Yeah, that doesn't matter. They continued to use XMPP so long because it was still profitable for them to, not because of some implied ethical stand on open software. Android is "open" because it is more profitable for Google to give it away and make the ad/Play/certification money than it is for them to personally get into the hardware market like Apple.
> They continued to use XMPP so long because it was still profitable for them to
More like, they continued to use XMPP for 8 years at enormous loss, watching while it acted as a massive sink hole of users to their competitors who exploited it ruthlessly ...
I too wish they hadn't ended federation, but do note that to this day XMPP clients continue to work just fine. They did not abandon XMPP as everyone loves to imply.
- XMPP is deprecated as far as Google is concerned.
- Google Hangouts (non-XMPP) replaces Google Talk (XMPP) on Android.
- Apparently I always appear online in Google Hangouts even when I'm signed out of Google Talk leading to people messaging me and being confused that I don't respond, or never got the message (apparently it just goes into the aether, or maybe only shows up if I switch over the Google Hangouts).
Saying "look XMPP still works!" doesn't prove much as it's a second-class (or even third-class) citizen in Google's ecosystem.
As someone that remembers the constant battle between AOL and third-party IM clients, I'll note that Google's handling of XMPP feels similar to AOL transitioning from TOC to OSCAR[1]. The parallels are there. They provide a way for third-party clients to connect to their service, but make sure it's never as fully-featured as the 'official' client which uses an entirely different protocol.
[1] The OSCAR protocol was more fully functional than the TOC protocol (e.g. 'buddy icons' didn't exist in TOC, nor the ability to directly connect and send images to a buddy), but AOL pointed to the TOC protocol when third-party IM clients wanted to connect to AOL's IM service. At one point, the OSCAR protocol would start doing things like requesting random binary chunks AOL's official IM client to assert that a third-party wasn't connecting to the service (i.e. working around this would mean distributing a copy of AOL's IM client, which allows AOL to sue).
I can't imagine in what situation using XMPP could be construed as "profitable". Maybe for paying Google Apps users, but I don't think too many of them depended on XMPP integration (either they have their own enterprise chat solution or they're just using Google's. Or they're not allowed chat)
How can the word "ethical" ever describe a company that gets all of its money from advertising, the business of deception and manipulation, and then deepens its pact with the Devil by trading all of our privacy for more profit and control, a company whose CEO says things like, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."?
EDIT: At least two downvotes within a minute of posting! If you're going to downvote this comment, at least have the honesty and guts to reply with a counter-argument. I wish HN gave us transparency into votes, such Quora does.
But sigh... I expect these cowardly downvotes. HN seems to be dominated by Google apologists. Furthermore, much of the web is ad-supported, and as Upton Sinclair said so well, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it."
HN is going downhill because those interested in reasonable discussion are overwhelmed by ideologues and religious fanatics. It's like the tech community has its own version(s) of the Tea Party to contend with
Well I'm downvoting you for your edit, which is simultaneously childishly whiny and quite funny in its lack of awareness: read your original again, and then ask yourself if you don't think you might be coming across as a bit of an ideologue yourself.
I disagree with your original argument because it's a straw man. 'Ethical' was used by the parent to refer to the consideration to use XMPP, not to Google as a corporation. The parent simply posited that Google's decision to use XMPP was not motivated by ethical concerns. Supporting, in a way, your own point.
I'm agreeing with the parent. Neither of us subscribes to the commonly held belief around these parts that Google is special and lives by its "Don't be evil" tag line. I don't understand why you call my point a straw man.
Tell me why I come across as an ideologue? My opinion is strong and critical, yes, but it is not rooted in zealotry. Are people who decry the NSA's lying to Congress about its illegal collection of private data ideologues?
Why is my comment childish? Is it not childish to name-call a legitimate argument "childish" rather than addressing the point?
Is it possible that Upton Sinclair's words apply to you?
[I think it's hilarious that I keep getting new downvotes (at least 3) and upvotes to match. Sad really. Downvotes should be used to bury junk, not legitimate replies. Instead of an intelligent discussion, we have this. Maybe it could turn into an intelligent discussion on intelligent discussion. :P]
You didn't make an actual point. You just spouted Slashdot-esque vitriol.
This is the exact same reason most anti-Goog comments are heavily downvoted. No cogent point, no interesting questions, just "lolz dae M$ and Goog is le devil" - often including a whiny edit accusing HN of being Google apologists.
FWIW I think Google is making a serious effort to deal with the huge conflict of interest created by their defacto monopoly position. However it would be impossible for Goog to escape all negative consequences, nor are they without flaws, so intelligent discourse is welcome.
"How can the word "ethical" ever describe a company that gets all of its money from advertising, the business of deception and manipulation" is not a legitimate point? Are you saying just because it's anti-Google it is vitriol? Did you even read the comments i linked to?
Your whole statement assumes advertising is "the business of deception and manipulation", and you've not proven that at all. Maybe you take it as a given, but I don't. Sure, advertising can be manipulative and deceptive, but it can also be instructive and helpful.
Tell me honestly what you think of the quality and independence of news today? Why are Nielsen Ratings so important? Is news driven more by journalistic principles and pursuit of the truth, or by the profit motive?
If the truth is oxygen of democracy, then journalism is the lifeblood and distorting the truth for increased revenue is unethical.
