Slashdot Mirror
AOL vs. Trillian
Trinition writes: "ZDNews is reporting that AOL is once again trying to shut out the competition. Trillian has been updated twice in the past 24 hours to work around the blocks AOL is throwing up to prevent the popular IM client from interoperating with the AOL Instant Messenger service. Will Cerulean Studios hold up better than those they follow in the footsteps of (i.e. Microsoft, AT&T and Jabber)?"
I'm not sure of the current status of the application, but AOL has been doing the same thing to the OS X application Fire (a multi network IM client). Ever since it's release it's been a game of AOL blocking and subsequent update "fixing" the block,
Seems to me that all this extra programming is wasted cycles that could be better used for additional features for applications.
This is one area where greed is holding back innovation in the IM market.
It's AOL's software, AOL's servers and AOL's IM protocol. Why should they feel compelled to allow 3rd party software to access their network?
Trillian is a very nice client - we use it almost exclusively here at work, as it lets us keep in contact with people using multiple IM platforms, and also doesn't ram ads down our throats.
One interesting thing is that the new AIM blocks only seem to affect Trillian v0.7x - some of our users still using v0.6x are still working fine, whereas us early adopters are having to update rapidly.
Luckily, the newest (v0.721) build includes an auto update function, so keeping up to date is likely to be much easier in the future. Bear in mind that there's a limit to how much AOL can do to break the protocols, as they don't want to shut out all of their previous clients.
Is that they're killing off Trillian, and their first fix was to force them to turn off their "SecureIM" feature. Something that uses 128bit encryption between trillian clients. I loved that feature. The other odd thing is AOL isn't stopping third party clients from attaching to ICQ, another IM network that they own.
Oh well.. I'm glad I signed up for MSN Messenger and Yahoo Messenger and use trillian for both of those too..
Free Mac Mini
Only thing that can topple big companies are big companies...
Now, I disagree. Remember the Microsoft Antitrust case? I think we all saw how the little guy won that one.
how the hell is it a monopoly? is MSN messenger just a figment of my imagination?
they spent R&D money developing AIM, testing it, promoting it, upgrading it, etc. why in the hell should they be forced to open it up to people who want to piggyback on it? that's total and utter bullshit, and one of the things i can't stand about the slashdot crowd. .
gotta have everything, who cares if they spent a chunk of change and man-hours working on it, i want it, so it should be free and everyone should be able to use it.
BilldaCat
I must say that AIM is the best thing that AOL produces. (Not counting Winamp/ICQ as those are merely apps that they bought and haven't "AOL-ized" too much.) But some people I know are on AIM, Yahoo, and even ICQ. I tried out Trillian and now I'm loving being able to only run one IM client. (Plus it'll check for new Yahoo e-mail while I'm chatting with an AIM buddy.)
Back in July there was a story about AOL saying they were working on letting AIM access other messaging clients. I guess it's ok for AIM to access Yahoo/MS/etc buddy lists but it's not ok for another app to access the AIM servers. Nice double standard there AOL. (Apparently they want Open Standards for Instant Messaging to apply to everyone but them.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
No doubt the posts will soon start flowing in that AOL is evil for preventing this little company from accessing their network. My question is why is this wrong? Why should America Online not be the exclusive provider of America Online Instant Messaging functionality? Sure they do it to make money off of ads and exert some kind of institutional control. But do other companies have a right to be a part of this? Is it merely that AOL will have a monopoly on the instant messaging market? There certainly seem to be enough big competitors out there to prevent this. Just curious about why all the fuss.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
On the one had I agree that Trillion should keep trying. That way more attention can be shed on just how childish this company can be and how if they react this way to IM clients, how will they react on larger issues that affect the public?
Conversely, why use up all of your resources reinventing somebody else's wheel?
You forgot one. It's a matter of revenue. AOL IM serves ads. Trillian doesn't serve ads for AOL. If you use Trillian, AOL doesn't get ad revenues. The only security they care about is investor security.
do not read this line twice.
"It has long been our very public policy that when a service unleashes software that hacks into our system, and endangers the security of our system, we stop it," AOL spokeswoman Kathy McKiernan said.
