@maple [...]
There is just some things - https://snikket.org/service/quickstart/ - that need to be done before getting access to the web setup, like starting the web server and making it available. Snikket also will automatically get your LetsEncrypt certificate and so on.

But here is also where you got me 100% confused: You watched a video on how to setup a Snikket server and complain that you need a server for it? Well, what else does a server run on if not a server?
[...]

@pixelschubsi I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. *I* understand that #Skikket is a server and needs to be set up, but what I keep hammering on is that a typical user won't have the foggiest clue how to do that with any of the current #xmpp server programs. A typical user wants to install an app and get on with their life, and yes many of them will just blindly enter their phone number when requested, but not all will. And again, I agree that if someone else wants to set up a server and be your tech support it can be a breeze for you, although if they are not all that Linux savvy they may not care much for the current server choices.

The only time I ever had an xmpp server that was reasonably easy to install and use was #OpenFire, and that was only because it was installed using a script that actually set up several programs at the same time. But that was MANY years ago (probably more than 15, maybe 20 years) and was before certificates became a thing on xmpp servers. But as I recall it had a decent web interface (or maybe that was pa\rt of that package of programs), anyway I only ran that package for maybe two or three years and then that project died. But even that would be more than a typical user wants to deal with (and yes I had a nodding acquaintance with Linux even back then, but I don't know a whole lot more about it today than I did back then, it mostly frustrates the hell out of me whenever I encounter some problem).

Almost nobody running a xmpp server wants to invite anyone and everyone to use it, but even if those open servers exist, few people have heard of them and in a group of friends or family someone would surely object that they know nothing about that server, it could go down without warning at any time or the operators could be intercepting messages, etc. #Signal, at least, is big enough that it's probably not going to fall of the face of the earth without warning (and if it does the tech press will be telling you why and if it's likely to come back) and it does have a privacy policy. So running your own server is preferable and my point all along is that they need to make that MUCH easier for non-nerds. If the server uses text-based or yaml configuration files you are lost already. Users want web-based configuration (think something like Home Assistant, which I do not use but I have noticed it is getting very popular, which never would have happened if they did not have that superb web interface).

Snikket may in fact be most of the way there, but as far as I know it is not cross platform, and it could definitely stand to have a better introductory video than that one I was watching. BUT you could have the easiest server in the world to install and it's not going to motivate a user that wants to be up and running in two or three minutes, using a platform their friends and family have at least heard of. And yes I know, those are the kind that will happily give up their phone number, and it burns me to no end that people don't care about that, but they don't. And then if you have xmpp servers that also require that, you have really just taken away any reason someone should prefer xmpp over Signal.

In my mind before you go promoting xmpp as an alternative to Signal you need to have a server that preferably is cross-platform, but at the very least is drop-dead easy to set up (you should be able to show how to set it up and add users in a video of 3 minutes or less, 5 tops), and it should not require the user to know anything about certificates. It should not require a domain if you just want to use it locally, or tell you how to use it with a free service such as freedns.afraid.org or DuckDNS or something like that. It should not tell you that you need to use any paid service (Signal is free!). It should not assume you need any kind of group chat (maybe you just want one-to-one messaging) but it should let you send images and files to another user. It should not assume you want to federate with any other xmpp server (in case you are running a private friends/family server). In other words it needs to be as easy to work with as something like Home Assistant.

And for the people that absolutely will not set up their own server (and don't have a tech-savvy relative) then there needs to be a service they can use THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A PHONE NUMBER (otherwise why not just use Signal?) and that has the ability to scale and that has a decent privacy policy (and it will still need to reach critical mass before people will use it). And of course that all costs money (again, Signal is free!). We actually used to have something more or less like that in the form of Google Talk but they shut that around 2016 if I recall correctly.

Anyway those are the hurdles the xmpp proponents need to think about and overcome if they really want to "sell" anyone outside their immediate friends/family circles on using xmpp. Speaking from experience, we used to have an xmpp server set up in our friends/family group (using Prosody after that OpenFire setup went away, only because we found some good instructions in some guy's blog that are now no longer online) but as with many things it became harder and harder to deal with and the when the xmpp clients started demanding valid certificates just to send photos and files that just killed it, and everyone went to just using email and then later to Signal. So that is not something I personally would ever want to get back into unless I was pretty certain the process of setting up and running a server had become MUCH easier.

@methuselah @pixelschubsi @joelanman Sure, conversations is an option IF you and your friends/family are highly motivated to use #xmpp, and you all agree that a platform most of you have probably never heard of is a better choice than the big slick one that everyone's heard of. And I actually could envision scenarios where that would be the case (a family or group of friends that do not want to associate a phone number with their accounts, for example) but basically you're being asked to trust the operators of a platform you have never heard of. Is that any worse than trusting the larger, shinier platform? Maybe not, but still I think conversations would be a hard sell in many friend/family groups, simply because most people are unfamiliar with xmpp and xmpp clients.

I also note that in a footnote on their page they say, "To create an account your client needs to support inband registration. Depending on the client, you will either be asked for the desired address (e.g., [email protected]), or separately for the user name (e.g., alice) and domain part (conversations.im). A login password must also be specified. If anything else can be configured, the default settings should usually be fine." And a lot of people would say, "Your client? WHAT client? What's a xmpp client? How do I know if it supports inband registration? Does that mean setup will be complicated?" They may also ask things like "Can I trust that my messages are not intercepted and/or stored?" and "Is this service likely to go belly up with no warning in the middle of the night?" I am not saying conversations is a bad choice, it actually might realistically be one of the best choices for many users, but there might be a high hurdle to convincing them of that. And also there are users would would prefer to use a totally free service (as far as I can tell, use of the conversations server is free but their official clients are not), remember Signal is totally free.

Even with those objections, I think the xmpp proponents might be much further ahead to suggest something like that (and maybe make a list of FREE clients that will work with it) than just telling people they should try xmpp and offer no further guidance).

I looked in my password manager and I actually had created an account there at one time, but for whatever reason never actually used it. I don't remember now if it was because I could not get it to work with my xmpp client or what; I must have created it some time back and my memory is not that good.