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."
So the Gaim is over?
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!
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
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!
It was one of the conditions of the merger of AOL and TW. They were only allowed to merge if they met certain conditions (anti-monopoly measures), one of which was allowing interoperability with other IM clients.
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
...tell the world that you think a trivial task that others have already done is too difficult for your own employees to do.
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.
The story is also up at The Register
?
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?
> I use AIM, Yahoo Instant Messenger, and ICQ
In that case, I suggest you take a look at Trillian, which is a client for all of the above (as well as MSN and IRC) in a single program.
Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
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?
Yes, Microsoft have actually been very supportive of the Trillian software effort. (Which faintly boggles the mind.) Yahoo hasn't tried any antagonizing tactics that I've heard about (though their servers/protocol are badly-behaved enough that sometimes you don't NEED to block). Even ICQ, which is also owned by AOL, hasn't blocked Trillian.
The thing is, AIM and ICQ are by far the two biggest IM networks, and AIM is larger than ICQ by a fair amount (especially since ICQ has lost users to AIM and MSN as the client becomes more and more bloated). When AOL bought ICQ and already owned AIM, there were a lot of concerns about them getting a monopoly on instant messaging. Especially as AOL has spoken about merging ICQ and AIM into one network; they already are moving closer and closer together and using the same login servers.
When AOL and Time Warner wanted to merge, they were told to make their instant messaging network open to interoperability. AOL agreed to do this, and laid down a timeline of what they planned to do with AIM/ICQ. Among those things was 'real time video chat for broadband links'. So the FCC said 'great, fine, you have to have your servers interoperable before you hit that milestone.' AOL agreed, and then cheerily decided not to aim for that milestone.
Now, they've continued to claim that projects like Trillian 'put their users at risk' because unauthorized software connecting to the AIM networks could be hacking to steal user information. (If you can get AOL user information over the AIM protocol, I'd say they have some more serious problems than Trillian and EveryBuddy.) Or to 'spam' people (which is ironic, because ICQ - which they don't care about clients connecting to - has far more spam than I've ever seen on AIM).
So, yes...it's their servers, and their protocol. But on the other hand, they've deliberately snubbed the FCC decision, and their justifications for kicking third-party software off are fairly weak. (Ironically, I actually wouldn't object if they just came out and said 'well, we want to keep a monopoly on IM, and these are our servers'. Claiming that EveryBuddy, Jabber, Fire and Trillian are written by 'hackers' who want to compromise the AOL network to gain user information -- when they say the 'user information' being gained is by having this software trick the user into entering their password -- is just unethical spin-doctoring.)
--Rachel
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?
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?
Actually that's not quite right.
They were permitted to merge, and the AIM server-to-server (noting that the FCC requires it to be server-to-server) interoperability was not an issue for the merge, EXCEPT that they were NOT allowed to provide realtime video messaging over their newly aquired cable modem networks UNTIL they had enabled that interoperability with either open published standards OR connections with three other IM networks.
They have recently stated that they are pursuing other approaches to the interoperability aside from server-to-server because there are 'key issues' with that approach. This goes against the FCC decision (assuming they provide the video messaging) if they use anything other than server-to-server AND they enable video messaging, and there may well be real valid reasons for the issues with server-to-server, although I can't see them.
Z.
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...
Or better yet Vista wich tosses in yahoo and jabber as well.
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.
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
However the AIM gateway commonly causes my jabber server to crash.
Run it as a separate jabber service and then wrap that so that when it crashes it restarts. I haven't had the crash problem but the biggest joy of having an aim-t for your (small) jabber server is that it is highly unlikely that AOL will block you.
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.
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.
Not true. See here. This is a common misconception people around here have.
As they specifically pointed out in the article, the kind of interoperability they're talking about isn't an "all in one" IM solution, which still requires you to create multiple accounts for each IM vendor. Instead, they mean allowing users from other networks to communicate directly with AIM users. So, you have a Yahoo account and I have AIM, you can add me directly as a contact, and msg me without signing up for AIM.