Sometimes you have to just sit back and admire the pr spins people can put on an issue. Since Sept.11 the security issue is a no brainer. However, the system hacking aspect is just above and beyond. Kathy recognizes that one can use enough half-truths to defend her statements that trillian is hacking into AIM servers. It's absolutely amazing how such blatant blocking of a service can spun so effectively. AOL gets some kudos from me on reminding us here on just how evil they can be. It's completely deceptive and underhanded, and yet completely unprovable to any but the technically literate.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist. -Verbal Kint
I don't really understand why anyone gets upset whenever AOL blocks a non-AIM client from using their proprietary network and resources. AOL owns the systems that power AIM and should be allowed to prevent non-AIM clients from accessing them altogether, in fact, they have every right to protect their property and to see that their resources are used according to their will.
It has nothing to do with AOL being predatory (as mentioned in the article) or "selfish" (also mentioned in the article). It has everything to do with AOL protecting the resources that it, as a corporation, owns.
Can anyone explain to me how AOL is changing their protocol without breaking their own IM? Is their client just more flexible, or does it have built in support for a dozen protocol revisions?
I would hope that whatever they're doing the clues as to what the next change might be are already there in the client. Perhaps we could build a fake ICQ server and run tests on the AOL client with slightly modified protocols to see what it supports. Then build in the same support into Trillian et al.
For me I'd love to stop using AOL's ICQ since I use OS X. The official client doesn't behave at all like a good OS X app should.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
For the millionth time, AOL is not preventing 3rd party clients from interoperating with the AOL Instant Messenger system. What they are doing is preventing 3rd party clients from using OSCAR, which is AOL's "private" protocol for AIM. They're not touching TOC, which is the protocol which AOL makes available for 3rd party clients to use.
Sure, flame me because:
1) TOC doesn't have all the features of OSCAR
2) TOC (might) use more resources than OSCAR on AOL's side, so you're doing them a favor.
3) AOL's required by the court to let us play in their sandbox.
4) AOL's a big bully.
5) Information wants to be free, man!
If AOL wants to make a subset of the features available to 3rd party clients, it's their prerogative. They own the servers, they wrote the service, they pay for the people to maintain the servers. And if TOC uses more resources than OSCAR on AOL's servers (which is just a rumor, and not confirmed from anyone with any authority), that's AOL's business, not yours. And no, AOL is not required by any court to let 3rd party clients play with AIM. They're only required to make the "next generation" AIM available to 3rd parties.
If you use OSCAR to connect to AIM and you don't use AOL's clients to do it, you don't get to complain when they change OSCAR around, regardless of whether they're deliberately blocking someone or just making modifications to the protocol for something else. Use TOC, or use another IM service.
-Todd
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
If AOL's IM is not defined as a monopoly, then Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly either with Windows. Is Linix and OS X just a figment of my imagination?
Monopoly status isn't defined as 100% market share - essentially it's a market share so big that the monopoly has the power to dictate to the market instead of the other way around. Instead of consumer need controlling the market, the supplier leaves the consumer with a "take it or leave it" proposition.
With a secure monopoly, AOL can tell everyone - you have the right to use IM, which you need to stay in touch (they say), but you have to use our cheesy clients and you have to expose yourself to all of our advertisements (especially for AOLTimeWarner subsidiaries).
Do you know that 80% of the celebraties featured on the AOL and Compuserve splash pages are AOLTimeWarner products?
The open source counter to this is "let's make our own IM system". This is great, but if it cannot interface with the AOL IM system, then it's back to the old Microsoft technique of "Buy Office, or forget about reading the documents produced by the people who do buy Office."
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
I've mostly used AIM, largely because that's what most people I wanted to chat with used. (And I'm really irritated at losing contact with some Trillian using buddies.)
I tried ICQ, but AIM does at least two things better:
* the ICQ UI is a horrendous mess. AIM has a good, simple UI. Cleaner in many ways then the Trillian version I used. And as the release new versions of the AIM client, whenever they change default behaviors (like minimizing to task bar vs system tray, etc) they're very good at letting users get the old behavior back in the options menu.
