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?
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.
...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.
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
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.
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.
...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;