Slashdot Mirror
AOL Won't Enable Instant Messaging Interoperability
chill writes "Wired is reporting 'America Online is scaling back efforts to make its popular instant messaging system work with rivals, saying the task has proven too difficult and expensive.' That's funny, they don't seem to have a problem blocking anyone who figures out how to interoperate. Legally, they are not supposed to offer "next gen" IM over Time Warner's cable lines until they can interoperate. We shall see."
.. why won't you respect their rights to do with their servers what they please
would you like it if someone forced linux to be interoperable with windows!
Maybe instead of BLOCKING those people, they should give them some money for their code... but then people could chat with their friends on AOL WITHOUT having to install the buggy AIM client. Heaven Forbid!
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
I use AIM, Yahoo Instant Messenger, and ICQ. I have seen MSN messenger. None of the others allow interoperability. Why should AOL make theirs that way if the others aren't following suit?
Insert offensive troll-style sig here. Please mod or respond appropriately.
So the Gaim is over?
One would think that gaim would be a good argument that interoperability is possible, given that it spports AIM/ICQ (Oscar), MSN, Yahoo, Jabber, IRC, Gadu-Gadu, Napster, and Zephyr.
Monday is a horrible way to spend 1/7 of your life.
the next version of OS X, 10.2, ships in about a month and it has an app with it called "iChat" thjat is 100% interoperable with AIM. it's autherized by AOL and everything. i don't know what kind of deal Apple made, but now that AOL droke down and allowed one to get in i would think it's just a matter of time.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I realize that there are some functions performed differently on seperate chat programs, but what is really stopping them all from creating a standard interface for communicating? It seems like the main reason for limiting the audience is to lock people into your look and feel client, but what good does that really serve?
And, more importantly, how could we get these companies to actually adopt a standard? I realize there are probably some open source attempts, but unless a big company adopts them... I just don't see them taking off.
-josh
AOL had better watch out that a standard comes along that they are to late in supporting. Sure other IM systems can interoperate with them, but who will want to use their product if it cant interoperate with others?
just throw out all the current instant messenging standards and make a new one. AOL owns AIM and ICQ which is the vast majority of IM anyway. They could change the way both programs work under the hood, making them follow the same standard (i could see how the name and number thing might be hard, but that's it). Then release new versions of both that look and feel like current version, just with the same standard IM protocol underneath. An open standard would be nice, but as long as other people can write clients its ok by me. Even if you have to pay, so long as there's another choice besides AIM or ICQ. If the industry wont come together to make a standard AOL should step forth and force one upon everyone. I can call anyone in the world on the telephone, I should have to have the same IM to IM everyone.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
From the minutes of an AOL-TW corporate meeting. "Well we could give our customers something they really want... but screw it... We know other companies will come to us... besides, our stock is doing great!!!" Oh yeah... I work for AOL-TW don't I. (used to be just Time Warner)
They dont have to interoperate or open the protocol, because in the merger agreement, it was said if they offer "next-gen messaging, such as real time video" then they have to, but AOL has *NO* intention of doing that. IM is now all it's ever going to be, text-based chat. So, cry antitrust all you want, but it's all there in the merger agreement.
We (I included) rail against the lockout of alternative clients, and yet continue to depend upon the network that's breaking them.
I say let's get a little Metcalfe's law going, and as Bill Gates says Microsoft does, start "eating our own dog food."
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
True interoperability means having servers for rival systems directly communicate with one another.
It's funny how in the telephone network, the only way to survive is to be completely interoperable, but with instant messaging they're all afraid because it "means having servers for rival systems directly communicate". OMG!
If you really want interoperability, then support Jabber.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
No other service allows interoperability, and even if MS is being nice to Trillian their service is also completely stand-alone and proprietary. However I would think if anyone needed the ability to talk to other services it would be the smaller fry...AOL has the largest user base of IM of any of the ones available. I personally use Proteus on OS X, which allows connections to all the major services....even if the servers aren't talking to each other that works well enough for me. So I can't have a 3 way chat with someone on Jabber and someone on MSN while I'm on AIM...not really a major concern of mine. I'm just waiting for iChat.
I wasn't aware of this.
Insert offensive troll-style sig here. Please mod or respond appropriately.
...tell the world that you think a trivial task that others have already done is too difficult for your own employees to do.
I think it's a $$ issue... The AOL client is a powerful media for commercials. If independent IM clients use AOL infrastructure without including the AOL banners then why bother having the system? It's not generating any value for AOL just by being there....
