Another walled garden chat? Why can't they develop a shared IETF supported standard (if XMPP isn't good enough for them)? It's a shame what a huge mess IM landscape has become because big players don't care about standardization and federation.
That being said, Facebook does let you chat via Jabber. I use it (with Messenger on OSX), and it works, but it's a completely mediocre experience devoid of what makes FB Messenger special.
An example: FB lets you send one-click "likes". It's a great feature; it means "acknowledged". Yet you can't send it with third-party clients, and third-party clients receive it as a URL to an image of a thumbs-up. There's dozens of features like this. How frustrating would it be if Facebook Voice Calls only worked with some people, or someone's client didn't support group messages?
At a cost that provides long term interopraibility benefits. But these just care about short term rip offs and as well causing interoperability problems for their users (i.e. preventing communication with other services). We must be extremely lucky this didn't stay like that for e-mail.
> they gain nothing by just being yet-another-protocol.
That's the point. They measure their gain in how much they can mess up their users (by preventing them from communicating with users of other services). While gain should be measured in how useful such services can become (enhancing, not crippling communication).
> That being said, Facebook does let you chat via Jabber
It's not federated (which defeats the main purpose).
> I use it (with Messenger on OSX), and it works, but it's a completely mediocre experience devoid of what makes FB Messenger special.
If they wanted to improve things and thought that XMPP can't reach that goal, they could propose their non XMPP chat as IETF standard. Same as Google could do with Hangouts and so on.
They won't understand the question. They have a FB app on their iPhone and facebook.com on their desktop, and they won't understand what you mean.
If they want to message someone "on another service", they'll just use that other service.
And it's ok. I don't have a clue about how the washing powder works, but I know I can clean any clothes with any powder. I am not an electrical engineer, but I know I can buy any random light bulb and I know it will work with any of my lamps. I know next to nothing about logistics, but I am confident that I can use the same address with any random company to have my package or letter delivered to a person.
The world runs and grows on standardization. That's how we progressed from medieval times to industrial revolution! By standardizing tools and measures used in manufacturing! A lot of it we got by accidents of history. Now it needs to be forced against the market. It has to be, and those of us who have a clue need to fight for it.
What's sad is that the new wave of companies try to transplant their greedy and egotistic ideas from the world of software back to the real world. Any light bulb compatible with any lamp? That's about to become a thing of the past, thanks to the IoT bullshit.
Many do complain about it, but can't do much to fix it. People either end up installing 20 different clients to reach those who use other services (imagine installing 20 browsers to read different sites or 20 e-mail clients to use different e-mail accounts), or simply don't communicate with those users when that number grows annoyingly large. This problem affects everyone, and it's pretty apparent even to those who don't visit HN.
If you doubt this, think back to the numerous HN threads where people complain about how they want to keep the Facebook profile separate to their LinkedIn profile. It's unclear why this is different.
I explained it here as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856612
Saying that they are completely unrelated issues appears to ignore a minor detail called implementation(!?)
Almost every mainstream IM client requires you to sign out of one account and into another if you want to maintain separate accounts. That means that if you actually want to use them (ie, get instant messages instantly) you need to be signed into all your accounts at once.
And my IM clients have no problem enabling many accounts in parallel. Some client must be really crippled and archaic not to enable that. I can run multiple clients too if I wish (Pidgin. KDE Telepathy and etc.) but not because they can't talk to the same service but for whatever MY reason. Again - don't mix up unrelated issues.
My assumption, not enough people care to sustain a business.
I could jump in and make an integration solution, providing interop between various communication mediums. So will my competitors, and now everyone has 20 interop apps to chose from, and the problem jumps one meta-level up. Or the companies who own the services I try to make talk to one another will decide that I (or my users) break their ToS and retaliate.
Also good luck going with that when everyone's so big on encryption and sandboxing apps, making sure their interop capabilities are nil.
Other times it exploits information asymmetry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, half of the good theoretical things about markets break down completely if you can't assume rational and perfectly informed customers. Well, in terms of products and services having anything to do with technology, you generally can't. General population is 100% clueless. Therefore markets following only their feedback may lead them to pretty suboptimal situations.
Facebook planned to shut down that service since 2015/04/30, and in my experience they actually did it around 2015/07/12
I'm puzzled as how you haven't realized it... I guess that the xmpp endpoint might still be working for some users?
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/chat
Approaching that event, I warned friends to stop contacting me on Facebook, since I would stop checking its messages. (all of my email/phone/chat contacts are available in my about page, so it wouldn't be difficult for people to adapt)
The problem is that there's no way to disable the chat, so people wouldn't mistakenly use it to contact me. And since I still use the facebook web page somewhat regularly, I wanted to avoid falling into the trap of using actively another walled chat protocol. My kludgy solution was to go and "mute" every single conversation I had in the last year. It basically never happens that new people write me on Facebook, and this way I can still check the messages once in a while, but de-facto I'm not actively using their chat service anymore, thus hopefully not contributing to the network effect.
(Though personally, I don't use it at all; a thumbs-up icon feels disrespectful for me, I prefer to acknowledge by typing out "OK" or even a smiley.)
They'd say, "Hey, that guy was neat; I want to add him to my buddy list. Where's my buddy list?" And we'd say, "Oh, no, you don't want a new buddy list; you want to use your regular AOL buddy list." You could see their eyes go wide, and they'd say, "Are you kidding me? A stranger on my buddy list?" To which we'd respond, "Yes; otherwise you'd have to download a whole new IM program with a new buddy list." And they'd say, "Do you have any idea how many IM programs I already run?"
"No," we'd say. "One or two, maybe?" That's how many each of us used. To which the teenager would say, "Duh! I run eight." It started to dawn on us that our concept was flawed.
Our early adopters didn't think that having to learn a new IM program was a barrier.
http://www.inc.com/magazine/201110/eric-ries-usability-testi...
People are able to manage multiple email addresses and phone numbers for work/personal/whatever without too many problems, and despite being against Facebook's terms of service many individuals already create more than one Facebook account to keep stuff separate ("I don't want my boss to see photos from that party last weekend"). In a standardized IM interop utopia I'd imagine that juggling multiple identities would be even more common.