AOL May Open Instant Messaging To Other Servers

Brento writes "MSN is reporting that 'AOL said that it's almost done developing the technology that would allow its messaging services to operate with those offered by other industry players.' The article is light on details, but it sounds like they're going to offer interoperability directly with other servers -- not allow users to log in with new clients. 'It expects to complete an agreement with a leading technology company to conduct a live test between two different servers later this summer.' That would mean good news for competing services like MSN, but it would mean we might have to set up our own Jabber servers to really get the level of service we want."

Of course, since other projects have demonstrated they can do the same things that AIM does, and AOL has repeatedly shut them out of its IM network, it's interesting to see a sudden interest in "interoperability."

Comments

Re:Unique Names?

[Thomas Charron]

Hopefully..

In the case of Jabber IM, names are simular to DNS, such as tcharron@jabber.org. The wonderfull thing about this is, in many cases, the thing on the other side can provide many more capabilities then just chatting. The Jabber protocol itself supports a rich set of Info/Query routines, whcih allow other 'things' to happen over the protocol, only limited by the imagination of the developers.

A perfect example is user database and news tickers. No person there, yet you can interact with them with just another address. And not by sending messages, either, by actually registering with them via a form.. 8-)

Is that such a bad thing?

[roystgnr]

it would mean we might have to set up our own Jabber servers to really get the level of service we want

Frankly, that's absolutely, exactly what we should do. Can anyone imagine how half-assed electronic mail would be if every single person on the internet had to send their messages through one giant email.com datacenter? How about if every single web page on the internet was stored on the single petabyte server at "www.com"? Do you complain that your ISP has to run it's own mail server? Well, why shouldn't it run it's own instant messaging server too? Even if you have a clueless ISP, you can get a free jabber account elsewhere for now.

This whole "internet" thing was supposed to be a distributed network, you know. I understand why AOL and Microsoft (everyone@passport.com?) don't like that, but I expect even the average Slashdot reader to be a little more clued in.

Re:Why not RFC standard?

[Darren.Moffat]

The IETF is already working on it:

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.h tm l

Re:Have we all forgotten?

[jmauro]

It was only a requirement if the messaging service was extended to other area's like voice messaging or video messaging. Other than that they can keep it as locked up as they want.

Gaim

[Oxide Maker]

Gaim logs to AOL, MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, and IRC together. It's one of the sweetest things I have ever seen for linux.

Makes me wonder if the gaim folks got any permitions from all these to clone them.

ISPs

[bartok]

Personally, I think all ISPs shoud host a Jabber server and give away a custom Jabber client to their subscribers. Why this is not a part of every ISP's "internet connection kit" is beyond me. You put the CD in, it dials to the ISP, installs a browser, mail client and Jabber client and you already have a working account on your ISP's server just like POP3.

Majestic uses AIM...

[Trinition]

The new game, Majestic, uses AIM. Perhaps that is going to be AOL's example of interoperability. While the game sounds cool I certainly no one hopes to say that will count as being non-monopolistic.

Opening up IM NOT a requirement of the merger

[Galvatron]

There was originally some discussion of making this a requirement, which is where some people seem to have gotten their misinformation, however in the end it was not made into a requirement. It is, however, a requirement if they expand IM service to do new things (deliver multimedia, for example).

While AOL may or may not have plans to expand the service at the moment, they probably want to keep their options open. By adding interoperability now, they can add new features to their service at any time.

The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.

Have we all forgotten?

[jgaynor]

That the opening of their Instant Messenging servers/protocol was a condition of the merger?

The merger still faces scrutiny by the Federal Communications Commission, but experts predict that is a much lower hurdle for the companies to overcome. Among the issues the FCC is likely to consider is whether AOL Time Warner will open its popular Instant Messaging system -- which allows PC users to send pop-up messages to friends over the Internet -- to rivals such as Microsoft. "AOL, in theory, has open-access to the instant messaging service today, but just under terms that they dictate," said Scott Reamer, Internet analyst with SG Cowen. "Perhaps the FCC will engender AOL to create terms that are more amenable to competitors, accessing the instant messaging system."

Later this point became a REQUIREMENT of the merger.

The original story on CNNfn can be found here:

http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2000/12/14/deals/aoltimewar ne r/

An IM standard would be nice

[pgpckt]

There has got to be a half dozen programs out there that offer a variety of different services. I use ICQ (unfortunately now owned by AOL (*sigh*)) because I consider it to be a more powerful client. Like it or not, AOL is the industry leader. If AOL can develop a protocol that everyone else can follow, that's a good thing. AOL is worried about lag time over the net, but I don't see this as a problem...IM will go from "Instant" to "Really Fast." There is also the worry about Spam. If AOL makes this a standard, then people should be able to modify the standard to resist any type of spamming problems.

The thing that makes me breath a little easier is that AOL has to do it right, because this is something AOL customers want the ability to do. AOL would like to get everyone else using AOL products, but now that that is an impossibility due to the limits the FCC placed on AOL, and AOL will have to make a product that AOL customers will be able to interact with (I hope). I do not understand AOL's apprehension to a unified standard...AOL has benefited from open email as much as anyone, and if AOL offers a superior product, people will want to use their IM client.

We shall see if this AOL offering becomes everything I know the community wants it to become.