Follow

In light of the Summit and . IMO the biggest thing XMPP is missing is a name. "Normies" won't use an acronym as complicated as XMPP. And they need a way to ask "if others are *on it*". Without a name, it can never catch on.
So either we re-adopt in full (fuck Cisco) or we need a new name for "IM over XMPP".
@vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @pep@pep@post.lurk.org @ivan

@stevenroose @vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan How about making a new word "Exemp" which is kind of derived from XMPP and sounds nice and simple?

@vanitasvitae @dominicduffin1 @stevenroose @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan I agree that exemp doesn't sound too good. I did notice that "IM over XMPP" acronyms nicely to "IMOX". But that's still way too geeky.

Jabber sounds good though...

@stevenroose @vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan You can pronounce IMOX, though, which may be enough for it to take off...

@postroutine @stevenroose @vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan
I actually thought about e-chat before as well. It's nice and generic and it suits XMPP being the first (private) e-chat protocol, cfr e-mail.
It would only work if adopted by the entire community though. Damn. If we made a case for a name 1 week earlier, it could have been discussed in the Summit. 😔

@stevenroose @postroutine @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan I guess something so important should be discussed in a bigger forum then even the summit. Users should get involved just as well as developers.

@vanitasvitae
True. But the people at the summit are needed to start that conversation.
@postroutine @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan

@stevenroose @vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan

Some people say #Zimpy. I say #Zompy, because it's not yet dead. Still, #Jabber was the best name.

@debacle @stevenroose @vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan Was?
Ah sorry for forgetting to include you and @0 in the convo. Too many names :)

@stevenroose

#XMPP is fine, and the least of your problems if mass re-adoption is your goal.

Let's not start bike-shedding at it now.

@vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan

@0 @stevenroose @vanitasvitae @Goffi @dino @ivan There are other problems, but they are being tackled or actively discussed. Naming though - not so much, and if #xmpp is to be soled to general population, than easy and catchy name is quite important.

@tigase

If you want to sell #XMPP (or anything else) to consumers the first thing that you need is a #budget.

I do not know consumer markets (I do #B2B) so cannot put a figure to it but at a guess I'd say not under €$£5 million if you want to even stand a chance. That should give you about 25–30 months of runway, which is in the low end of what you will need to build brand recognition.

@stevenroose @vanitasvitae @Goffi @dino @ivan

@tigase @stevenroose @vanitasvitae @Goffi @dino @ivan

In the meanwhile, if you rebrand your unknown technology from #XMPP to #TurboCommunicatr Plus (deluxe edition) it will still stay an unknown technology.

@tigase @0
Doesn't even have to be catchy. Just a pronouncable name that's not some geeky acronym.
@vanitasvitae @Goffi @dino @ivan

@0
I don't think I agree. Brands are super important. People don't open a browser or an HTTP explorer, they open "Google". They don't even open e-mail anymore, but Gmail. They don't say "I sent you a message" but "I sent you on WhatsApp".

I've been using Jabber now for more than a year now, but I still don't know what to say. I swap between Jabber and Konuro, the name of our server. But I can't say that when other people ask what it is.

@vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan

@stevenroose

Brands are important. But you don't make a useful, recognisable #brand just by coming up with a name, it simply doesn't work like that. That's why there's a whole industry dedicated to it.

The examples that you give were fueled by tens, and later hundred of millions of investment in them. And even that is no guarantee when you're not the incumbent (m.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qr).

@vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan

@stevenroose @vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan

In case it's not clear: if you're suggesting to come up with a name that half a dozen people are going to use while the other half stick with the usual name (plus a couple grey beards that keep calling it #Jabber), all you will achieve is to create a minor confusion amongst a dozen people.

If OTOH you do have an actual business plan + investment to turn an IM technology into a consumer product, that's a different story.

@stevenroose @vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan

Sorry to rain a dose of realism on your parade. One does learn from one's past mistakes (sometimes).

@stevenroose @vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan

Very briefly, something that could be within the realm of possibility:

Set up a #franchise model for #XMPP clients (not the protocol itself). Every client meeting the standards is allowed to use your brand. Everyone contributes to the #marketing #budget. How (and whether) you make #money off your product is each vendor's problem.

There might even be some funding to be had via the #DSM (ec.europa.eu/digital-single-ma) and the #connect facility.

@stevenroose @vanitasvitae @tigase @Goffi @dino @ivan
I disagree that this should be addressed at Summit. To me, and reading the mission statement again, the XSF is a standards body targeting developers. XMPP is fine as a standard name.
What you're looking for is a product name. I'm happy with what snikket.org is trying to become. Xabber also has a line of products (arguably compatible standard-wise), as well as Tigase (I don't understand the different names on different platforms though).

@stevenroose Jabber is OK. XMPP for protocol, Jabber for service -- just like we send emails, not SMTPs.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
unidentified instance

(instance image by мøтħer ¢røω)