The Business of Instant Messaging

willll writes "The Washington Post is running a story about how AOL plans to make money from Instant Messaging, one of the few successes in recent times for AOL. This article includes plans for corporate versions of AIM as well as discussion on some of the state on instant messaging."

Comments

What about the others?

[Lurgen]

First post and all, but....

I have successfully implemented IM at a number of large organisations here in Australia.

Microsoft decided ages ago to start charging for the service with the release of Titanium (Exchange 2003), so it's hardly news that IM can be profitable.

Good to hear other vendors are getting involved, but until AOL pull their act together in terms of marketing and security, no corporate IT department in it's right mind would deploy their stuff.

Re:What about the others?

[Anonymous Coward]

what about ibm (lotus whatever) sametime stuff? its been around before this...

Re:What about the others?

[Anonymous Coward]

> what about ibm (lotus whatever) sametime stuff?
> its been around before this...

Thanks for remembering us!

http://www.lotus.com/products/lotussametime.nsf/ wd ocs/homepage

We use it at IBM offices around the world and we have "a few" employees.

Re:What about the others?

[zurab]

... until AOL pull their act together in terms of marketing and security, no corporate IT department in it's right mind would deploy their stuff.

You don't mean "marketing and security", what you really mean is "marketing the security"; MS has been very successful at the latter.

Re:What about the others?

[packeteer]

the anti-page-widening-troll filter butchered the link. Click here if you want it to work. I mean no offense but if you want to se an impression posting broken URL's to weboards wont help. I will assume your new to slashdot as you are an AC and seem to not understand. If you are truly new yet you seem like a regular geek then... what the hell man where have you been? you have missed some sweet ass trolling and karma whoring going on...

Re:What about the others?

[thanuk]

The great benefit of IM is that it is not controlled by the IT dept.

There's no requirement to justify why it has to be installed, no limitations on whom you can talk to, no costs in managing it (if the user can't manage it they can't use it), no licenses to purchase. The same account works at home and at work.

Sure, IT depts love the opportunity to manage it - but this is much more about budget increases and power/control than it is about improving the bottom line.

Re:What about the others?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? How is it not controlled by IT? IT installs the OS, all of the software, and controls the routers.

IM has most of the same management issues and potential abuse that e-mail has with users sending each other large files, viruses (virii), etc. so it has the same costs involved with managing it. Also from the corporate perspective, the same account works from home and work only if the company allows its users to connect their IM through an external auth server, which no competent IT department will allow.

Re:What about the others?

[cide1]

I use sametime it at work, where I am now, so that when I'm not reading slashdot, I still have something other than work to take up my time :) I like it, and I'm told it can be tied to the AIM network, but at my company it is internal only. Sametime just seems a little more professional than AIM, no big banner ads, a company wide address book that works, no stupid colors, fonts, buddy icons. I like having the seperation between work and home, as I don't want to talk to friends during the day, and I don't want to talk to coworkers at night.

Re:What about the others?

[thanuk]

Everyone I know using IM is either using software they've installed themselves or was shipped with the OS. In most cases their IT depts either don't know they're running it or are turning a blind eye.

Sure it can be abused, on the other hand it brings huge productivity/efficiency benefits which would be wiped out by the cost of managing it.

ad hoc IT is a nightmare for IT depts but can be very effective for the business e.g. early Mac sales were driven by employees buying DTP setups on expenses because their IT depts wouldn't sanction them

Re:What about the others?

[jonadab]

> There's no requirement to justify why it has to
> be installed

There sure ought to be. IM is *horrible* for
system stability. There's no way I'd approve
it for installation on any system I have to
administer. Especially not on Windows systems.
You've got email, and you've got a phone system,
and you've all got mailboxes: you don't need IM.

I'll support Windows, and I'll even support
junkware like Acrobat Reader and Flash, but I
draw the line at IM. Oh, I don't support Bonzi
Buddy either.

Re:What about the others?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no requirement to justify why it has to be installed

Huh? At my company, and most others I know of, every piece of software a user wants installed has to be justified. Where is this nirvana you speak of?

Re:What about the others?

[Madzen23]

Sounds cool... but my computer loves beer.

Re:What about the others?

[Kefaa]

"There's no way I'd approve it for installation on any system I have to administer."

My organization is spread over the world and must leverage every technology to improve overall customer satisfaction.

We have cell-phones for production support, phones for interaction with peers and email for non-time sensitive information. When I am on a project call, anywhere from 60 to 90 minutes, life does not stop. I can be pinged and ignore it or answer it. The same is said for any of the 30+ people on my IM list. Simplest case, Jim who is not in the meeting knows when "ProjectW" will be done. It comes up in relation to his availability to work on "ProjectX." We can mark it an "action item" or we go on with the meeting and someone pings him for the information. Better communication and collaboration.