True ravers don't need drugs
Why do they put any effort in this? All they have to to is not block jabber.org, they'll iteroperat with most other IM'systems.
You folks that dont know what Jabber is, take a look at Jabber.org.
Its an opensource, XML based IM system. It has gateways to ICQ,AOL,IRC and others.
The thing is, AOL blocks jabber.org because they only want their users to use AOL messaging with their software.
i just hope that i wont need a .MAC account to use it. but after this news i wouldnt be so sure AOL would allow Apple users to use it for free. although this may be another reason apple was "forced" to implement the pay .MAC service
I want 2D games back.
Trillian.
They're letting other companies run their own servers that will be inter-operable with the rest of the AIM network, if i understand it correctly.
This is great, and now I think we all see the reason why they didn't want interoperability in the first place...it puts more strain on their servers! This solves everyones problem, unless its some sick plan to distribute crappy server software that will blow up competing company's systems!
I wonder if they're providing binaries, source, or specs for the server software?
Then there is Microsoft's attack on what it claims is Apple's lacklustre promotion of OS X.
Considering that the chance of MSN Messenger on Mac ever having the same level of functionality as Windows Messenger on XP - which is not even available for other versions of Windows, much like their latest Media Player, the deal with Apple makes much sense; especially considering the number of people who bought Apple to avoid Microsoft products.
My twopence,
Michel
Visit my website here
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
why should it be called the AOL Instant Messenger network? Shouldn't we call it something else like the "General Instant Messenger" network?
The story is also up at The Register
?
And loose potential ad revenue to help support their servers/infrastructure? Fat chance
.. Sometimes you cant due to firewalls/blocked ports etc.. Often we are stuck with only one or two clients that are useable ...
Sure id love to have servers intercommunicate as well, but it wont happen.
One client that 'interoperates' is ok, but its still a kludge..
And DONT tell me to get my 'buddies to switch to something else'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They have the vast majority of the users and are invested in the infrastructure, it shouldn't be a surprise that they are dragging their feet. They have a LOT to lose. And it's something to lose to MS.
Nobody needs to be reminded of the rival AOL vs. MSN, IE vs. Netscape, yadda yadda.
AOL probably just wants to prevent their butts from being undercut by MS. The last thing they want to do is invest tons of resources into something and have MS change the ball game on them. Without some sort of standards/agreement they're vulernable and MS knows it.
-- Scientist: You aren't going to leave me here, are you? Boagh! Thump...
If you read the article, it's server (Userbase) interoperability that is the issue, not client interoperability. The article mentions clients like Trillian, which offer the same interop capabilities as gAIM. It then says, "The user must sign up for each service."
The issue here is interoperability between services. For example, say I have MSN messenger, foo@bar.com. I want to talk to my friend who uses AIM with the screenname Bazola. Right now, I can't, and the issue at hand is making this happen.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
They are just pissed that their dubious records are being investigated, and this is their childish way of sticking their tongue out at the public, press and the SEC.
Apple cooperated with AOL from the design phase onward to make it interoperable with AIM as easily as possible.
I'm assuming it's Just Another OSCAR Messenger. (OSCAR is the protocol used by both AIM and recent versions of ICQ.) It's AIM, just with a different UI and different servers.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
When will the standard IM protocol be finalised?
Is it RFC 2778 ?
I am also hunting for a YMSG9 and MSNP7 protocol parser for netmon, anybody seen one?
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
Has anyone ever seen that Juno commercial- the one where it hypes the fact that you can use the same IM that AOL uses for a lot less money? I wonder if they will be affected by this. That would suck for them.
AOL owns one of the largest broadband and cable TV networks in the country.
They are being singled out because they signed a merger agreements saying that they CANNOT offer next-generation IM services over their cable network until they are interoperable.
This could be one of the reasons MS is playing nice, in addition to the ones pointed out earlier. MS is worried about having MORE ammo against them in their antitrust suit due to the close ties of MSN Messenger, Windows, and MSN service. So as a result, they play nice and look like the Good Guys for once.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Real geeks don't use Amatuers On Line
I use the jabber messenger protocol in concert with numerous other protocols all the time to keep in touch with friends on other IM systems. However the AIM gateway commonly causes my jabber server to crash. Fortunately with jabber I can run my own server and have it restart whenever I need to so I don't need to rely on a central server's stability. Great idea, good protocol, still needs some bug fixing though.
They have figured by now that if they allow interoperability, then everyone will just use messenger. It comes bundled.
:) (half-kidding) ...