* I have never received AIM spam, but those two weeks of ICQ were nothing but teen porn ads. I'm not sure if its ICQ numbering scheme that makes it so spam prone, or something AIM does better
There are somethings AIM doesn't do, like my friend pointed out ICQ has a cool autolog of conversations feature, but overall, AIM is a
good little client, other clients could take a few pages from its usability book.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
The main problem with AIM and Jabber is not the protocol, but AOL blocking the IP Address of Jabber's AIM transport. If it's moved to a new IP, it's usually blocked in a matter of only hours.
Apparently they notice when hundreds of client connections are coming off one IP Address, no problems.
After all these years of being "connected" to the Internet, it looks like they still don't "get it."
You just summarily described Jabber.
Just my $.02...I use Trillian as well, specifically for the reason that another user stated above. I have friends that use Yahoo, some on MSN, lots on IM, and a few on ICQ.
ALSO, Trillian supports 128-bit end-to-end encryption (Blowfish) for the AOL and ICQ protocols, which is something that no one else does. I would think that the privacy freaks (myself included) would grab it just for that.
El riesgo vive siempre!
Since I signed up with a user name on AIM they make money off of me. They use me as a resource to fund their activities therefore I will use them as a resource for mine. If through my choice of clients I consume more resources than they gain from me then it's time for them to look at a different business model. The last time I looked the majority ad on AIM was still for AOL's own over priced service. I did not, upon signing up with AIM, agree to use a particular client to consume said resource therefore they should not block me from use because of my choice. Saying that there is no "business relationship" makes it appear that AOL wants one, this is not the case as has been proven time and time again. AOL does not want business relationships that will do nothing to further their capture of market share.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
One of the best features IMHO is that Trillian provides 128-bit SSL style encryption OVER the AOL IM or ICQ system (to other Trillian clients).
I support the Trillian coders, and encourage others to do the same. I think it's deplorable the way AOL 'shifts' its attitude whenever it suits: When they wanted to expand their user base, and feared the big, scary 'internet', they integrated standard protocols etc into their closed dialup service. When they wanted to gain a foothold in the IM mindshare war, they allowed non-AOL users to use their IM service. Now that they ARE the leading IM service (and bought the #2), it's suddenly THEIR network, THEIR protocol; how dare you use a client that doesn't generate ad revenue for them?
The fact that they cater to the computer neophytes and Luddites only complicates the issue. Joe geek can download and learn any program he wants to so he can IM Grandma, but there's no way you're gonna get Grandma to try out a cool new IM system because AOL is Evil and throwing around its muscle.
When the AOL-Time-Warner-MegaCorp merger happened, I thought the forced opening of their networks might lead to other regulated use of systems in their control. I'm so naive.
m00.
Imagine incompatible e-mail clients, online services, DNS, news, etc...
Instant Messaging should be decentralized. This is what happens when commercial interests drive communication "standards" over the net.
Remember pre-popular-internet when mail programs wouldn't talk to each other? Exchange, cc:mail, lotus notes, and a host of others? Remember early online services that didn't permit access to content outside their worlds? MSN, AOL, Compuserve, Genie, etc...?
There should be an RFC, each ISP or provider should host their own IM server, their customers connect to it using the client of their choice, and outsiders send messages in for instant delivery based on a standard naming convention.
But we'll never get there now, it's too late. I'm just thankful the rest of the net isn't in this mess.
Here's AOL's response to an open IM network:
http://aim.aol.com/openim/
Not true. Advertising agencies take into account the number of active users. In addition, if an ad agency finds that less and less people are going to be using AIM (therefore less people actually viewing their ad), they would not pay as much. Think of it this way..there are going to be a couple million people watching TV on Super Bowl Sunday. Would you pay $1.5 million to advertise on PBS, who won't be showing the super bowl? That's the same logic in this case of Trillian vs AIM.
