I’m looking into hosting one of these for the first time. From my limited research, XMPP seems to win in every way, which makes me think I must be missing something. Matrix is almost always mentioned as the de-facto standard, but I rarely saw arguments why it is better than XMPP?
Xmpp seems way easier to host, requiring less resources, has many more options for clients, and is simpler and thus easier to manage and reason about when something goes wrong.
So what’s the deal?
You must log in or register to comment.
Now, that is quite a stretch. We had almost 15 years of zero interest rate economic policies, all the “cheap” capital available to everyone and you are telling me that none of the companies with a vested interest in XMPP managed to get resources to grow because Element was sucking out all the air from the room?
If getting XMPP to be in a state that could compete with the proprietary messengers were that much cheaper than the resources taken by Element, why is it that none of telcos pushed for it to have something to show in the OTT space? Or why couldn’t Process.one/Prosody get any VC interested when there are so many firms that make a living of just copying whatever is trending?
You are trying to rationalize XMPP’s failure to get more adoption by blaming Element, but this is not a zero-sum game. I’ve been to XMPP meetups, and absolutely no one ever talked about initiatives to make it more appealing to masses. Everyone just wanted to geek out and scratch their own itch. If the XMPP community never valued commercial success, fine, but then don’t act like someone else robbed their lunch when all Element did was do the work that XMPP supporters didn’t want to do.
Ok this is starting to get hilarious in how naive you are. Have you looked at the messenger space at all? There are literally hundreds of venture-capital funded grifters competing in that space and Element is only one of them. And they are all playing a losing game these days, as they are up against giants like Discord (and to a lesser extend incumbents like Microsoft, with their Teams).
That the established XMPP players chose not to be part of this grift is a very sensible choice that also makes business sense if you care about the longer term survival of your company. Most of their income is from embedded and IoT applications these days, like running the notification infrastructure of giants like Nintendo. However, this sadly does not fund client development and improvements in user interface. The only sustainable funding for that was from open-source organisations and government agencies, which Element decided to persue aggressively. None of the established XMPP players felt like getting in on that race to the bottom as they didn’t have (and want) venture capital to burn. But now that Element has started to run out of funding they are turning to the “switch” part of the bait & switch grift and the ones really hurt by this is not XMPP, but all the organisations that naively trusted them with their communication infrastructure.
So, companies working on XMPP are healthy and thriving, but they can not afford to extend into the consumer space because… they don’t want to go up against Discord?
makes business sense if you care about the longer term survival of your company
Then you make a separate entity to take risks in that space, kinda like what Amdocs did with Matrix?
I’m sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Either XMPP consumer XMPP is in a dire situation because Element beat ahead of the others due to their VC funding, or businesses working on XMPP are not interested in the consumer space because they don’t see it as worth the risk. But it makes no sense to claim that Matrix has achieved bigger mindshare with no actual merit in making a more accessible product, and that XMPP is acceptable as is.
You are either arguing a strawman or are intentionally distorting what I said.
My argument is that venture-capital has enabled Element to snatch away the little sustainable funding that exists in the open-source messenger space and this directly reflects in the not great state of the remaining fully hobbyist developed clients for XMPP. However, the same time Element spectacularly failed at using these funds to actually create a competitive system thus in the end they poisoned the well and burned a lot of money. This is a common pattern of venture-capital funded endeavours that was easy to see coming but Element prioritized short term gains over their stated goals.
I am not trying to distort anything, I just don’t agree with your “venture-capital has enabled Element to snatch away the little sustainable funding that exists” premise. I don’t see what going after government contracts has to do with “open source funding” and I don’t think that “using VC funds to give away free stuff for developers” is something to be held against them just because the XMPP companies are not willing to risk it.
If the XMPP business are thriving in the IoT space, good for them. But to me, as a consumer, this means nothing if they are not willing to compete in the space.
Also, as long as we are talking about Free Software for the end product, I honestly do not care about who is funding it. All I care about is that I can find some way for my parents to talk with me and see their grandkids without depending on Facebook/Google, and if doing it with Element/Matrix is easier than doing with XMPP/siskin, then I’ll be using Element. I don’t need any of them to pass some arbitrary purity test, I just need them to deliver something minimally usable.
They can’t compete against “free” as enabled by venture capital funding. And you are being extremely naive if you don’t see the issue with that or who is behind a product even if the code is nominally FOSS. Have you been living under a rock the last couple of years? There is even an popular term for it called “enshittification” and it doesn’t matter much for that if the code is FOSS. This is not about purity, but rather about not shitting into your own water supply.
