Every intermediate layer that Google does control is also an opportunity for lock-in. Which is seriously starting to piss me off, as they are increasingly turning their back on open standards.
I was feeling more and more dependent on one company's goodwill. A few months ago, I renewed my Fastmail [1] account for 3 more years, being very happy with the service. I use DuckDuckGo [2] as my main search engine and love it. I use Opera as my main browser. The only Google services I use regularly now are Android and YouTube. YouTube being totally optional and Android only being an interface to data located elsewhere, I feel free. Sure, Google has access to my data, but they can't lock me in.
One thing you will notice immediately is that the battery life lasts much much longer. With casual surfing, watching video clips, playing casual games and Wifi always on, the battery lasts for almost 24 hours. It looks as if this is what the original Nexus 5 should be. All those background Google services and "frameworks" constantly calling back home will drain the battery to the death pretty fast. That's also valid for some other apps. Not having Facebook app installed will increase the battery life too.
Sure you have no Google Play store installed but you can always use one of those (safe) apk downloaders like Raccoon[1] or such to login to Play store and download your previous apps. As for other Google services (Maps, YouTube, Translate, GMail, etc.), I can always visit their sites in incognito mode. You will actually realize you really don't need all those individual apps to use these services. They all work good enough in a browser window.
[1] http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1715375
It also is probably worth noting that, while Apple is plenty evil in its own ways, if you're looking to avoid the rampant data collection of Google, Apple is significantly better in that regard.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.dmfs.calda...
For writing and other docs, I personally use Dropbox but I know that is not the same as working in the browser itself.
Etherpad, Ethercalc and Mailpile (and more!) are all available on top of Sandstorm [https://sandstorm.io/apps/] - which basically makes it easier to manage them all.
It still surprises me a little that there is no web-app capable of editing ODF files. This would allow the email/calendar etc concept to be carried over - host the content (in this case files) on a server in version control, and allow users to either keep an offline copy that syncs, or access via a web app.
From a personal usage view, I disagree with your statement that Apple is no better than Google. No, their software is not open source and doesn't run on any device you want. But their software is also not intended to capture all your personal information and use that to show you more ads. It's basically a perk for using their hardware.
Either Chrome or Firefox or something else. Choose your poison. One's life has to be depended on something.
EDIT: and K-9 (for Android) as mail-client.
However, Google's purpose in the world is not to advance open standards.
That is Mozilla's purpose. That's why this is a strategic, long-term decision on Mozilla's part. A world with a strong Google, strong Mozilla, and strong Yahoo (and Apple, and Microsoft, and Samsung, and Intel, etc.) is better for everyone.
A world where any one of those entities controls too much power is worse.
For me, I look forward to working with partners at Google and Yahoo.
* Like how they were planning to require whitelisting for CalDAV access? * Like how they completely bastardise the IMAP protocol? * Like how they disabled XMPP federation and then dropped XMPP support completely, for their GTalk replacement?
Your complaints about IMAP and XMPP are completely opposite. When Hangouts stopped supporting XMPP (designed in 1998) due to product evolution, you complain that they dropped XMPP support. But when Gmail continued to support IMAP (designed in 1986) despite the product diverging somewhat from traditional email, you complain they are "bastardizing the IMAP protocol."
What course of action by Google would make you happy? The Internet can't stay in the year 2000. Major players move it forward -- Mozilla, Google, and others. I think Google has a pretty good track record of doing this as openly as they can.
Personally I trust that about as much as I would trust a priest to give me a colonoscopy - open access means less control for Google, which means less ability to collect data and/or display ads.
Keeping XMPP support (and federation) would have allowed interoperability with a range of XMPP clients on desktop/mobile devices, AND with users of other XMPP services - whether they be services provided by third parties, or "private" services run by organisations/individuals. It would also have also been useful as leverage to encourage other "big" IM networks to open up their "private" XMPP based IM networks - Facebook Chat, WhatsApp, Cisco WebEx, etc. They're all using XMPP, but they're islands right now. At this point Google are worse than those islands, because not only are they not embracing open XMPP & federation, they're not even supporting XMPP any more - so if FB/WhatsApp said "hey we want to support XMPP federation from tomorrow" Google users have no possible way to be involved in that any more.