When the networking team decided IM was a potential problem, they blocked the ports. That lasted 24 hours before they had created more problems than the potential existed. They recited the reasons we should not have it, how it was dangerous, etc. but no alternatives. The difference was they report to me.

As the IT Director, my rules on IM are simple. Treat it like the phone. Keep it business, block outside messages from people not on your list, and use other means to transfer files of any size about "X". It's a tool, not good or bad. If you misuse it, then the issue is a career development one, not an issue with the tool.

If I come across a little strong it is because I see this time and again. People forgetting the big picture is not IT, it is the service we provide. That their decisions have an impact good and bad on everyone.

If people wish to improve their career dramatically, next time figure how to meet the needs of your customers (which is anyone who needs your help). "No" is not a solution, its a career decision. And remember it is a career decision you are making for everyone in your department.

Re:What about the others?

[jonadab]

> email for non-time sensitive information

If you can't use email for time-sensitive information, there's
something wrong with your setup. email is delivered just as
quickly as IM, and with a good biff you are aware whenever you
get email; the difference is in the behavior of the client,
with regard to how it treats other apps on the system and how
it consumes system resources: most email clients are well-
behaved, but I've never seen a well-behaved IM client.

> They recited the reasons we should not have it, how it was
> dangerous, etc. but no alternatives.

email is flexible enough to do all the things you describe
doing with IM, but it won't crash your system.

Isnt it funny

[stratjakt]

that the most trivial application of the internet is the most profitable?

I mean sending text from peer to peer is pretty much the "hello world" of TCP/IP 101.

Sure the clients are a little more advanced, but the base concept is the same.

Re:Isnt it funny

[SpikeSpiff]

I'll disaggree. I think the value of IM comes from presence, and the magic is in managing buddy lists/availability.

IM is exciting because you can tell who to contact, and whether they are hearing.

Re:Isnt it funny

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost issue is an interesting one too. OSS versions of most IM clients exist, and full OSS solutions for intranet messaging have been around for quite some time. Not only are they simple, free and free, but they work well.

Take into account the commercial difference - not far from me, an adelaide company Stratacor implements IM fixes for internal networks. Not only do they make a decent living from it, but they charge corporations PER MESSAGE SENT. not only do businesses pay to implement an internal network, but they're paying someone else to use their own bandwidth.

It's a good ride if you can get on it :P

Re:Isnt it funny

[Lurgen]

Try using IM in a support environment, where staff don't always have the option of speaking to each other (especially while in a call, or when they are geographically dispersed).

In those situations, IM is really helpful - while taking a call, a tech can run a thought past another staff member, can see if anybody else can reproduce a simple fault, all without interrupting the user.

For those of us in tech support who remember that the user experience is important, little improvements like this can make the difference.

Re:Isnt it funny

[Michael Hunt]

I don't think that the magic of the service is in the 'nuts and bolts,' what goes on under the hood, but the perception and mindshare that successful marketing of a simple concept creates.

If i'm prepared to pay, or have ads shoved down my throat, in order to gain access to a large userbase (all of whom have been sucked in by the same concept,) then it's gonzo marketing at its best.

Ultimately, though, there does have to be some infrastructure present for this sort of application to work. The model is more 'napster' than 'gnutella.'

I find it ironic, though, that Steve Case and his minions are getting rich off 'hello, a/s/l sweetheart' messages and other such shit.

Re:Isnt it funny

[sporty]

His point is, AOL didn't invent something like, mp3, or the merge sort, true type fonts or X11. They took a basic net connection, a little db management for buddy lists and a lot of servers to manage connections. No innovation here.

Re:Isnt it funny

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a dumbass. He never said it wasn't useful. Learn to read.

Re:Isnt it funny

[_ph1ux_]

Yes and more.

Its a great tool *especially* in an IT environment.

But rather than IM I prefer to setup internal IRC. The reason? Bots.

Your bot can learn the things that are common to your IT information environment.

Whats really nice is say you have an agreed upon standard for IT nomenclature etc...

You can the hop on IRC (which not to mention works wonders when your IT staff are geographically dispersed) and type in: PDC01-SITE1 (if that was the name of your PDC for example) and the bot can reply with info -like IP etc..

Or it can make fun of it for you....

