] since 2006. Its never really looked like something that would scale since the signaling protocol was over an already high level transport designed for chat. XMPP offers one really good feature, you can reach users directly using a user@domain.com style address and there is no NAT or any other networking or lookup issues to reach that user. The downside is it won't scale due to the fact that xmpp servers are heavily rate limited and not designed at all for tons of messaging at heavy rates. So Google luckily had the best super cluster of xmpp services in town and that allowed them to build on that for the voice stuff but I bet it became clear to them quickly the challenges with trying to exponentially keep up.

    I would gather more info and look for the whole story before passing judgement. If they have some goal to use some fancy new audio and video services, there is a chance they can focus on that first and make sure it scales and it should be trivial to gateway that back to xmpp for existing topology.

    Coming from a telephony background, I am more concerned with the tunnel vision towards paradigm shift at any cost that threatens people who still use telephones from being disenfranchised by this attempt to reinvent communication too drastically too quickly. Balance is key when it comes to legacy vs new wave in communication technology.

     

    1. Re:Should probably get the whole story first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Google XMPP is just a front-end, their servers run a bunch of message passing Web services inside.
      And the Google Voice is internally a bunch of SIP switches running something other than FS. I actually wrote the switching logic for GrandCentral - so posting AC...

  153. Direct response to Microsoft? by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 1

    My guess is that this is a direct response to Microsoft.

    Google has been talking open-ness, and xmpp is part of that. Microsoft decided to connect messenger so that they could send messages to g-chat users, but didn't reciprocate in terms of allowing g-chat users to see messenger contacts. (I don't know the protocol, but I understand this is a valid use of an xmpp server, even if clearly parasitic).

    Google have responded by shutting the whole thing down. 'Hey Microsoft -play nice, or we'll take our ball home'

  154. Why we decided to not integrate with Google by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    This is why we decided not to integrate with any Google services or software. They throw shit over the wall and abandon it. They have a working service and change everything about it. They do this all the time. In fact, ditching XMPP after ten years represents a new dimension along which you can't trust them. Not only can't you trust the new shit to be around longer than 18 months, but now you can't trust anything under, apparently, 10 years stay around either.

    Yeah. Integrate with Google's offerings.. I think not.

  155. Re:Fuck. by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

    I won't touch anything that has anything to do with Facebook with a ten-foot pole.

  156. Re:Bad Google by Y-Crate · · Score: 1

    White Privilege and Heterosexual Privilege

    They sound immensely racist and misanthropic to me. Oh, you mean there are other countries besides the US filled with impoverished white people who have nothing to do with your politics?

    Take a history class and get back to us.

  157. Re:Fuck. by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

    They're already probably getting money by throwing some of my personal information in a blender and using it in some way so that it nets them some kind of profit. If they want me to see ads too and force me into specific programs or to use a web page, well... goodbye, Google Talk.

  158. Re:Fuck. by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

    Done. I just earlier did a search for Jabber's web site to get some more information. Had some serious trouble trying to get logged in with Pidgin (some vague "connection errors"... I accidentally used @jabber.com instead of @jabber.net... duh). Once I tried and got logged in with no problem using Kopete, I finally realized the problem and I'm now able to log in with Pidgin too.

    I'll see how this goes. The one advantage Google Talk had was that if a person's e-mail address was known, so was their instant messaging username. While Jabber loses that, it is cool that they don't even ask for an e-mail address upfront. This can come in handy, because I know some people are more likely to be afraid of something and more reluctant to try it out if their e-mail address is required from the start.

  159. Once bitlbee breaks I'm done with google by disasm · · Score: 1

    I'll continue to use my google account for chatting with people for now, but if they pull the plug on 3rd party clients such as bitlbee, I'm done with google. I'll either setup my own jabber server running XMPP, or just switch back completely to IRC.

  160. Re:Bad Google by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    I can cut a 2013 teacher some slack for disciplining a student for bitching about homework. But I can't cut anyone slack in 2013 for not knowing "gay" is a generic pejorative. If you don't know gay is a generic pejorative by now, then you also probably missed the memo that it means homosexual. You probably think it means "happy."

    Words. They're like tech skills. Keep up or be left behind.

    Dude, don't be such a nigger about word definitions.

    Oh, you didn't know "nigger" means aggressive and hardcore now? Get with the program, words change meaning all the time.

  161. OTR by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    I use google XMPP because it supports OTR. Allowing me to privately chat with others supporting this protocol. Removing XMPP will likely mean that all my chat messages are stored by google. I dont know what googles real intent is here, but it will force me to find a new chat service that supports OTR.

    Ive been suspicious about google wanting to get rid of OTR, ever since they installed their own version of "OTR"... which isnt the secure version of OTR at all, but rather an optional client based instruction to not store logs. It really bothered me that Google would select the acroymn OTR for something that is definately not OTR. It seemed that they were trying to create brand confusion and lul average users into a sense of security that did not exist. My theory is that one reason Google is moving away from true XMPP is that they can get rid of all encrypted chat communication and can apply all of their demographic tools on every message we send.

  162. Re: Bad Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not new in anyway, 10 years ago it was "what's your Hotmail?"

  163. I like to hang out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just not on Google or the Internet in particular. There are better places for that.

  164. Re:Bad Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, so those were whites running the Ottoman Empire. Got it.