... :(
AIM Non-interoperability at least means that you will pay a price for surrendering to MS lazy practices
Side note: my sister and my associate have just installed messenger
unfinished: (adj.)
Why don't they simply publish the API and a
library and be done with it?
why would they want their customers' (AOL in particular) passwords and usernames floating around and being messed with by (mostly) second rate software? Its not in their best interests. They gain nothing by having programs like trillian and gaim use their protocols. If you are peeved by not being able to chat with your buddies, write your own chat program using AOLs OPEN SOURCE protocol, TOC!!! They have provided the tools. Now back off.
.. jump off a bridge. Would you do it?
i would like to share TAC with everyone. Its a Tcl/Tk based shell script for *nix that allows you to chat with AIM users.
(why hasn't AOL blocked this?) i love it, small useful, dont need a GUI anymore to send a quick message...
i dont care so much about interoperability as much as i do about just opening the protocol and stop blocking 3rd party IM clients (like Trillian or TAC - altho tac hasnt been blocked). As long as i have a choice of AIM clients then i'll be happy. If every messaging protocol was open, then programs such as trillian would function more perfectly. plus if the protocol was opened, other servers might popup, and that'd take some of the load off the AOL IM servers. that's my $.02...
I've already posted to this thread so I can't mod. The above post points out the exact reasons that this issue is a big deal.
AOL is a dinosaur and their days are numbered. Every person that asks me to hookup their broadband connection, eventually arrives at the conclusion that their connection is always on (no dial up), a web browser can be something other than AOL's terribly cluttered software (Netscape, Opera, IE..etc.), and that their IM software is freely downloadable!
Inevitably, the broadband customer figures out they don't need to give AOL $10.00/mo just to host their AOL spam.
Mark my words, as the dial-up market shrinks, so will AOLs market share. AOL should just open up IM, before someone else does it for them.
-ted
I think the biggest problem for AOL would be the difficulty of handling redirection of messages sent to their servers to the other IM servers securely.
You see, all of their IM protocols are proprietary, and thus they would have to receive a message intended for messenger service, recognize that it's meant for , convert it to 's format, and then redirect it to all while trying to keep their servers running at an economically reasonable peak efficiency with their own messages.
What really needs to happen is for a general non-proprietary protocol to be developed for IM, and then have all of the IM servers use that. Perhaps this would be a good OS project for people to do (I think I heard someone is already working on it.)
But, that's probably why it's so hard for them. It's hard to come up with a non-proprietary protocol all by yourself.
~ kjrose
donate
Seriously, I did. Why not? Trillian rocks?
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Okay, I'm all for other clients being able to instant message around to one another. I like competition. And I love free software (as in speech).
But I like AIM as it is. Well, rather I like it as it was--before there were alternatives that were allowed to get onto AOL's network. I used to be able to find new buddies easily enough, and when I got a message from someone new it typically was genuine.
But now, some f*tards as using the AIM system to send out spam-like messages. Is it coming from the rival clients? I don't know. But the one way to identify these bots running is that their profile always states "No Information Provided". This is the type of thing that really puts a strain on AOL's servers, and I can't quite blame them for not wanting to declare a lifetime of open season on their servers.
Sure, it would be nice if there was a completely interoperable messaging system. But to get this, we might force ourselfs to deal with getting slammed several times a minute by bots running around messaging everyone they can find. I'm just so tired of that, I am more willing to give up the competition. AIM's clients (even the java one) aren't really that bad. They work and do their jobs pretty good. Maybe this is one case where the majority of people would rather have a very closed, controlled community. Better ask mom and gramdpa about this before we go stating that this is completely a bad thing.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
I used to use ICQ, and ICQ was good, but then came AIM, and well. most people I knew were on AIM. So thats the way I had to go it wasn't fair of me to ask my non technical friends to use my system, and then have to deal with more than one client. AOL is the 800-pound Gorilla of IM these days. Non-interoperation is also a business matter for them. Their control of the client is important to them because of that little window on the top of the client...they get advertising dollars for that little window. How can they insure in an inter-operational cleint that window is appearing? Suppose that they allowed inter operation large scale, and someone had a client (ignoring for the moment the ones that do exist already) that has a slicker interface and is more fuctional than theirs. We all move to that client, using their network, but not displaying the ads they are getting paid to display...? Its a business problem folks. They might be a big company, but someone has to pay them in some way to operate their FREE service. Perhaps if the alterate interfaces would be willing to make sure they display those add windows properly..? But still what assurances would they really have that this is actually happening?
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Millions of complete imbeciles can't be wrong!