The other really valuable thing about it is having IRC for allowing development groups to be able to hop on and ask offline questions (questions that dont require stopping in at an office - or hitting some IT person up in the hallway)....

and yet ANOTHER key feature of all this is - LOGGING.

You can log all your conversations for use in compiling great FAQs - and you can use the bot to this end as well....

Other than this specific use - I never use IRC... but you IM quite a bit for friends.

but IRC for IT - IM for users to user communication.

I would encourage both in any organization, so long as users are aware that all communications are logged on the corporate IM of choice. Whether you setup a policy regarding AIMing and IMing with ppl outside the co is up to you.

Re:Isnt it funny

[FosterSJC]

Reminds me of the "Snood Effect". Also, here. (Search: Why Snood Gets No Respect)

In other words, the real killer apps are simple, addictive, and easily integrate into our current technological life. Tetris did this, (though, admittedly, it was not simple). It does not often happen with non-game applications.

But consider how different the IM you use now is from the one you used 8 years ago. There have been no changes to the essential nature of the app, just additional fru-fru alterations (rich text, away messages).

Thus, the real world-sweeping apps (not viruses) are compact, have one or few purposes, and often fill a hole that was there but unknown. Reminds me vaguely of the free long-distance cell phone revolution.

Re:Isnt it funny

[Moofie]

The question is not whether IM is a killer app. (it is absurdly useful)

The question is is anybody going to be dense enough to pay $zillions to deploy it in a corporate environment?

If they are, they're dumb. Jabber works good. It's not like the Office suite (Excel does stuff for me that OpenOffice just doesn't do yet). IM is simple. It's well understood. And it's been implemnented, Free. (beer speech)

Re:Isnt it funny

[Tokerat]

And it's been implemnented, Free. (beer speech)

Dahshhh egzshackally rrrrrrrrright!

IM in it's current state is primitive. It's like how no one can move off the "desktop/windowing" model, or at least make changes radical enough to begin moving towards another idea (you have to admit, the "desktop" is crowded and protentailly messy and confusing these days). I'm no expert by any means, but integration of AIM into other apps seems like a good idea to me, especially in a tech envroment.

I saw one comment talking about including IM features in an IDE, with CVS lookups of who modified what and direct connections with whiteboarding of the code and everything.

Tell me THAT wouldn't be the most useful thing ever for multiple developers around the world, or better yet, open source collaboration. So if AOL's new package happens to be a library to link against which allows you to integrate their IM features into any app you're developing, well then I do believe they've struck gold.

Re:Isnt it funny

[arivanov]

Did you notice the primary difference between what you wrote about and the AOL like IM?

What you are writing about requires verbal culture and a considerable knowledge of how to use IRC paraphernalia. IRC is by far better and richer then any IM ever invented. But it is its richness which is the problem.

And that is the reason why the click and drag culture will stay with IM.

Re:Isnt it funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Jabber works good. ... Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

Somehow I doubt it, or at least what you're trying to imply. Rocket science isn't the difficult field it's cracked up to be.

Re:Isnt it funny

[Kragg]

That's true. It is certainly a helpful tool when the person you want to speak to isn't next to you.

My company, an IT solution provider, uses IM for the majority of inter-office communications. When you're working on a project with a 50 man team scattered between 3 continents (US, Europe and India (well... Asia. Whatever)), then IM is the only practical solution.

Emails are ok, but you never get proper discourse. Phones are crap because they are expensive and, unless you record them, unlogged. IM is perfect. No need to be too polite, you can ignore it if you're doing something else, or answer immediately and get a quick understanding of the real problem, and make sure your answer is understood (or vice versa).

I've worked with a number of clients in recent years, and more and more of them - even the non-tech-focussed companies - are coming around to the idea that IM is an efficient means of communication. As far as I'm concerned it's an *essential* tool for distributed teams. We couldn't have done half the work we do now without it.

Of course, having said all that, Jabber r00lz.

Re:Isnt it funny

[Trinition]

So why don't you use IM bots, an IM client or server that has ogging, etc.? Both exist (SmartBuddy was a beta version of an AOL IM bot, and Trillian I know at least has client-side logging, and logging could easily be added to the open-source Jabber server).

Re:Isnt it funny

[sql*kitten]

His point is, AOL didn't invent something like, mp3, or the merge sort, true type fonts or X11. They took a basic net connection, a little db management for buddy lists and a lot of servers to manage connections. No innovation here.

Like most techies, you've forgotten that not all innovation is technical. AOL used simple technology to create a service that appealed to millions of people. IRC is probably technically more sophisticated than AIM, but it's remained in a niche. Why is that?