Google's implementation of IMAP is fundamentally broken. The big ticket item, "tags" is ridiculous, as IMAP already has a defined standard for "tags": the IMAP keywords feature.
The usual Google fanboy response to this is "but IMAP clients don't support keywords fully", which of course ignores the fact that standard IMAP clients also don't support the idea of messages appearing in multiple mailboxes (i.e. folders) either, but the network effect of Gmail has meant MANY clients have come to support Gmail specific features.
Imagine for a second, if instead of its current shit soup solution, Google had implemented the existing IMAP standard for keywords. It's not unreasonable to expect that the majority of IMAP clients would have been quick(er) to implement support for this part of the spec, which would mean users of other IMAP services (either hosted services or self-hosted mail servers) would also be able to use IMAP keywords.
It's been said before and I'll say it again: Google is following the same plays that Microsoft made over a decade ago. Latch onto an open standard, use your market position to make "additions" to said standard, and finally pull support for said standard, in favour of your own closed solution.
I'll wait for the regular Google fanboy down votes.
I'm no Google fanboy. But please reply to the argument instead of calling names. Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you.
Instead of calling gmail "shit soup," just talk about the existing IMAP standard for keywords.
The whole concept of "don't complain about being down voted" is itself quite ridiculous. Given how hacker news works (i.e. down voted comments are hidden) this effectively encourages people to simply "go with the crowd". I disagree with this entire concept. Differences of opinion, and yes even criticism, are what drive people to make things BETTER.
> But please reply to the argument
What, like identifying why I believe Google's actions are "bad", what I think they could/should have done that would be "good", and how those alternative actions would have been had a more positive outcome?
Also, phrases like "about as much as I would trust a priest to give me a colonoscopy" and "the usual Google fanboy response" are inflammatory and inappropriate for substantive discussion, which is what HN calls for. Please edit such flamebait out of your comments. It's understandable that it sneaks in there—we're all susceptible to it—but that's what the edit button is for. Not only will excising it not hurt your argument, it will help it considerably, and display good manners to your fellow users to boot.
If you have a counter argument, reply.
Down voting a comment (which leads to it effectively disappearing) is the electronic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la I'm not listening" because you don't like what someone else said.
If someone posts a comment saying "I like chocolate ice cream" in a discussion about a new version of a piece of software, down vote to your hearts content.
When someone posts a comment that simply disagrees with your opinion, either ignore it or reply with a counter point.
And for the record, I don't have any opinion about this XMPP /Google thing. I don't even know what XMPP is, so I am perfectly neutral here.
I'm fine with Google dropping their support for open standards - their services, their rules, and if they don't care about users like me who prefer the open standards, then it's not my place to whine about it when I can instead seek a competitor that does adhere to those standards. However, I'm not fine with such dropping of standards being masqueraded under some lame excuse like "the open standards are too old". 1998 and 1986 are young compared to the majority of the standards which form the backbone of the Internet and World Wide Web themselves. If you're going to try and rationalize Google's actions beyond them wanting to make money via control over their stack, then at least try and find some actual technical reason why XMPP and IMAP are insufficient for their purposes.
(I'll concede that IMAP isn't exactly pretty, but it sounds like XMPP at least could have simply been extended if there were features Google needed for Hangouts).
Not great examples. HTTP has evolved several times to address changing needs: HTTP 0.9 (1991), HTTP 1.0 (1996), HTTP 1.1 (1997), HTTP 1.1 again (2007) and HTTP 2.0 (targeted for 2014). So did SSH: SSH-1 (1995) SSH-2 (2006).
These evolutions were possible because there were multiple major players that could come together (with multiple implementations) to settle on the new standard.
> but it sounds like XMPP at least could have simply been extended if there were features Google needed for Hangouts
In an alternate future where Google did that, people would have cried "embrace, extend, extinguish." Especially if any of their extensions were anti-spam related, people would have criticized them for being exclusionary.
