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?
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?
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.
Again, if “venture funding” is some sort of cheat code, why can’t XMPP make use of it? Do you want some moral high ground or some minimally useful product with mass reach?
Does it allow copying and redistribution? Yes
Can people fork it in case Element tries anything ridiculous like what happened with Elastic/MongoDB/Redis? Yes.
The thing is FOSS. This is what matters. Enshittification is being thrown around way too easily nowadays
And where is the water provided by the XMPP side? “if you are on iOS, use siskin” is not at all an acceptable answer on 2024. The mobile OS with the largest market share in the USA simply does not have a decent client. What is going to be the next line? “People shouldn’t be using iOS anyway, so we shouldn’t spend our resources on it?”
Honestly, we are going in circles now. I don’t want to get in some type of flamewar over two separate open protocols. It starting to get ridiculous like discussing which branch of the Christian Orthodox Church is the purest one.
It’s not a “cheat code” it is a self-defeating funding mechanism as clearly seen with Element. The venture-capital funders don’t care what happens with the individual projects, all they care is to milk them dry at some point and hope that there is at least one that managed to capture the market and thus turns into a monopoly cash-cow.
There are good reasons for companies not wanting to play that game as it is a poisoned gift for most of them, and it is increasingly evident that this is true for Element as well.
P.S: Monal works fine now. But honestly, Apple is such a shit company for open-source projects that it is no wonder that people were not exactly excited about developing a client for it, and Element siphoned up all sustainable funding that might have paid for improving the commercially developed Tigrase iOS xmpp client (Siskin).
No, it doesn’t. It is still far behind in features compared with Element. It still doesn’t have things like reactions, which is pretty much standard in any messaging app.
That you think that Monal is an acceptable alternative makes me believe that your biases are clouding your judgment and make it very difficult to accept your premise about Element being “damned” because of its funding. But let’s just agree to disagree, because I don’t see how this discussion can go any further.