jdev - 2021-07-31

Is voice message something that would be interesting to push on XMPP clients ?

looks quite simple to implement and it could be a nice feature to add

I hate it.

A friend of mine uses that a lot, which means I have to take out my headphones or stop the music whenever she wants to say something.

edhelas: it is useful, it's already implemented in Libervia.

> Is voice message something that would be interesting to push on XMPP clients ? I think yes. Because many people use it with WhatsApp. So they may expect it. ✏

Have you experienced the MUCs where people upload audio after audio and get mad when people ignore them? Good times

(it's still useful of course, just people inevitably abuse it like all things)

It's a culture thing. It's only "abuse" from your perspective (and mine) because that's not the way we do things

Yep, like an unwritten muc etiquette rule

Some people only communicate that way, and apps like Clubhouse demonstrate that audio is still popular

"Know your audience."

You could build an audio-only messaging app using existing XEPs, it could become the next big thing!

Products vs protocols

Also fun: Clubhouse grew to many millions of users while only supporting a single platform (iOS)

Exclusivity makes it attractive.

And totally disregarding privacy and security

Sure, nobody cares about that until it bites them.

Also "FaceTime" I guess?

As usual, the only thing that matters is network effect and enough marketing budget to create it. ✏

> Link Mauve> I hate it. > A friend of mine uses that a lot, which means I have to take out my headphones or stop the music whenever she wants to say something. You are not alone! But I guess it's probably useful to a certain population..

I hate it too. I just think lots of people like it, so to get people using the xmpp network it would be beneficial

People are getting so lazy tho; I wouldn't push that too much.

Why not enable people to chat however they like?

That's basically how things are, the protocol supports it, as do a number of clients

But it's not that simple, because some people also want to consume messages however they like

I don't have much interest in a channel where I have to listen to most content via audio, I hate phones in general, one reason I work on an IM protocol in the first place :)

I think its rude in every multiuser channel. Because it takes so much time from everyone if they listen to it. I would only do it in 1:1. I sometimes used it when I didn't have any time to type but needed to get a message out. Like crying baby in the arm in the supermarket and asking what else to buy.

Different kinds of communication have different requirements and trade-offs.

They deserve to receive a recording of the crying baby :) (I've done that before to people who demanded to know why I didn't answer their call when I was clearly there)

But as I said earlier, audio is the default for some groups. Even if it seems alien to most people hanging out in this text-based chat.

Maybe the solution is to build in text-{to,from}-speech?

Then we can have content type negotiation \o/

Just a direct interface to your brain

Accept: text/plain

Are there any good enough open source TTS/STT? If it's not accurate enough, why integrate it?

And it would have to be online only for some quality, I'd guess. Which leaks all of the messages/audios to your server.

Just do it. If people don't like it they can tell others to please not send audio messages. I mean it's a social thing, so people should agree on how they want to communicate and the protocol/product should not limit them to text only.

I personally also dislike audio messages.

Except when I am on a business trip and the hotels internet is not good enough for a call. Then I exchange voice messages with my wife as you don't want to communicate only through text for two weeks or so.

But strangers sending voice messages to a public muc is also strange to me. 😃