The best thing Jabber can do is to make a server that a moron can install and administrate (they're almost there, I was able to install it).
Once they do that, you'll start seeing jabber servers available on all types of sites (including weblogs like slashdot).
The ability for unskilled Joe Webmeister or Jane Blogger to set up a small (25 users) server that interoperates with other Jabber servers will be a great thing. It's certainly a better option for most users than Java-applet chatrooms, and IRC clients.
My father is a blogger.
All microsoft is doing is pushing passport accounts so that it can say 10% of the propulation already has passport account why ujse them for tax returns.
Nope Microsoft is leveraging another software company to trick people into signing up for passport, there not being kind for the hell of it.
All really is evil at Microsoft
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Nope. AOL Time Warner are having their accounting practices investigated by the Securities and Exchanges Commission.
A BBC News article says:-
The investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is in response to allegations in the Washington Post that the firm boosted online advertisement revenue through a series of "unconventional" deals between 2000 and 2002.
That means there is no proof that AOL has been involved in the same sort of accounting deceptions that brought down Enron and WorldCom.
But such a fact-finding investigation was the first step that unravelled those firms.
"Information wants to be paid"
Not smart for AOL to thumb their nose at the feds like this, I think. Was interoperability not federally mandated in 2000 as part of the Time Warner merger? In any case, this is another step backward. The first was AOL's agreement with IBM to allow interoperability with Lotus Sametime. Sametime was obscure to begin with, and the interoperability was half-ass (it certainly didn't fit this article's definition). Now AOL will get paid to relay messages between the proprietary clients of other companies. Big deal. This has zero to do with interoperability, but apparently AOL is selling it that way to the FCC.
Did you forget that AOL/Time Warner own's a huge chunk of the cable lines? They still get your money.
>they don't seem to have a problem blocking anyone who figures out how
>to interoperate. Legally, they are not supposed to offer "next gen" IM
>over Time Warner's cable lines until they can interoperate. We shall
>see."
>
>
Who cares? Breaking into AOL's servers *IS NOT* interoperating with the AOL software and never will be.
Frankly I don't see why anyone other than spammers and other vermin would care all that much about this. I'ld rather see AOL opening up it's network to Mac and other systems like Linux and BSD rather than pandering to the users of MSN and other networks.
I've found Trillian to be a great management tool for all my IM accounts. It allows the use of AIM, MSN Messenger, ICQ, Y! Messenger, and an IRC client all from one program. It winds up hogging less resources than running all five other at once, and provides great support, functionality, and customizability. (sp?)
MSN accidentally blocked it once, and AIM tried to block it for a few weeks, as it eliminates their revenue from advertizing. However, fixes were released very quickly, and Trillian is now unofficially allowed to run on the AIM network again. Give it a try, you just might like it.
Get Trillian Here
- Jones
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
Taken from the article, the number of users, in millions, of each service is:
AOL: 34+24 =58
MSN: 29
Yahoo: 20
ICQ: 8
My experience, just with my friends and peers would indicate quite different numbers. I have found MSN and ICQ dominate by far, wth AOL far behind, and I don't even know anyone who uses Yahoo Messenger. What have other Slashdotters found? Do I just have friends who don't know the coolest IM, or are the article's numbers for AOL/Yahoo really inflated?
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
All you need to know is AIM+! Lots of cool new features, but uses the AIM binaries so they can't block it too easily :)
Juno ... hypes the fact that you can use the same IM that AOL uses for a lot less money
That's because you can download AOL Instant Messenger and use that over Juno's IP connection. However, under Windows 9x, the absolute number of applications you can open at the same time is limited by the 64 KB user.exe heap and the 64 KB gdi.exe heap. Windows NT, 2000, XP do not have this problem.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I want to be able to read slashdot stories and post slashdot articles on kuro5hin. Why can't the FTC step in and force slashdot to do that?
What's that? Slashdot would lose ad revenue? Isn't that the same thing AOL is saying?
Why don't they simply publish the API
They did. It's called the TOC protocol. But unfortunately, AOL doesn't really care about the availability of the AIM network's TOC gateway, and when AOL adds a new feature to OSCAR (AIM's primary protocol), it doesn't add the feature to TOC in parallel.
Will I retire or break 10K?