Re:Isnt it funny

[budgenator]

Of course, having said all that, Jabber r00lz. Funny you should say this because the article said "But users of different instant messaging systems cannot communicate readily with each other. AOL has the biggest IM system in the United States, followed by Microsoft and Yahoo." which is what most of the world is going to believe, basicaly AOL FUD.
For me Jabber was easy to install and worked great out of the box, the clients were a little clunky but that was a few years ago, I sure things are much better now.( well linux clients, windows clients worked/looked great.)
Jabber inter-operates with all major services and uses an XML format allowing even programs to communicate even if their IP addresses change.

Re:Isnt it funny

[jedrek]

AIM copied ICQ, which was the first 'real' and popular IM.

Re:Isnt it funny

[Tadu]

But rather than IM I prefer to setup internal IRC. The reason? Bots.

mICQ can react to incoming messages.

and yet ANOTHER key feature of all this is - LOGGING.

mICQ logs all messages. And status changes if you want.

But actually, pretty much all clients do so...

Re:Isnt it funny

[pebs]

AIM copied ICQ, which was the first 'real' and popular IM.

Well, true. But ICQ, though not as technical as IRC, was a little too complicated feature-wise and by design. AIM basically took the same concept and simplified it, taking some of the unnecessary components out and adding something here and there. For example, they removed the ability to send a message to someone who is offline (reducing the burden on their servers). They produced a very simple interface without a ton of options. They made your userid the same as your screenname, rather than making you keep track of a number (I've long forgetten and lost my old ICQ number). They kept your list of friends on their servers, so you didn't have to worry about losing your list.

ICQ tended to be overburdened with its featured, and thus had a lot of bugs, and it was rather unstable under Win95/98. I liked ICQ more at first, but when a lot of my friends using AIM caused me to use it, too, I found its simplicity (after disabling the ads) made it a lot nicer than ICQ. Now I use GAIM, which over the years has evolved into a very nice IM client.

I remember back in the pre-ICQ days, writing scripts to finger all my friends accounts to see if they are online, so that I could send a talk request to them if they were online. I thought about writing software that would maintain a list of online friends. Then ICQ was released which answered my requirements.

Re:Isnt it funny

[_egg]

All of the capabilities you describe are in Jabber:

You can script bots for Jabber in any number of languages... Try perl!
Groupchat/MUC provides the standing discussion channel for remote development groups.
Groupchat/MUC is loggable.

Re:Isnt it funny

[letxa2000]

that the most trivial application of the internet is the most profitable?

No, the most trivial application of the Internet is arguably the most used and most useful. It isn't the most profitable--that's what the whole article is about: How to milk money out of something that virtually no-one is willing to pay for.

At least it seems they're aimed right--they want to try to sell different IM versions to corporations. Whether or not that will be successful remains to be seen; many companies already use IM as-is for free and about the only significant "add-on" could be security; and some independent IM clients already offer SSL encryption anyway. So I'm hard pressed to see where there's any motivation for a company to pay for it. Anything so important or sensitive so as to require SSL probably won't be discussed with a few instant messages anyway.

But it appears they're not stupid enough to want to charge users for what they already have for free. That'd kill IM in a heartbeat I bet.

Re:Isnt it funny

[letxa2000]

AIM basically took the same concept and simplified it, taking some of the unnecessary components out and adding something here and there.

Yeah, like adding advertisements. :( That's why when I was on Windows I always used to use Miranda. Nice, clean, IMing with various protocols in a small, tight package and no ads. Of course, I'm on Linux now: Yeah Kopete!

Re:Isnt it funny

[SCHecklerX]

Yup.

I do this at my company. Using IRC to communicate with my team is highly effective.

I wrote a little perl bot that along with channel control, also has a phone lookup script, an area code locator (where is that incoming call coming from?), and an ip subnet calculator, among other things. It's much more efficient to use the 'bot to look up phone numbers than it is to use the native lotus notes stuff. Even our notes admins go to the 'bot first :)

recently I also started working on a 'chat with the ceo' project. Again, we are using an irc server, and a java IRC client that can be run from a web page, and totally locked down. Mixing this with apache's LDAP authentication module, and we have a way for people to join a moderated chat, using their active directory login (the web server forces an authentication, then SSI is used to fill in the params for the java applet). We have a 'bot that was written to manage the question queue. It's all very cool, actually, and much more flexible than what you could do with sametime, or AOL's corporate server solutions.