Although your post, and others, are pointing out that AOL has been hostile to programs like gaim, Imici, Jabber, Trillian, etc., I believe that this is different from what AOL is being mandated to do. Now, granted, AOL should be nicer to all of these programs that provide us with at least the possibility of using other clients, but unfortunately it doesn't sound like that's something that's being made required of them.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
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"
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 :)
FYI, Trillian does allow use of Yahoo! IM as well, though not Jabber.
I think I'll stop here.
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?
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.
1. Trillian is not second rate.
2. YIM and MSN are not second rate either.
3. They do not have to have their users passwords floating around for them to develop some sort of gateway so that their users can chat with MSN, YIM, ICQ, or Jabber users.
4. There are major limitations to TOC. That's why everybody gravitates towards using OSCAR. You can't write a client in TOC and take advantage of buddy icons, file transfer, and several other RVOUS actions.
5. TOC still requires a username and password, so that further invalidates your username and password argument.
6. I highly doubt that if someone wrote a popular IM client that used the TOC protocol to connect to AOL's servers, that AOL still wouldn't do something to block it.
I definately agree with the original post that said the AIM client is buggy. It works a LOT better on Win2k, but on older Windows versions it's terrible. When I started college, I ran AIM + ICQ 24/7. I'd have to reboot on average every 3 days. Then when I stopped running AIM, my average uptime become a month, with the main cause of reboots being a software install or configuration change. Also, Netscape 4.x crashes a lot more often if AIM is running.
The damn program leaks GDI resources like hell. I really don't think it frees the memory for banner ads. It's obvious if you leave it idle long enough (the older your Windows version, the less GDI resources, so the sooner it shows. Win3.11 was really painful about htis), as the banner ads will suddenly stop showing, and you'll get a gap in the buddly list window where the ads should be. Try opening new windows, and they'll be missing UI objects. It's all downhill from there until you restart Windows.
On Win2k, I've found AIM ok, although sometimes it likes to crash when my I'm using wireless networking and lose the signal.
Right, and that is why I implemented a company wide phase out of Trillian when we standardised on jabber for all internal messaging 2 weeks ago.
There is a lot to be said for having control of your own messaging server.
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.
AIM is really popular in the US. Everywhere else, everybody uses ICQ. The US just likes to be different...
I did see someone use Yahoo messenger once a few years ago. Never saw an MSN user.
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.
You've only tried GAIM's ICQ support, and it's lacking a bunch of useless extras, ergo all the other protocols under GAIM also suck? You're an idiot.
-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.
Trillian "kinda runs" with the wine stuff from Codeweavers.
The graphics are screwed up in the themes, but the functionality is there.
It's not useless extras I'm complaining about. It's basic features. Ever notice how instant messangers are used at college? Away messsages are how you track people down. So if they don't work, then the client sucks.
If you send a URL to a GAIM user, it silently drops it. That's something worth complaining about.
If a client supports a minimum set of features in its two target networks (ICQ & AIM use the same protocol, hence the higher treatment of them), then it's usually very safe to say the protocols with lower priority aren't as good.
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/
for 1, yes it is. simply because they had to "cheat" to do it. quite frankly, if it was reverse engineered, its bound to have flaws. flaws are the primary concern for actual AOL users in that they could be comprimised.
...
1. Reverse Engineering is not cheating. Quite frankly, there are likely flaws in the AIM client when they implemented their own protocol. I don't understand what compromise AOL users fear in this regard. Do they fear that the Trillian client is going to send their username and password in email to some cracker somewhere?
for 2, they aren't part of the issue so move on.
2. Wrong. They are part of the issue. They tried to interoperate years ago and were filtered out.
for 3, "They do not..." who is they? clear this up. i can't respond to this sort of ambiguity.