There is a standard, it's detailed in RFC 1459. The trouble is AOL and ICQ spent so much time to instill upon people that ICQ or AIM == online chatting.
hang on a min, /. coes it's easy
Here's a few URLS to toss some more wood on the fire.
from
6 U.S. Considers Microsoft Passport as National ID
Microsoft: The Gatekeeper of the Internet
MSDN Subscriber Forced to use Passport
EPIC Urges State AGs to Pursue Microsoft Passport
From the register possibly some duplicates
US govt evaluates Microsoft Passport for services
Microsoft secures Passport while lobbying interest groups
Now if you still have any doubt's then flame away, maybe it was flamebate.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Server-to-server is the "ideal" method of interoperability. Hopefully it could work something like email does now. To chat with your buddy, add him to your list as "joesomebody@msn" and start chatting. He can add you as "bobsomebody@aim" to start talking with you, etc etc. Trillian's method is a bit like cheating in this case :)
Normally I'm flat out against government regulation, but it's definitely looking like Instant Messenging is becoming the next telephone system. Perhaps we need to step in and make all the networks talk to each other to guarantee communication with others. Think about it, it is no different from telephones -- last time I checked, Bell South customers have no problems calling Alltel customers, thanks to government regulation. Obviously this is an overly broad idea that doesn't take into account any of the fine details (how to pay for it, international issues, copyright, etc) but it should be considered if instant messenging is to flourish as a communication standard. AOL already has mostly a monopoly on the protocol, and I know many people have come to depend on it somehow (myself included). I know, free market, blah blah, pick whatever one is best, but face it, the public isn't like the tech savvy people who just from app to app looking for the right one. Just an idea.
You think working with AOL's IM is a good thing? Check out this abomination!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I've never heard this term before. What exactly is "next gen" IM?
Saying MS messenger comes bundled is an understatement...have you tried removing from XP Home.... it's practically impossible for anyone who isn't very computer literate. Registry edits, the whole bit.
AOL wants you to use AOL's client. That means you see AOL's advertising, get hit up with AOL's promotions, AOL's URL inserted onto your desktop, have AOL's logo burned into your retina, get enticed to use more AOL services, etc. Nowhere is AOL saying these clients are hard to write, just that they want you to use their specific client.
As far as AOL is concerned GAIM & Trillian & Proteus et al are poachers on their territory. Are they hard or easy to write? AOL would like to see that they're as hard as possible as every one of them is adding users to AOL's servers & networks who aren't getting a steady diet of AOL-marketing in return. But, they're not the issue here.
Rather AOL's issue is getting AOL's servers to talk to MSN's & Yahoo's and all of the other's servers. It's about setting up peering access and interoperability standards. Server to server stuff, never client to 3rd-party server, thus keeping the clients safely locked into AOL's own service.
Is that hard? Probably yes. You've got to write something that extracts out material intended for the other services from your own servers, translate it to a standardized format, that format really should include as much common functionality as possible (both for today's features and those anticipated near-term,) transfer this 'universal material' to the appropriate 3rd party services, then do all the same in return and reinsert it locally into a format your own servers & clients find palatable. Along the way you've got to handle all sorts of failure modes, translation issues, directory services, security issues, etc. all on a potentially massive scale with software that was never really architected for outside access.
What's the payback for AOL? More users? AOL's already got the #1 & #2 clients. Every 3rd-party client they enable to reach their customers is another load on their system without much benefit to them (AOLians aren't clamoring nearly as hard to get to MSNers or Yahoolites etc. as those are to connect to AOL!) So yeah, with value down and a dubious payback AOL is unenthused at this project - not surprising.
AOL has had a deal with Novell for their DigitalMe service for a few years now. After announcing a "partnership" years ago AOL has now finally released something with Apple, their new iChat. Word is that AOL is, like all of the other folks in the once booming chat field, looking to go after corporate customers in a bid to make their market penetration pay off now that the whole banner-ad market has imploded. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to sell 10,000 licenses to Colgate-Palmolive then it is to push 1,000,000 ads at jaded chatters.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
-Frums
What's happening now give me flashbacks to the days of proprietary Email systems. No one system could talk to anyone else's with out some "gateway" to allow it. All the vendors pointed fingers at the other vendors, it was a horrible mess. Then SMTP/IMAP/POP came to the rescue. The problem today is that AOL is so intreanched in the IM world that the open system(Jabber) is going to have a difficult time becoming the "Standard" as SMTP/IMAP/POP did.
How are we going to move away from AOL? I'm not sure, but as for me, I've made the hard choice and stopped using AIM even though I've lost IM contact to my friends that I can't convince to use Jabber.
The programming team set up a demo for review, but our marketing team said they kept getting a
N0$-N-1T error.
Tell the programmers the system may be more stable if we could send our own ads through with with the instant message.