For example, look at all the flak Google has gotten for SPDY. Evolving XMPP would have probably led to the same criticism.
And XMPP still wouldn't have provided interop with any of the major IM networks, because none of them were implementing it.
You truly can't please everybody, even if you really believe in something.
Extensibility is a built in part of the XMPP standard, and Google have already made several extensions related to Google Talk etc.
Using XMPP provides a much greater possibility of interoperability, as several other major "modern" IM networks use their own non-federated XMPP network. WhatsApp, Facebook Chat, etc. It's much more likely that two non-federated XMPP networks will become federated, than two binary incompatible networks both becoming binary compatible AND supporting federation.
Regrettably, you're quite mistaken in doing so. They're dropping CalDAV. Their IMAP implementation has been broken for close to a decade. But the very worst is their dropping XMPP is favour of Hangouts. This truly reflected Google's final intentions.
Seven years later, not a single other major IM service had added the same support. All XMPP federation support had accomplished was providing a spam vector to Google Talk users.
Google's public statement when they dropped federation in 2013 was: "XMPP was designed over a decade ago to provide a way for chat networks to interoperate, known as federation. Google Talk was the only major network to support federation, and after seven years, it’s evident that the rest of the industry is not moving to embrace this open system. If, at some point in the future, the industry shows interest, then we would then be open to discussions about developing an interface that's designed for modern needs." http://www.zdnet.com/google-moves-away-from-the-xmpp-open-me...
Calling this an anti-openness move seems a little backwards when Google was the only company supporting federation to begin with!
I'm surprised to hear a number that high, but regardless of what the number actually is, it certainly sucked for those people.
But remember the context: Google was looking to expand Talk into Hangouts, and XMPP would have needed a makeover to support that product evolution. If Google had extended XMPP unilaterally, they would have been accused of "embrace, extend, extinguish." Without other major players to co-design with, it didn't make a lot of sense to try pursuing a next-generation standard.
> Or one has to be a single entity as large as MSN or AIM to be considered worthy to enjoy openness?
That's kind of inflammatory.
Remember when Mozilla removed MNG support from Firefox despite having 700 votes on the bug? Remember when the Mozilla CEO responded to a status update on the bug by saying "stop adding new noxious gas to this bloated corpse of a bug"? Are those 700 people not "considered worthy to enjoy openness" either? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574
Organizations have to make trade-offs sometimes, and you can't please everybody all the time.
http://www.process-one.net/en/imtrends/article/usage_estimat... - "that study relies on a panel of 7292 XMPP domains as discovered by the IMtrends engine"
So, I'd guess, if there's was least 7k public servers in 2008, it won't be wrong to say "thousands."
http://xmpp.org/xsf/press/2003-09-22.shtml - this one is old, much before the popularity peak, when XMPP was still called Jabber, and yet: "the JSF's estimate includes more than 4 million paying customers of Jabber, Inc.'s commercial software as well as an estimated 6 million users of open source and other commercial implementations of the Jabber/XMPP protocol"
So, I guess, "millions" isn't a wrong estimate, too.
Where's the outrage that Twitter stopped letting users post via SMS and XMPP? Should we shame Firefox for exporting my bookmarks as HTML and not as OPML? Should I be mad at Facebook for not allowing me to export my Like information in APML format and instead providing it in Facebook Archive format? Of course not, that's silly. RDF is an open standard, but that doesn't mean websites should bring Dublin Core back.
It all boils down to millennia-old issue that if business interests aren't aligned with minorities' demands, those are being ignored. Don't think this can be solved in reality.
> Where's the outrage that Twitter stopped letting users post via SMS and XMPP?
Lost in time. Personally, I had complained. I heard the other rant, too. I had registered for an API token and set up personal XMPP-to-Twitter gateway. And then I got bored with all this stuff and just trashed it and gave up.
But, hey, is it really silly that I had complained and cursed them evil?
Well, maybe it was...