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."

Comments

Even Microsoft don't do that

[keesh]

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?

Re:Even Microsoft don't do that

[fferreres]

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

What I fail to understand is . . .

[acceleriter]

. . . 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."

Re:What I fail to understand is . . .

[ZxCv]

...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.

This is explained in the article...

[eNonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:Its their Servers

[haplo21112]

Humm seems like it pretty much is...

Think of AOL as AT&T...what if they didn't interoperate with MCI...or Britsh Telecomm

Re:A standard interface?

[arkanes]

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.