Having downloaded AOL and Real software in the past there is simply no way I will ever do so again. They simply make far to many unauthorized changes to my machine and are deliberately coded to make it hard to undo. To get rid of the blinking icon in my system tray reminding me to upgrade realplayer I eventually had to reinstall the operating system. I loathe software that won't take no for an answer when I say I don't want to register or upgrade.
While there are a lot of AOL users I get the feeling that people who use AOL regularly defect to use the Internet proper while very few people go the other way.
If an AOL user wants to instant message me I will tell them to load up software from a company that will allow interconnection. I am not going to load up AOL spyware/adware just to talk to them. [Actually this has not happened yet, probably because I tend not to be anxious to talk to the people I know who are AOL users].
Utlimately what we need to do is to design an IM infrastructure that actually works without the need for central choke points.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
From the article it sounds like they don't want to standardize. Typical, fine. Get a company in a contract and AOL will provide the company info needed to create a client.
No one said AOL will do the work for you.
Nah. Linux got Gaim.
Pick your poison. Both are IM systems.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Has there been a (recent) poll on what messaging software the slashdot community uses?
Man. I sure wish chefmonkey was around to see this. He was touting how SIMPLE was the answer to the problem of interop only a few weeks ago. And not, AOL's not even going to play along. Guess he'll have to find a new party line.
From the Jabber from, you have a new push in the IETF, a *working* server-to-server implementation, and multiple competing implementations. (1, 2, 3)
What is the protocol lacking again? As I recall, there were some security concerns, but these issues are being dealt on, including integrating SASL support into the protocol. So why aren't people using this? There is a lot of momentum behind Jabber right now, and I think it'd be silly if companies didn't at least consider it as a solution.
If you're curious, you can always Jabber me. My JID is rynok@jabber.com. Add me to your roster and ask me any questions you like. I can't promise I'll have all the answers, but I'll certainly do my best.
Worst pun EVER!!
Anyone who posts about bad moderation are themselves off-topic and should be moderated accordingly.
About 3 years ago there was a few month period when MSN worked with AIM users. That interoperability was QUICKLY changed (almost on the scale of every day or two) and MSN replied by updating their software. So it's not difficult, it's a matter of AOL allowing it.
As far as adhering to a standard, it's not difficult to release a dll of some type (and a small doc) with each "standards change" prototyping previous methods over newer ones (how much can an "IM Chat" architecture really change?).
It's unfortunate that AOL solely wants all of it's clients to be using AOL software. Interestingly enough, why does Gaim work then? Last I checked AOL has a working (or in permanent beta phase) linux client, how come GAim can function without being shut down?
I guess they're only going against MS . . . (I know there's some other AIM compatible clients, just forget the names)
Eh? I run trillian. I use it to connect to AIM, ICQ, and MSN. I don't use it to spam you with advertisements, and in fact it's not even a feature of trillian.
This concept you talk about of being "slammed" while online sounds pretty stupid. I get maybe one ad every a few days, and that's always from ICQ. I've never gotten one from an AIM user (or someone running an AIM client clone).
Having separate networks that people talk on is annoying. Before trillian, I had to run three separate clients. Each with their own adbars and little icons in my system tray. A single client is awesome.
:wq
Has anyone looked at imici? http://www.imici.com It's a sweat client that allows you to use all the above all in one cient. Works great and if you have multiple people using imici ID's the it encrypts the messages.
this is OT but,
Did you ever check Pegasus Mail www.pmail.com
It's not as glossy as Outlook and needs a little getting used to, but it really does everything I want.
just my 2 cents.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Every article I've seen so far on this subject says that MSN, Yahoo!, etc. all are willing to interoperate but AOL won't. So why do they all sit around waiting for AOL? They should do it and just leave AOL able but unwilling to join them.
Yes, right now AOL has the most users. So what? I teach beginners how to signup up for IM's all the time. They pick based on how many others they can contact. If there was a choice between being able to contact everyone who is not on AIM or just AIM, they'll go with the interoperability and the choice of what interface/company they like best.
I use Trillian, but if I was on AIM only and one by one my buddies began to defect to an interoperable client, I wouldn't sit around on AIM hoping AOL would suddenly see the light.
It might be rough going at first but AIM would eventually become just for companies who only want to communicate with their own workers or they will see the advantage to joining the crowd.
I've never liked AOL's business practices and gimmicks to try to rule the internet. As long as everyone just sits back and waits for AOL to do something, AOL has the power in the situation.
