Facebook Finally Ends XMPP Support For 3rd Party Chat

New submitter AcquaCow writes: Facebook has been pushing their Messenger app to all devices, requiring it for chatting with friends and family. It was announced last year that they would be ending their chat API and that the service would end on April 30, 2015. April passed, so did May, but the service remained functional. Finally, as of July 7th, 2015 it has not been possible to connect to chat.facebook.com. This doesn't seem to be an outage at this point. Looks like we have to wait for 3rd party messenger apps to adopt support for Facebook's Platform API v2 to allow new connectivity.

Comments

Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny because I'm chatting on FB using XMMP.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, go back to FB and leave us be.

Re:Funny

[shitzu]

I am chatting on people in FB messenger over my jabber 2 jabber gateway just fine.

Facebook destined for AOL Status

[sycodon]

Facebook is following the same path as AOL.

In their megalomaniac desire to be all things and control all things, they are walling themselves into an environment with half assed software, surveillance, ads, and privacy violations.

Just a matter of time.

Re:Facebook destined for AOL Status

[bondsbw]

Let's not compare them as if they are even a hint of the same thing. AOL was a dial-up ISP and died because of broadband. The only way Facebook will die is if something significantly more desirable comes along to replace it.

Re:Facebook destined for AOL Status

[sycodon]

Technically, yes.

But philosophically they are the same. They want people to live in Facebook. Get their news from there, make appointments, exchange messages (emails) etc. I'd bet that Zukerberg dreams of being his own ISP that only provides Facebook.

Re:Facebook destined for AOL Status

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's exactly what happened to AOL... or IBM, or any of the entrenched monoliths.

Re:Facebook destined for AOL Status

[chihowa]

AOL "died" before broadband came along. AOL, like Compuserve, was a walled garden before it was an ISP (proper). Once the internet as a whole began to provide more compelling content, forums, etc, they shifted to a primary ISP role, but prior to that access to the internet was limited and sketchy.

AOL becoming an ISP was the way that it died. Before that, it was an absolutely huge service with tons of subscribers.

Re:Facebook destined for AOL Status

[ArhcAngel]

AOL was a dial-up ISP and died because of broadband.

I would love to be as dead as AOL is. Just because a companies original primary business dried up doesn't mean they didn't survive or thrive. The ability to adapt has served them well despite what the 3lit3 h@x0rs think about them.

As for Facebook they look to be dipping their toes into every new trend on the horizon just to cover their bases. Whether they can stay relevant or not remains to be seen.

Re:Facebook destined for AOL Status

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd bet that Zukerberg dreams of being his own ISP that only provides Facebook.

I thought they were already working on that in Africa:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...
(Disclaimer: No particular attachment to this news source, just happened to be the first relevant link in ddg)

Re:Facebook destined for AOL Status

[Opportunist]

Death by stoning sounds more desirable than being subjected to FB.

Re:Facebook destined for AOL Status

[phantomfive]

Any company that just got bought by Verizon will soon be dead.

Re:Facebook destined for AOL Status

[TheRaven64]

AOL started to die long before it became an ISP. It was an OSP (Online Service Provider) back when those things existed, along with CompuServe and a number of other players. They had their own walled garden and, eventually, also allowed web browsing via a gateway (they used a non-IP network protocol for their dial-up users and so you couldn't initially just run a web browser, you had to use the one embedded in their client). Most of their value came from the stuff that was exclusive to AOL. You may remember that even in the early 2000s, a load of movie posters had a URL and also an 'AOL Keyword' that you could use to find out more. Then most content moved to the web, and people who were using AOL gradually became able to access everything that they wanted outside of the walled garden and eventually most people moved away to other ISPs that were cheaper because all that they were offering was access, not content.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because i'm connected to Facebook chat via Gimp right now...

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Argh, i mean Pidgin! XD

Re:Really?

[squiggleslash]

That's cool, because I've been signed into Google Hangouts using MS Paint now all day.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, I thought you had resorted to screenshot editing. :D

Anyway, a list of publicly available XMPP servers: https://list.jabber.at

My preference was: blah.im

Re:Really?

[koinu]

Does it have support to send pictures?

Re:Really?

[PhloppyPhallus]

I'm also literally connected to Facebook (using jabber-mode in Emacs) at this very instant. If they've had XMPP shut down for over a week, they sure did a shitty job of it.

Use purple-facebook

[sombragris]

In libpurple (read: Pidgin and other apps that might use it for messaging) you can connect via purple-facebook, which is a Facebook chat protocol plugin. There are still some glitches but it's definitely usable.

Re:Use purple-facebook

[alexhs]

I will have to check that, but I'm using Adium (for Mac OS X). It's also relying on libpurple, so I hope it will work.
By the way, the submitter is uninformed, Facebook Chat API (using OAuth) stopped working weeks ago. But it seems login/password XMPP was still working. I meant to do just that, but I guess it's too late now :)

Re:Use purple-facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks -- that worked on my Pidgin portable too.

