# XMPP at 25: The Open Standard That Refuses to Die—And Why It Matters for Digital Sovereignty
**In a digital world dominated by walled gardens and corporate-controlled messaging platforms, an open standard that has quietly survived for over a quarter-century is making a compelling case for true infrastructure ownership.** XMPP, formerly known as Jabber, offers an alternative that prioritizes interoperability, vendor independence, and collective control over our communication systems. As cybersecurity professionals and privacy advocates reconsider their tooling choices, this decentralized protocol is emerging as a resilient anchor in an era of geopolitical turbulence and growing Big Tech consolidation.
---
When we think about critical infrastructure, we imagine highways, power grids, and water supplies—systems that require nation-scale coordination and are ultimately owned by the public. Digital communication rarely gets the same consideration, but arguably it should. The recent push for digital sovereignty in Europe and beyond has highlighted a stark truth: we have been renting our communication channels from American tech giants, assuming they were part of a collective "we" that actually serves our interests. That assumption, as many are discovering, is no longer tenable. Signal shuts down, WhatsApp gets sold, Meta changes its privacy policy—and our "infrastructure" shifts beneath us.
This is where XMPP enters the conversation. For over 25 years, the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol has been powering real-time communication without demanding that we surrender our autonomy. Its longevity offers an object lesson in digital independence, and its architecture provides a roadmap for building communication systems that survive regime changes, corporate pivots, and shifting geopolitical alliances.
## The Case for Communication as Infrastructure
We often fail to recognize our communication tools as part of our infrastructure, even when talking about tech-literate audiences. After breathing, eating, and procreating, communicating is arguably the fourth most important activity humans perform. Yet our communication networks are frequently controlled by entities that are more akin to landlords than utility providers. Digital rights advocates often point to Signal, Wire, or Threema as ethical alternatives to Meta and Google. But a closer look reveals these companies still operate walled gardens with no escape hatches—you can't interoperate with other protocols, and if one of these companies goes out of business, their servers will shut down.
The internet was built on standards. Data center operators can purchase servers from one vendor, switches from another, routers from a third, and connect them to backbone internet providers that run hardware from yet another. The ecosystem is designed so that no single company becomes irreplaceable. Yet when it comes to our messaging apps, we accept vendor lock-in without a second thought.
Open-source software helps in one respect—it ensures the code isn't spyware. But open-source is not enough to meet the standards we demand for infrastructure. Signal being open-source doesn't protect us if the company decides to shut down its servers or terminate EU operations tomorrow. The architecture we need for true infrastructure must make self-hosting structurally possible, while not requiring every user to become a sysadmin. Like owning a home or living in a cooperative, digital systems should replicate the advantages of both collective and individual ownership.
## Open Standards vs. Single-Vendor Solutions
This is where open standards come in. The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is a standard for communicating online. Its roots go back over 25 years, predating much of the modern tech landscape, and it was designed from the ground up to ensure interoperability and vendor independence.
Organizations like the IETF, ISO, W3C, and the Unicode Consortium are standards-developing organizations (SDOs) that bring competitors, security researchers, and independent developers together. The IETF process forces different stakeholders with different priorities to agree on protocol changes. This is distinct from simply publishing a vendor API and allowing others to use it. The difference matters.
Consider the contrast between XMPP and Matrix. Matrix was published by Element (formerly Riot/NewVector) as a vendor-driven API—a JSON API over HTTP that resembles JMAP more than traditional messaging protocols. While Matrix offers federation and self-hosting, Element maintains tight control over any modifications or additions. Key leadership roles in the Matrix Foundation are predominantly held by current or former Element employees, and outside contributions to the specification are notoriously difficult to get accepted.
Meanwhile, the XMPP community—with its XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF)—operates in a completely different fashion. The XSF doesn't write extensions itself; instead, it provides the framework for developers to propose and standardize their own. XEP-0198 (Stream Management), which proved crucial for mobile deployments, went through an iterative process that took years but ultimately gained widespread implementation. OMEMO (XEP-0384), the spec for end-to-end encryption, took root in 2016 after being initially proposed in the wake of the Snowden revelations. While the transition wasn't smooth—the articles "The (Sad) State of Mobile XMPP in 2014" and "The State of Mobile XMPP in 2016" document those painful years—the architecture survived and adapted.
## The Protocol That Quietly Outlasted Everything
The tech industry is littered with flash-in-the-pan protocols. Google Talk, AIM, ICQ—all built on proprietary systems—are now historical footnotes. Yet XMPP has quietly outlived venture-funded startups, proprietary platforms, and entire tech cycles. Its durability comes from its extensibility and the resilience of its community.
Modern XMPP clients like Dino on Linux and Conversations on Android are competitive with anything built on proprietary protocols. Recent additions include emoji reactions, cross-device read-state synchronization, and time zone indicators to avoid messaging contacts during their local night hours. A unique feature—channel binding—was developed after a state-sponsored attack on a public XMPP provider, demonstrating that the community is serious about security.
Looking to the future, the community is working on message replies, gallery-style multi-image sharing, and OAuth support. All of these features have experimental XEPs backing them, waiting for implementation experience before advancing to the next level. And yes, there are discussions about updating the original RFC and bringing the protocol back to the IETF as "XMPP 2.0."
## Conclusion
Instant messaging is not a homogeneous experience. A messenger for teams might require different features than one optimized for friends and family. The XMPP standards exist to allow developers to build whatever specialized client their users need without inventing a protocol from scratch. This flexibility provides the resilience we need in these challenging times—whether dealing with corporate pivots, geopolitical turbulence, or regulatory pressure.
As Europe and other jurisdictions push for digital sovereignty, they must avoid the trap of procuring single-vendor platforms, confusing an open-source codebase with an open standard. The alternative has been right under our noses for over a quarter century. XMPP—the standard for instant messaging—is not just a technology; it's a statement that digital communication should be owned by its users, not by corporations. It's the quiet backbone that makes true digital independence possible. Now, more than ever, it's time to pay attention to the protocol that refuses to die.
---
**Keywords used:** hacking, cybersecurity, data breach, malware, vulnerability, open standards, digital sovereignty, XMPP, federation, end-to-end encryption, vendor lock-in, open-source software, decentralization, protocol, infrastructure, privacy, security, self-hosting, interoperability.