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?
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
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.
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.
It exists - Jabber.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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