Customers can be the real people in power here. In fact, they already are. AIM currently has more subscribers; that speaks loud enough for AOL. If you want interoperability, dump AIM and write letters to your favorite IM company and tell them what you want.
Maybe not for long. The AOL acquisition of Time Warner severely dilluted shares of Time Warner (just ask Gerald Levin). AOL-Time Warner may decide to divest itself of the AOL "division" to try and prop up the stock price. AOL is a money loser, and the combined company (AOL-TW) is worth less now than it was as an old-economy company.
I believe eventually the shareholders will have had enough and re-separate the companies.
-ted
As mentioned my many, there is Jabber. On OS X there are Fire and Proteus, which I use extensively primarily to communicate with AIM users. I'm sure there are Windows multi-protocol clients that I am not familiar with that also have this functionality.
Point being, at least the Mac clients can import contact lists from AIM, so you can wean people onto a non-AOL platform, which makes it easier to divert them to another service if AOL once again screws with AIM.
The problem may also be self-correcting, since AOL's MRQ subscriber growth was down to less than 500k new subscribers, which is probably close to their quarterly churn. So I don't think the rest of the world will be sucked into the AOL vortex. The Bubble popped, and the waves have left AOWhale beached on the shoreline. I mean, the *magazine guys* at AOLTW are taking off AOL heads now...how the mighty have fallen.....
Here's how to solve the problem. Instead of getting "all the world" to agree to switch to Jabber or something, all you've got to do is get the Trillian people and the Jabber people to come to an agreement, and provide us a smooth, painless transition to an open IM world.
First, the Jabber people should not direct their efforts at making full blown clients, and simply make a great plug-in client for Trillian (and anyone else who wants to use it). Jabber folks should also stop wasting so much of their time with trying to have their servers talk to non-Jabber protocols.....its quite obvious that having the client do it (a la Trillian) is a much better approach....it's more efficient, less awkward, it's just plain better.
Then Trillian should build in Jabber support via a plug in supplied by Jabber people, and encourage people to use it as the "Trillian native" protocol. Sure, you still have to register with the big four (yahoo/msn/aim/icq) while all your hold-out friends stay on the other services, no big deal. The important thing is to offer a painless transition to an open, decentralized system.
The Jabber plug in could be open source, and could be made so that any client (Trillian or any other) could hook into it, and Trillian can stay closed source. The plug in would have no UI, but simply implement an API.
Alright, I have a serious question for you. Why the fuck would you want to "stick it to them"? AOL provides a FREE service to you - one that works extremely well, and you want to stick it to them??? This is why my faith in the human race is dwindling my friends...
AIM is an amazing system - I use it daily. Without AIM I wouldn't be able to have cyber se..err..meet so many new and interesting people. They provide the serivce free - they even have a goddamn Linux client, and you want to "stick it to them".
Fuck you, my friend. Fuck you.
We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade.
The best right now is probably Rival, which is coming along nicely, but unfortunately isn't finished yet. It's also not open source, dunno why not as it's freeware. It's written in Visual Basic too unfortunately, occasionally when I've been talking with Dan who makes it about a feature, he's told me simply "VB can't do that" - and that's the end of it :(
If somebody was to make a really solid, easy to use client that can compete with MSN, Trillian and so forth, Jabber could take off. All of my friends are on MSN but there's no way I can "convert" them to Jabber unless the clients are solid.
After that - well, the network has been stable for a while now (as long as you don't want AIM, but that network doesn't have much of a presence in the UK). I run the theoretic.com server with Theo, a friend of mine, and it's got features like IM headlines (from slashdot :p) and soon an integrated weblog. The features are there, too bad the clients are not.
I shorted AOL yesterday. Proved to be a good move. Feels nice, making money in a down stockmarket, plus penalizing a notably evil corporation, all at the same time.
AOL is a dinosaur and their days are numbered.
IANAAOLer, but...people have been saying this for the past five years, if not longer. What's different this time?
As per Apple .mac customers being able to override AOL subscribers with the same usernames, it is quite impressive. When AOL took over Netscape my netscape.net account stopped working because someone has the same login on AOL - damn.
Ex Apple user (OS X on G3 - painful! Where's my DivX :p) being tempted by Jaguar... now, if someone would kindly donate $3000 to my funds... hmm..
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
McKiernan said that "true interoperability" would be like e-mail, in which you wouldn't have to be on the same service as another person to send that fellow an IM.