Re:Isnt it funny

[letxa2000]

Lucky you. I just tried using Jabber yesterday. There wasn't an rpm for RedHat 7.3 and the Kopete Jabber plug-in crashed when I tried to register a new account. So I eventually downloaded a Windows Jabber client to create an account. It created the account and then immediately crashed--but at least it created the Jabber account. I then went back to Kopete and used the account I had already created. I logged in fine but after spending an hour on it with a contact in California we couldn't get Jabber to consistently report our online/offline status. Sometimes it would, sometimes it wouldn't.

This might be the fault of the clients we were using--I tried the Kopete and GAIM client and he tried the Jabber and GAIM client--but Jabber crashed for me under two different OSs and never worked completely when I finally got it "working" (i.e. not crashing).

In the end, my contact created a bogus hotmail account and we're using MSN plug-ins in Kopete and GAIM, respectively, and it's working fine. It's a shame, I'd love to ditch MSN for Jabber but after an hour of international long distance you just have to say "Screw it, let's use what works."

Re:Isnt it funny

[pebs]

Yeah, like adding advertisements.

True, but they've alway made it very easy to remove:

grep -vU advert aim.odl > noadvert.odl
copy noadvert.odl aim.odl

I've always used GAIM for UNIX/Linux instant messaging. It was kinda buggy in the beginning, but it is really nice these days. GAIM for Windows will be good once they get some of the bugs out of it. Besides GAIM, I haven't tried much else except the standard clients, I'll have to give Kopete a try, it looks pretty smooth.

Re:Isnt it funny

[sporty]

No I haven't.

IRC and various scripts, I remember lice and phoenix, would tell you which of your friends were "online" if you set the prefs.

All AOL did was commercialize it so to speak. They integrated it into AOL and then extended it out onto AIM (or is that the other way around).

Re:Isnt it funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm on XP, using Aim 5.0.29xx and deadaim 3.2.1 and i dont currently see any adds on my buddy list. ad's done ever pop up. even if there were ads on the buddy list (not popup ads) what are you crying about. they dont take up a huge amount of space. last time i remember seeing them they didnt look as though they could possibly be sucking bandwidth either. i dont get some of you people. besides, you criticize aim, but used/use a product that lets you connect to its service. if it really sucks, go to jabber. and dont use the aim plug in. or go to gaim, etc.

Re:Isnt it funny

[_ph1ux_]

hmm never looked at jabber....

but one thing that would be interesting in the logging aspect is if you could script with perl or something that the logging feature ignor all /whisper lines for example.

This would just help in the confidence of the users - knowing that they can make private comments that dont get logged - but all work related convo is recorded for posterity.

Re:Isnt it funny

[hackrobat]

AFAIK IM was invented by Mirabilis with ICQ. ICQ until sometime back had a huge user community but that has been changing. AOL only later acquired ICQ (in 1998?). So, AOL doesn't/shouldn't get credit for innovation in IM.

BTW AOL also has secured a patent.

Re:Isnt it funny

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the Unix "talk" command?

Re:Isnt it funny

[Anonymous Coward]

ICQ (even builds from 5 years ago) is still way more feature rich then any of the clients available from larger software vendors.

AOL-IM and Sametime are the most disappointing of the lot. Since they're based on ICQ yet the neglect to offer any of the desirable features of ICQ. (ie local logging, away messages, email intergration [guess a mailto call is to complicated for AOL/IBM, etc].

Additionally corporations have in there head to expose themselves to more ligation by logging all IM communications. I'm sure they think its a great idea until they get their first supeona on their IM logs.

Re:Isnt it funny

[dolson]

Copied? or bought?

Re:Isnt it funny

[Anonymous Coward]

what about 'winpopup' in windows, that was a great program!
or even 'talk' in linux?

Re:Isnt it funny

[whereiswaldo]

You're totally on my line of thinking as well. I wrote an IM client/server for Windows in about 2 hours. Big deal. Charging for it? Yeah right. That would be like those people who put out "registry tweak" apps and make a quick buck but quickly it's commoditized. No longevity.

Frankly, it sounds like a desperate move on AOL's part.

Kazaa is free P2P. There's no reason people couldn't be swapping instant messages in realtime in addition to files!

Re:Isnt it funny

[Moofie]

Go ahead and design an air-breathing single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicle, then we'll talk.

Eh...

[Lordfly]

Seeing as the advertising revenue has gone down the can in recent months, how can they expect to make money?

Are people willing to pay for instant messaging?

Josh

Re:Eh...

[PepperedApple]

Are people willing to pay for instant messaging?

They're not aiming (sorry for the pun) this at people, they're trying to sell it to companies. Companies would probably be willing to pay for features such as chat history if a substantial amount of business communication is done over IM.

Re:Eh...