Again, another misconception. IANAL. AOL and AIM is a closed system. It is illegal for anybody or any group of people to intrude onto a closed system. AOL owns the servers, networks, etc to run this, why must they allow other people to use it for free? The reason they don't take them to court is 1) bad publicity. Anytime anybody is suing an underdog, it gets them bad publicity. Think of it this way, you and a couple million open source users would be pissed off at AOL if they were to sue Jabber (an open source IM client). They would be viewed as the RIAA of the IM world. 2) Litigations costs a lot of money and time. As a company (regardless of the size) time and money are two essential resources that can disappear rapidly. In the time that they put into this, something new might pop up and now their number 1 position fades to #3.
Again another falsehood. Under DMCA, reverse engineering a system is illegal. Look at Sony vs Modchip or Reverse Engineer of Adobe PDF or Sony Aibo vs Hackers or the DVD decryption... All of these were reverse engineering for interoperability.
AOL has a choice of doing something against a rival or not. It is the same as a police officer letting some speeders go without giving them a ticket. For them to go after EVERYONE would turn them more and more into RIAA.
"hacking" has a wide range of meanings. Again, I responded to the legal aspect above.
If this were true, Trillian could sue AOL. But instead of following the legal route, they are trying to do this through the backdoor. What you are saying is that Trillian is taking the law into their own hands. It is the same as shooting a thief instead of reporting it to the police.
The underlying fact is that, AIM belongs to AOL, they can choose who or what can use it. There is no law saying that any vendor must sell to everyone. The part about the security concern is this [my personal analysis] if I were to build a aim client put it out on the net for everyone to use, but hide a password sniffer in there, this creates a major vulnerability to the AOL system. Some AIM users are also AOL users. I could then access AOL using their account.
Quite true...I agree with you on this fact.
This is false. Any company can limit the amount of resources that you use. For example, there are FAP limits for cable modems and broadband. In addition, an "all you can eat" buffet is legally allowed to kick you out once you consume to much of their food (resources).
That is the exact definition of a business relationship. A company makes a business relationship so that it could make more money for itself. It's a fact. Companies aren't out there to save the world, companies sole purpose to to make a profit. This is a fact that a lot of times the people discussing business practices often miss. We often put ourselves in a idealized world where everyone helps out each other. In a capitalistic society that is not what the society is about. If you are looking for an environment where there is a fair sharing of profits where companies don't seek profits but to do some good, this is the socialist ideals at its core. Computer programmers and hackers alike from the very beginning have always been in a mindset of creating something for the shear joy of it and to help out the world. That is what drives many of us. In the past, there was very little profit to be made. Howerver, in the last couple of years, MBAs and marketting teams have taken over the industry. We are now subjected to their goals.
Now, again, I'm not bashing Trillian. I've been a long time trillian user. But it is hard to argue against facts of the law and facts of corporate/business world.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
But you see, it's not solely about advertising after all.
Companies like AOL spend billions a year on getting their name out there. One of the ways to get your companies name out there is Branding. You want your name all over your product and you want you product to get in front of as many faces as often as you can and branding is gonna be a big part of this for them.
Let's say that Trillian (*yay Go Trillian*) stands unobstructed, it's a better client than aim, it's more useful to a LOT of people and has some really nice functionality not offered by AIM. So everyone starts using it. (except for AOL users) All of a sudden there's no more AIM on everyones boxes, no more AOL banners, AOL tracking, AOL propaganda. The most valuable feature to them of their IM client is the fact that they get to spatter their name on everyones desktops.
Most everyone I know, knows what AIM is even if they don't use it. AOL isn't about to gonna give up their userbase's clients to a third party that's gonna advertise them at the same level as icq, yahoo and msn. all of a sudden they're left holding the login bag without branding or advertisement sales.
they spent the money and devd the servers, they spent the $$ and devd the clients, they should have the right not to have outside programs connect to the server and use their resources for free if they choose not to.
but also notice that the aim client is very stale, no decent changes in years, they own aol and icq, you'd expect that it would not kill them to make a client that wraps aim and icq together if a user chooses to do so? If their product wasn't obviously lacking, Trillian would not be able to get a foothold as easily on the market.
I'll sit back and root for Trillian 'till the cows come home' but i expeect that they'll eventually get beat down. AOL is tough competition, and they take their rights seriously.
Wonder how long it will be until someone comes up with a client that attaches to oscar through the AIM client program itself to connect in?