Asynchronous messaging depends on a server to hold your messages for delivery when you go offline. That implies some company being behind the service to host that server, along with centralization and the ability of deanonymization. I&#x27;m sure there are clients that do support it, but I wouldn&#x27;t want to use it. Proper Tox style would probably be to host your own bouncer server, like IRC, for that use.<p>I don&#x27;t actually use XMPP, but a quick Google gives a list that do. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients#XMPP-related_features" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Comparison_of_instant_messagin...</a> for example. Would you be upset if I said &quot;IRC does that&quot; if you asked for messaging? Why aren&#x27;t you upset that I pointed at Tox, which is also a protocol with separate implementations? Your point about TCP, while meant to be a critism, is actually spot on: It is a protocol. Anyone can implement it and talk to all other XMPP (or Tox!) clients, unlike Skype which is completely proprietary and closed ecosystem.
Pointing at only one client shows favoritism and is disingenuous, since you could point out &quot;&lt;x&gt; doesn&#x27;t implement &lt;y&gt;!&quot; when another client does, while if it&#x27;s supported in the protocol it CAN be support by any of the clients.<p>You&#x27;re actually right about the WebRTC point: it inherently doesn&#x27;t support text, it&#x27;s for p2p signaling. Most implementations do have a textbox for communication, however, and have the same benefit as Tox or XMPP: It&#x27;s a protocol. Just because one site doesn&#x27;t do it, doesn&#x27;t mean any other site can&#x27;t and inter-op with all other providers.