[kuschku]

> I get the impression that Pidgin, Trillian and the other one I can't really just gave up at some point.

> I'm using Pidgin, mostly out of nostalgia, but the default configuration basically can't connect to any mainstream messenger these days (Facebook, WhatsApp, Hangouts, Skype or Viber). Plus the UI is so dated, especially regarding emojis.

Pidgin supports Telegram and Facebook. Well, it did support Facebook, Facebook is constantly changing their API to prevent that.

Someone also wrote a WhatsApp backend.

WhatsApp forced GitHub to take down the code, and sued the dev.

In this modern world, open chat software is impossible.

[kbenson]

I have it in my head that Apple started this (or at least gave it the major push to mainstream), with iMessage. My impression is that with a major chat provider with other lock-in (the phone, which has it's own lock in, the app store), Apple was able to provide a good chat experience, add extras hard to do with a more heterogeneous ecosystem (facetime, automatic evasion of SMS fees for iphone-to-iphone messages), and keep the protocol closed without losing too many people.

Google, who was really the main chat in town at that point with gchat, had to either choose to extend XMPP some more or go closed. Closed starts to look really good when you realize that once you have a competitor with Apple's strength, market and lock-in, being open starts being a detriment, since anyone can write a client for your app for any platform, but you still can't support iMessage. Proprietary hangouts chats allow for Google to control where and how their chat platform is used.

What I'm wondering is how much of this I'm getting wrong because I'm not seeing the other forces at work. Anyone have counterpoints or corrections?

[leetcrew]

i would widen the scope a bit. pidgin is a good example of the modular, open source model that used to be somewhat common in consumer software.

looking back, there certainly seems to be a correlation between the rise of Apple and the death of those kinds of programs. these days it seems like only products that target developers follow that model.

personally though, i think it was the transition to mobile that really did it. almost overnight people's expectations for UI design got way higher, and most of them don't really care about modularity or open source. they just want something that mostly works and looks designed. aesthetic appeal has never the strong point of OSS.