[Elbereth]

I would be willing to pay $25 for a commercial instant messaging program. For backwards compatability, it should probably implement AIM/ICQ or Yahoo suport.

I'm not talking about Trillian Pro here.

I'm talking about a professionally written program that supports both UNIX and Win32 (using QT, perhaps), doesn't crash every few hours (WTF is up with all the crappy IM clients that crash more than Win 3.1?), implements REAL features, has technical support (for those luser friends of mine who can't figure out how to install AIM, even when I talk them through it), and doesn't use ads or spyware.

Here are the features I want:

• Cryptography support. Read my history of comments and you'll find out that I usually say that I have nothing to hide. That's true, and I stand by my assertion that the public doesn't give a fuck about cryptography. However, if I could cryptographically sign my IM history, people couldn't weasel out when I cut 'n' pasted their words back to them (yes, I really am that petty; all New Yorkers live to say, "I told you so!"). Also, giving those paranoid EFF guys the option to use cryptography would go far towards getting UNIX adoption of the IM client.
  
• Stability. I said it once earlier, and I'll say it again. WTF is up with all these IM clients crashing constantly? Are they written by 14 year olds working in their spare time?! Geez. I hate crappy Windows software. Unfortunately, that's most of the Win32 net apps. I stopped using ICQ a few years ago because they didn't care how often the client crashed, as long as it had a dozen new features in every beta release. This is not how software in the real world is designed! Okay, this is not how software in the real world should be designed.
  
• It should look nice and have a cool GUI. Blech. I hate the interfaces in most IM clients. They look like crap. ICQ has too many useless features to navigate through, Yahoo looks even uglier than a GTK program, and... well... let's not even touch AIM or MSN, which actually have ADS embedded in the client! Argh. Talk about user hostile!
  
• It should be IM client, and nothing else. Do one thing, and do it well. That means no creeping featurism, like in ICQ. Webcam support is okay. So is cell phone support. But that's about my limit.
  
• Portability. Obviously. I want to use it on my PowerMac, Linux PC, and Alpha (R.I.P. DEC). Oh yeah. And Win32.
  
• Zero tolerance policy on SPAM. No bots. No porn advertisements. Nothing. I'm pretty sure I can detect this stuff and block it, so why can't Yahoo or ICQ? We're not talking about sophisticated AI here. I hate that crap.
  
• Support for modules. Make a bare-bones IM client, then implement stuff like webcams and SMS messaging as modules. Why doesn't everyone do this? Probably because it sounds like something a 14 year old hobbyist can't do! Argh. Crappy win32 software. I hate it.
  
• An open protocol specification. I'm not afraid of people cloning my app. If they can do a better job writing an IM client, then my product rightfully deserves to lose market share. I welcome the challenge of competition. Why are AOL/ICQ, Yahoo, MSN, etc so scared of competition? Is it because their IM client sucks? Hmmm. Even better yet, make it an official RFC. I suppose I'm willing to be flexible on this point, because corporate America is so dumb about adopting open software.
  
• A real revenue model, not based on ads or spyware. If this necessitates a subscription model, then so be it. Obviously, I dislike that option, but I'd rather pay $5/month than have to constantly run Ad Aware, to see if any new spyware has been installed on my PCs.
  
• A shiny retail box. I couldn't care less about this crap, but some of my friends want to go to CompUSA (blech) to buy their software, rather than download it. No, I don't understand it, either. But in order to get these dorks to use the IM client, it's got to be in retail stores.
  

I've come to the conclusion that I must write this software myself. Nobody else is going to implement a portable, spyware and ad free IM client that doesn't constantly crash.

If someone beats me to it, I guess I'll pony up my cash. But I'm sort of hoping to get a free ride on my own protocol specification.

And please don't suggest Trillian Pro. Thank you.

Re:Eh...

[Chester K]

Are people willing to pay for instant messaging?

Absolutely. We run the little-known (and unsupported) ICQ Groupware server to provide IM capabilities for our office of 60 people. Unfortunately, we're starting to push it past its capabilities, and we'd be willing to pay for a good IM server.

I've looked briefly into Jabber, but none of the documentation seems very mature, jabberd doesn't appear to provide some of the user management features we want and makes only vague references to other jabber servers that might provide different features. As much as I'd love using an open source solution for the job, I can't justify spending my (expensive) time trying to track down how to get Jabber to do what we want when we can just buy an out-of-the-box solution for cheaper.

Re:Eh...

[gordyf]

What's wrong with Trillian Pro?