3. "They" = "AOL". As in "*AOL* does not have to have their users passwords floating around for them to develop some sort of gateway so that their users can chat with MSN, YIM, ICQ, or Jabber users."
for 4, we are talking about chat here. if you have some serious fetish with buddy icons, i'm sorry. but they are a waste of animation most of the time.
4. Actually, TOC doesn't allow any of the RVOUS actions. Buddy icons and FILE TRANSFER are just the first two that come to mind. There are more out there. Maybe you should look them up. Plenty of people have reversed engineered Oscar and published the specs out there.
for 5, yes it has limitations, but i'm willing to bet that if you really wanted to put in the effort you could create your own version of direct connect and what not yourself.
5. My '5' had to do with usernames and passwords. I don't know what crack you're smoking, but you really should share.
BTW, while we're on the subject, direct connect is an Oscar RVOUS action. To develop your own TOC version would make your client unable to connect with other AIM clients.
for 6, this is remarkably unfounded. thats cute that you can come up with this remark on your own, but my bet lies on that if you obey the lisence its released under, you'll be fine.
6. Remarkably unfounded? You are smoking crack! Look at the list of services that they've already denied access to their servers.
As far as the license is concerned. On August 13 1999, PCWeek published a story talking about how AOL had pulled the TOC protocol and libraries, and was stonewalling the open source community. At that time Yahoo's instant messenger stopped working, they were using TOC.
"We did not intend to allow anyone to take this code to run instant messaging services over AOL's network," said Tricia Primrose, an AOL spokeswoman in Dulles, Va.
this can actually be summed up rather simply. if you need all the features, use aim or aol. quit crying because you want to use their toys for free.
It's a shame that I want AOL to get on the ball and play fair with everybody else, isn't it? That I should expect Jabber users to be able to IM AOL users, and MSN users to be able to IM YIM users. A shame
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
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
Server-to-server is really hard, for a number of reasons: other networks don't have exactly same features or underlying concepts, routing between networks and back is tricky to do without introducing the possibility of loops, and it's hard to nail down exactly what everybody's server protocol is going to be forever.
People have problems with email-usenet gateways, and those are far more similar than IM networks. IRC, which was even designed for interoperability, is a number of detatched networks.
In any case, server-to-server requires that the server on the other end be interested in talking to you. The other networks aren't required to interoperate and they probably don't care; people get MSN accounts even if they have AIM accounts, so there's no motivation for MSN to constrain their servers to work with the AIM ones.
GAIM doesn't drop URLs with most protocols. The AOL protocols work perfectly with it. The other protocols are plug-in based. So if you have a problem with it, you can write your own. The work that has been done so far is open source after all.
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.
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?
My company has installed Sametime on nearly 75,000 desktops and it is rapidly becoming the standard means of communication. We've customized the code the ensure logging and multi channels, but it IS the best app we've deployed in house in a long time. Sametime is interoperable with AIM by default, though our firewall blocks it. I use Jabber and it logs into ICQ, and Yahoo messenger for me, and with its much more flexible port requirments it can be mapped thru the fire wall :)
If AOL is stupid enough to lock themselves off from the rest of the world so be it. Let them go the way of the dinosaur. Here in northern califonia, eastbay I hear nothing but complaints as their number of pops has shrunk dramatically in the last 2 months, even die-hard clueless Mom AOL'ers will get fed up with busy signals QUICKLY.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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.
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.
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
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
The thing I was refferring to are the security holes, not necessarily it's stability. I run little proxy/filter to protect my AIM client. Last time I checked there were several ways to remote crash it. Most have been fixed, but a lot of them were boneheaded buffer overflows. I haven't tried to attack it lately, but I wonder what other surprises are in there. I would just like a 3rd party client that would let me connect to AOL, MSN, and Y!, maintain 1 buddy list of all these, and disable features I don't want (the security holes usually show up in the "features" I never use.)
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
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