Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AOL Won't Enable Instant Messaging Interoperability

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the walled-garden dept.

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."

16 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Even Microsoft don't do that by keesh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the release notes for Trillian 0.73 (this is the app AOL are trying to block):
    Microsoft was kind enough to alert us to a change in the MSN servers that would have negatively affected Trillian. Thanks, Microsoft!
    AFAIK, Microsoft aren't even legally required to allow interoperability; are they doing the right thing, for once?
    1. Re:Even Microsoft don't do that by Figaro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yup...standard tactic.

      Microsoft is always nicer than the established standard. That's how they kill them.

      see 'Netscape' for further reference.

      --
      :wq
    2. Re:Even Microsoft don't do that by fferreres · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They ALWAYS do the right thing when they do not control a market. They are at the embrace stage!

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    3. Re:Even Microsoft don't do that by jafuser · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I agree. They are always all nice and friendly, and then once they get a product that beats the competition, the R&D stops. Just look at Outlook Express as a prime example. It hasn't changed significantly since IE4 (maybe even 3?), yet it's still the cleanest and snappiest email client on windows.

      I just wish it had a more powerful rules capability and that it handled newsgroups more efficiently. I'd also like to find a way to re-enable the infamous junk filter they got in trouble over a few years ago, as I found it fairly effective.

      It just seems like all major innovations stopped once they became more popular than all the other email clients.

      Bah.

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
  2. A standard interface? by taeric · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:A standard interface? by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not "locking people to your look & feel client" It's "locking people to your look & feel client WITH ADVERTISING". Gotta make the money somehow.

  3. Re:Its their Servers by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  4. What I fail to understand is . . . by acceleriter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    . . . exactly why those of us who are clinging to the AIM servers because "that's where all my friends are" aren't working a little harder to get them to a platform that allows (or at least isn't actively trying to break) other clients, for example Jabber, MSN (even if it is run by the evil empire), or even IRC.

    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.

    1. Re:What I fail to understand is . . . by ZxCv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...exactly why those of us who are clinging to the AIM servers because "that's where all my friends are" aren't working a little harder to get them to a platform that allows (or at least isn't actively trying to break) other clients, for example Jabber, MSN (even if it is run by the evil empire), or even IRC.

      Because it's much easier said than done, that's why. It would be one thing for me to get my mom to switch over to Jabber or MSN if she had never used IM before. But, now that she has a contact list of 25 people? I hardly stand a chance. It's pretty much the same for anyone I know. While I'm sure most people would agree that switching to a more open IM system would be a good idea, most people would also choose having more people available to them over a more "open" solution. Thus, the only hope is to get every single person using AIM to switch at once. Or, something even more radical and amazing, making AIM interoperable with other IM services.

      --

      Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
  5. True interoperability by RobinH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  6. This is explained in the article... by eNonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...which says:
    Kathy McKiernan, an AOL spokeswoman, said Wednesday that the company thought its resources were better devoted to "alternatives that are available to us now such as the hosted IM relationship with Apple."

    Under that arrangement, Apple wrote the software and AOL will handle the message transmissions. AOL developed a way for users on iChat to claim usernames already taken on AOL.
    You can bet that Apple paid through the nose for this interoperability. AOL is hoping that others will do the same, again quoth the article,
    Instead, AOL will focus on letting companies offer their own instant messaging services if they contract with AOL to run them.
    It's all about the benjamins.
  7. It isn't... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
  8. AOLs got bigger problems...they should let IM go.. by zerofoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  9. Re:Its their Servers by haplo21112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:How to piss off your programmers... by eNonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Routing a message from MSN-client to MSN-server to AOL-server to AIM-client is a nontrivial task.
    It wouldn't be nontrivial if AOL were to open up their system to the other players. All you have to do is add one more server into the exchange: MSN-client to MSN-server to "OPEN-IM server" to AOL-server to AIM-client. The "OPEN-IM server" could be operated by AOL, or it could be an app run by each existing provider to translate messages to and from AOL/AIM.

    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.
  11. Mind Share is the real issue. by haplo21112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.