It's modular, looks nice (well, the default skin is a bit gaudy, but there are perfectly normal skins available), doesn't crash, doesn't use loads of memory, makes an effort to support encryption (although it doesn't sign your logs), keeps the logs in a straight text file (stupid ICQ database! ugh!), keeps all its settings in its own .ini file (no registry crap), keeps your contact list in an .xml file...

What's there not to like?

Re:Eh...

[bytesmythe]

Have you heard of jabber?

Cryptography support.

Servers currently support SSL, and future versions will allow end-to-end encryption of the conversation itself.

Stability.

There are many different jabber clients. Some are more stable than others. Right now, I use Psi, which hasn't crashed on me once.

It should look nice and have a cool GUI.

Again, lots of different clients. I think Psi's GUI is nice. It certainly isn't as crufty as ICQ. But YMMV on this one.

It should be IM client, and nothing else.

Again, lots of clients to choose from. I don't know what kinds of features they may offer, but I'm sure there's bound to be one suited to you.

Portability.

Psi is written against QT and runs on Windows and linux. Not sure about other platforms, but I know there are Java clients out there that should run on nearly anything.

Zero tolerance policy on SPAM.

This would be up to the individual jabber server. The only thing I really got spam with is ICQ, though, which is why I don't use it. I don't get AIM spam since I stopped accepting messages from people not on my buddy list.

Support for modules.

This I'm not completely sure about. I know the SSL stuff for Psi is a drop in module. You just put the DLL (or .so if using linux) in the program's directory, and when you start back up, you have SSL available. An open protocol specification.

The jabber protocol is completely open and 100% free. Anyone who wants is able to not only write their own client, but also their own server. Anyone can download the reference server code and run their own, too. It's very nice.

A real revenue model, not based on ads or spyware.

How about just free?

A shiny retail box.

Can't help ya there.

Jabber apparently stacks up pretty well. :)

Re:Eh...

[cbreaker]

Trillian is very good. I'm hoping for a Linux version, although it doesn't seem to be a priority for them.

It works very well, it's lightweight, I've never had it crash on me. It supports AIM/ICQ/MSN/Y!/IRC all in one buddy list.

There's also some very nice skins that make it sleek.

I'm not sure what you mean by "We need a professionally written.." Trillian isn't professionally written? What proof of that do you have? In fact, what does that mean?

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to like Jabber until I try and use it for more than 10 minutes at a time and whatever server I'm on, the connection over transports always fuctuates. I've tried many different servers, namely charente.de (now is a-message.de), jabber.org, rhymbox.com (which their website has the best client IMO, AIM-style as opposed to email box style ala WinJab), timic.com (where RhymBox's client is from) and more listed at http://www.jabber.org/user/publicservers.php . They work fine for 10 minutes and then magically everyone on my list goes offline.

I love Jabbers idea but something in the implentation never keeps me as a constant user. I just started RhymBox up at went to rhymbox.com and we'll see how it does overnight. I will try out Psi as well, it's downloading now.

Re:Eh...

[prepp]

Sonork is the one you might want to look at, sonork.com

send me a draft of the features you're looking for and i'll try to squeeze them into modules for the client/s.
We're working on the new clients for v.2

mail goes to robert +at+ beunited period org

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

You make several good points but this response is to your anti-14 year old programmer comments.

I have been programming for win/win32 since i was around 12.
Yes my first few apps were horrible, but they were for personal use and fun.

I released my first shareware program when I was 14, it sold well, it was designed well, looked professional, was well tested and had no major bugs or problems. I wrote several more freeware/shareware programs in my 14/15/16 year old era. In fact, I use several of those programs, including my first shareware program in my resume. I know several programmers who are in their 30s, 40s, maybe older who write horrible code, buggy, sloppy, inefficient, bad UI design etc. I also know a lot of younger programmers who write great software.

I think it is unfair to assume all bad programs were written by 14 year olds.

Just call them what they really are, bad programmers. Or just call them VBers :)

Re:Eh...

[_ph1ux_]

and I say to AOL - IRC is free....

And with Bots - a lot more intelligent....

does trillian IRC?

Re:Eh...

[Elbereth]

My big problem is that Trillian Pro isn't portable. I can't run it on my Linux PC, and I certainly can't run it on my DEC Alpha. I'd really, really like to be able to do that.

The second problem is that Trillian Pro only adopts other protocols, crashing or not working when the protocol changes. That's not their fault. But I don't want to have to constantly upgrade Trillian whenever someone else changes their protocol specification. I'd like for them to implement an open protocol in addition to the legacy protocols. Once the open protocol acheives critical mass, the legacy protocols can be abandoned.

