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."
Right, I guess they figure 'why give up the advertising space', because I am sure they know that if all the chat clients worked together nobody would use theirs.
If it won't boot, Fsck it!
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
Because they intend to offer "advanced" IM over the cable network they now own, and many are skeptical that they will adhere to the regulation that they must open their IM to competitors before they do so. People in the U.S. are understandably tired of megacorporations finding loopholes, making empty promises, and otherwise screwing over the very people that fill their coffers.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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
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?
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
Humm seems like it pretty much is...
Think of AOL as AT&T...what if they didn't interoperate with MCI...or Britsh Telecomm
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
The only potential conflict I could see is clashing screen names, but if AOL has already handled this problem with regards to Apple, they could handle it again for MSN and Yahoo. And if AOL can do it, Yahoo can do it for MSN users and AOL users, MSN can do it for Yahoo users and AOL users, 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.
Avoiding clashing screennames should be simple - add the service to the end of each name (ie slashdotuser@yahoo, notsobright@aol, sellout@msn, etc. This would also give credit (advertising) to the appropriate IM service, make sending e-mails a bit more straightforward, and make it that much easier to make fun of the AIM users...
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.
Worst pun EVER!!
Anyone who posts about bad moderation are themselves off-topic and should be moderated accordingly.