Well, the current level of "service interoperability" we enjoy in email is only available to us because POP3,IMAP, and SMTP are *published* and *open* standards. Yahoo doesn't block rogue email bandits who figure out how to send email to their users from their own SMTP server or home-brewed email client.
McKiernan said that this is a technologically difficult task, but that "no company has done more than ours" to meet that goal.
Uhh...not exactly. Sure, they released the ToC protocol, but in terms of "work" towards that end, it's pretty simple. If you release your protocol, the OS world will do the rest. The bottom line is that they don't _want_ interoperability. If they did, they would release their work and allow others to try and crack the "problem", instead of questionably working on an answer behind closed doors and concluding it infeasible.
--- What
...tell the programmers in private that it really just means they have less work to do.
Of course AIM won't work with other messaging services. Have you tried to use their java clients? AIM Express and their beta versions never populate your buddy list properly. The older AIM Quick Buddy shows them correctly, but lacks features that have been available for years. Interoperability won't come until their own software works together.
As far as I can see the only reason to have AOL interoperate, is so MS can kill off all the other chat clients. With MSN Messenger installed on every new copy of windows (whether you want it or not -- you can't even get rid of it), if MSN users could talk to AIM users, why would anyone bother downloading AIM? In a couple years of "wonderful interoperation", leading to no one using AOL's (or anyone else's) client, Microsoft would suddenly find a reason to no longer be interoperable. Now AOL is dead, yahoo is dead, all of the other networks are dead, because MSN has 99% of the userbase, and the other 1% can't talk to them.
Better to let AOL keep the 99% userbase than to give it to Microsoft. That's the real choice here when you say "interoperate". You know Microsoft has no interest whatsoever in "helping people communicate". They just want to steal AIM users from their monopoly position.
what, you thought there would be something important here? Sheesh, read the subject...
If MS and yahoo want to interoperate so badly, why don't they just work on interoperating with each other, and jabber, or any other IM server operation out there. If they just did this, and it was everyone vs AOL, I don't think it would take too long for AOL to make their client work with the existing 'standard' - if that standard worked (with MS involved I believe it would end up a rampant spam/virus playground, but that's beside the point.)
But really that's not the point to these companies. Interoperability doesn't mean jack to them or they'd already have it working among everyone except AOL. The real point is that they want access to the user base that AOL can provide - that is more important than interoperability to them.
The day I can log on to yahoo messenger and IM someone at user@msnmsgr, I will believe in interoperability - too bad everyone seems to think that this can't happen without AOL, because that means it'll be a cold day in hell before it all works.....
Worst mod up EVER!
Really, who wasted points on this?
I hope I get to metamod this.
The discussion about interoperability will move in a short term to a whole new discussion. In the mobile market there are already other parties who make direct deals with the telecom operators.
Companies like Splendo already launched Jabber clients for J2ME and i-mode devices. http://www.splendo.com
AOL can't force every operator and device manufacturer in the world to embed AIM or ICQ. On your phone you can only use one messsenger at the same time. Third party software like the MiMessenger is currently the best solution for the operators.
Yeah, screw you too. The post deserves a +1 insightful (as opposed to this post which is WAY off-topic).
Anyone who posts about bad moderation are themselves off-topic and should be moderated accordingly.
ICQ ads happen simply because the UINs are numbers, which can just be spammed in a range. That's about the worst way to handle it- IM services which use names are far better defended vs. spam.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I used Trillian for a while. It was pointless -- the only protocol it supported I ever used was AIM. And the official AIM client is nicer, so I use it instead.
I don't know a single person who doesn't have AIM, so there's no reason for me to use anything else.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This is the solution to the IM problem. We need to extend SMTP so that it can support IM type functions. So that instant messaging just becomes an extension of email
i've noticed they haven't released a compatability patch for AIM for a while, i guess they won that war
Sue Herera is now reporting on CNBC that the SEC is now investigating AOL-TW for accounting "irregularities". Lots of people doubt this merger will remain intact.
Accounting fraud is a symptom of a much bigger problem in a company.
-ted
'yet it's still the cleanest and snappiest email client on windows' this seems a very weird comment to say about outlook express, the Key Virus and Worm vector on the internet unless you a troll?
/. changed there karma rules hehehe more fun for me
There's a few more weird bits in you comment to..
if so well done for getting modded up, I like a nice troll..
It seems so much easier to get a troll moded since
Because I don't really see an advantage to any of the other networks. In fact, apart from the open aspect, I see mainly disadvantages, since AIM's uptime and stability beats everyone else's by a longshot (I don't think there's been AIM downtime longer than 15 seconds since sometime around early 2000).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10