Re:Use purple-facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Feels like a Microsoft playbook...
Embrace and Extend

XMPP was popular before Facebook and they integrated with it. Now with Facebook having sufficient critical mass in chat, they drop the open standard and mandate that interoperation must happen through their proprietary interface.

Before people would have asked why Facebook did not support the most popular chat protocol (XMPP). Now people will ask why a chat client does not support the most popular social platform (Facebook).

Re:Use purple-facebook

[allo]

xmpp and most popular? you're joking, aren't you?

Most popular (despite irc) is ICQ.

Re:Use purple-facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for linking that, I couldn't find it again for some reason. Been using it for the last week or so now, and it works great.

Re:Use purple-facebook

[TheRaven64]

Facebook never supported Federated XMPP, which is what makes it actually useful. Using SMTP and IMAP for mail isn't that useful if your mail server won't exchange mail with anyone else's. Google Talk supported federated XMPP, I could easily add Google Talk users to my XMPP roster on my own server and chat to them, but now Google is trying to use hangouts to replace Google Talk.

Re:Use purple-facebook

[DrewMIT]

thank you so much for posting this. This might be my first /. comment in nearly a decade, that's how valuable this link was for me.

Re:Use purple-facebook

[AcquaCow]

Aah, managed to download this plugin and get it working. It connects to a different server than chat.facebook.com as well.

I've noticed in the comments that some folks can still use xmpp with chat.facebook.com, but whatever local server that DNS is pointing me at is no longer accepting connections.

Thanks.

But is v2 useful for Chat?

[R.Mo_Robert]

Facebook's API description says about v2: "In v2.0, the friends API endpoint returns the list of a person's friends who are also using your app. In v1.0, the response included all of a person's friends." This doesn't sound like it will be a useful replacement for their XMPP chat interface unless everybody is using the same third-party app, or maybe I'm missing something.

Re:But is v2 useful for Chat?

[gstoddart]

Who says they intend it to be useful replacement?

Facebook wants everybody to run their application so they can mine all your fucking data.

The don't give a crap about 3rd part clients, they care about ads and analytics.

Seriously, stop expecting benevolence from Facebook. They're greedy bastards, nothing more. They're not going to do a damned thing which doesn't maximize their bottom line.

Re:But is v2 useful for Chat?

[R.Mo_Robert]

Who says they intend it to be useful replacement?

Umm...whoever wrote the headline and summary (and that's certainly what they implied), because that's what I was responding to rather than expressing a personal viewpoint that Facebook owes me benevolence?

Re:But is v2 useful for Chat?

[gstoddart]

Nobody but you said "useful replacement", and certainly not in the context that it worked with other XMMP based chat stuff.

Facebook is making a replacement beneficial for them.

People not using their platform need not apply. Facebook doesn't care about them.

Re:But is v2 useful for Chat?

[R.Mo_Robert]

OK, fine, I meant to say "usable" instead of "useful." That is clearly what the last sentence of TFS is suggesting v2 should be usable for, as if it's just a new API that v1 users need to migrate to.

Trillian

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't seen any interruption in Trillian connectivity to FB messenger.

Re:Trillian

[Albert71292]

Still working fine in Trillian for me also.

And nothing of value was lost

[Overzeetop]

Sorry, don't really have a lengthy comment, it's all in the subject.

How it went

[iTrawl]

Someone was walking down a lane in their datacentre and noticed some lights blinking in the corner of their eye. They turn, and see a machine they remembered. They then said: "Hmm... I thought I turned this one off ages ago." And pushed the power button.

Well..

[TemporalBeing]

..I stopped using Facebook Chat when they started wanting a separate app on my phone for it. I don't use it enough to justify a separate app. So now it's just an annoyance as the main Facebook app keeps telling me I have a message, but won't let me read the message - they never bothered to remove the panel from the main app that use to be for chats, it's now a promotional for the other app.

Re:Well..

[Tool Man]

It's actually the main Facebook app that I uninstalled. Messenger is OK for its intended purpose, but the main one was what doing sketchy things I didn't want. I now use a mobile browser instead, so their functionality is limited to what the browser and phone ecosystem will permit.

Re:Well..

[gstoddart]

And I would say any application whose functionality can be replaced with the web page should be uninstalled.

The app is just there to scrape your contacts and serve you ads.

Why give them access to that crap? I would no sooner trust Facebook with access to my phone that Zuckerfuck would allow me access to his wallet.

Stop treating Facebook as trustworthy. They're not. They're an ad and analytics company.

Other technologies to try

[fluffernutter]

I use a technology called TELEPHONE for chatting with friends and family. While it doesn't support XMPP, it supports a technology called MOUTH quite well. Next week I will be trying a new technology called 'IN PERSON'. I hear IN PERSON supports MOUTH as well, as well as TOUCH (just like a smartphone screen!). I will report back on how it goes.

Re:Other technologies to try

[godrik]

While I like text-based communications, I agree with you. I must say that you pack way more information in a 2 minute phone call than in a 2 minute chat session. text is good for asynchrony and logging.
When chatting with collaborators (email or IM), if we reach the point where we are actively waiting on somebody else's reply, we switch to voice communication.

Re:Other technologies to try

[lisaparratt]

Cool story, Grandad!

Meanwhile, everyone under the age of 50 secretly resents you for wasting their time with a voice call.

Re:Other technologies to try

[linuxrocks123]

Just make sure you don't get a virus ;)

Oh is that why...?

[Tyrannosaur]

Pidgin hasn't been working for me for several days now... maybe I need to update it

Facebook Messenger App is an issue

[calexontheroad66]

I found out recently that it is not possible to log out of Facebook Messenger on a mobile device.
I found this annoying cause anyone that can access a tablet can effectively check one's message and wreak havoc.
If one has a jealous or abusive spouse/partner/girlfriend/boyfriend this is clearly a big no-no, even if your significant other is not 'unstable' even innocent conversations might misconstrued.
Also, if third parties get access to a mobile device and can unlock it, this means that they can check your previous conversations and use them for their own ends.
In fact every other messaging app comes with a sign out feature why doesn't this one?

So how many people are still using XMPP?

[oldgunpraa]

Is XMPP dying right now? Cause if it is, it is sad. Google Chat may be the only XMPP chat that's supported by a big company. Companies want their own privatized protocol and bind their user in their own services: Whatsapp, Telegram, Line, Hangouts, iMessage and etc., and I can't talk to my friends if they're on a different service. Are we entering a age when good old Internet spirits are no more respected? Or is it just how this world should be in the first place?

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[allo]

Google XMPP is dead. XMPP now works only with TLS and google refuses it. So its disconnected from all other servers.

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is to say federated XMPP through Google is dead. XMPP to Google still works if you want to chat within their ecosystem.

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[shutdown -p now]

Didn't they say they're planning to retire XMPP for Chat in general eventually, in favor of whatever proprietary crap they're using for Hangouts?

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[Dan541]

Companies want their own privatized protocol and bind their user in their own services: Whatsapp, Telegram, Line, Hangouts, iMessage and etc., and I can't talk to my friends if they're on a different service. Are we entering a age when good old Internet spirits are no more respected? Or is it just how this world should be in the first place?

We're going back to the days of bulletin boards where you can only talk to people on the same service. We are going backwards.

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[wertigon]

It's really sad that XMPP went the way it did, the protocol deserved more than it got.

The biggest showstopper was the lack of NAT-piercing Voice/Video/Filetransfers, and even though self-hosting has never been easier with Prosody... XMPP has never had worse prospects. Unfortunately. :(

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[TheRaven64]

The biggest showstopper was the lack of NAT-piercing Voice/Video/Filetransfers

XMPP has had that for years. The problem was fragmentation. There are at least a dozen file transfer XEPs and people were allowed to publish XEPs without a reference implementation. The foundation should have made sure that there was a reference server implementation and a BSD-licensed reference client library and that standards track XEPs had all of the core functionality that people actually wanted. Instead, they allowed loads of incompatible XEPs for basic things to be published and never selected one winner to push, so finding two clients that can interoperate beyond basic messaging was pretty hard.

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[wertigon]

It has had that for years yet not a single client has managed to give a easy-to-use alternative for all these years. Not one.

If Jingle require STUN/TURN then there must be an easy way to discover these services. I've been waiting patiently for a decent client/server combo, but none has materialized, and by now it's too late. (And yes, Prosody kicks ass and takes names, but clients are still lacking, big time).

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[LinuxIsGarbage]

We're going back to the days of bulletin boards where you can only talk to people on the same service. We are going backwards.

Not only that, look at how many (usually small) companies don't have, or don't update their actual website, and instead rely on Facebook and Twitter to for updates.

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[allo]

Afaik there are rumors, which are for example based on the fact, that their XMPP isn't useful anymore and gtalk itself is discontinued.

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[thejynxed]

It was already disabled entirely in my Gmail account and the only offered replacement was Hangouts.

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[allo]

btw: do you know somebody, who seriously uses hangouts? i only know whatsapp / skype people.

Re:So how many people are still using XMPP?

[thejynxed]

I do know people that use it, but that's not only because Google is now basically pushing it as their version of iMessage for Android devices. It has group video calling for up to 10 people and a concurrent text conversation with up to 150 people at a time, which I think are the main features that have been attracting the people to the service. It also works cross device - so if someone on their Samsung Note 4 initiates a Hangout, everyone from people on tablets to PCs can join in, which is a pretty big deal.

Re: Secret 3G Intel Chip Gives Snoops Backdoor Acc

[bill_mcgonigle]

Never go full-InfoWars. Christ, I can barely get a 3G connection *with* an actual antenna connected to a radio.