My third problem is that Trillian went from being a hobbyist effort to a commercial product. It shows. Instead of a dialogue popping up saying, "I'm sorry, but the AIM protocol has been changed. This requires an update to the AIM module. Click here to update this module now.", I get a crash. "Huh," I say to myself. "I'll just start it up again, and see if it happens again." Yep. It silently crashes. So, I decide to go to www.trillian.cc and download a newer version. That fixed it. But what if I was a computer illiterate person who had no idea what was wrong? This is not professionally written software.

My last problem is that Trillian isn't a real company -- who do you call for technical support? Who do you contact for site licenses, and how much do they cost? Do they sell corporate versions that are customizable?

Like I said, Trillian isn't really what I'm looking for. It sounds like it, at first, but then you realize it's just another hobbyist Win32 program that's trying to become commercial. I don't want that. I want something that has been designed from the start to be user friendly, easy to use, and cuddles the user. I don't need this, but my friends do. They can't handle it when a Win32 program crashes back to the desktop.

But you do make some good points.

Re:Eh...

[dextr0us]

Trillian patched that bug that has been causing aim connectivity to crash since 2/11/03. go to ceruleanstudios.com or download.com for more info.

Re:Eh...

[Elbereth]

I've heard of Jabber, but I have no experience with it. I've been meaning to check it out (especially now that I'm thinking about trying to reinvent the wheel), but I always get side-tracked with something else.

Thanks for the suggestion. It could be very popular with Win32 users if someone sold support and a retail box. If some (most?) of the money went back to the Jabber developers, this could be a very mutually beneficial arrangement. Maybe the Jabber developers could even get hired by this company.

Well, anyways, I'm just trying to come up with ideas. I want to move my friends over to a better IM client, but they're all on Win32, and there's no way they'd ever switch to Linux or MacOS X. I need for them to have a slick, easy Win32 client.

Re:Eh...

[Elbereth]

You're right, of course, and some of my friends and I did the same thing... but none of us were good enough to pull off what you did. Ahhh, the good old days. Wait. Ahhhh, the bad old days. That's better.

I didn't mean that as flamebait, but I think I'm incapable of writing anything else once I see that big Slashdot banner on my screen. It compels me. It tells me to do things. I try to resist, but I'm just not strong enough! Damn that banner! Damn it to hell!

Re:Eh...

[Blackknight]

There is a Windows version of GAIM. http://gaim.sourceforge.net. It isn't a commercial product, but it supports all the IM systems using plugins, and it's never crashed on me.

I think using wingaim with your own jabber server would be a good solution if you want to have your own messenging solution. My company uses jabber with the linux version of gaim to send out server notices and other alarms.

Re:Eh...

[MCZapf]

However, if I could cryptographically sign my IM history, people couldn't weasel out when I cut 'n' pasted their words back to them (yes, I really am that petty; all New Yorkers live to say, "I told you so!").

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you sign your IM history, it doesn't prove a darn thing about what other people have said to you. In order to do that, you'd have to get them to sign their messages.

Re:Eh...

[jtriska]

I totally agree with you, and would support you if you have the skills necessary to roll out your own IM protocol with Client/Server. Someone has to do it.

If you think aim is ugly though, check out the relatively new program AIMutation It skins AIM and will soon have many other features such as logging and tabbed IM'ing.

A shot of a sample skin I'm currently working on for it can be found at http://users.mcleodusa.net/w/wtriska/sharpaim_ss3. jpg

If you do feel so inspired (or sick of current IM solutions) to develop your own, note that I'd be more than willing to help out in design, if only for experience. :) jtriska @ mcleodusa.net

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the Miranda IM client then? Open source and (almost) completely modular

Re:Eh...

[nemesisj]

Hmmm...i've been using Trillian for almost a year now, and I've never had it crash once because of a protocol change. In fact, I don't even think I've ever updated the program once. Maybe this kind of crashing when protocols were changing was more of a fixture of the past?

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure he's fine with that.

Re:Eh...

[Phroggy]

For backwards compatability, it should probably implement AIM/ICQ or Yahoo suport.

Yeah, and AOL does NOT want you doing that, because they want you to use their client, with their ad banners. There are two AIM protocols, TOC (text-based, documented, limited functionality) and OSCAR (binary, undocumented, reverse-engineered). AOL says using TOC is fine, but you're not supposed to use OSCAR. TOC doesn't let you do things like change your password. Last I heard AOL was exploiting a buffer overflow in their own client to make it return a particular hashed value back to the server, and if the server didn't get the correct response it would kick you offline - so, it was impossible for 3rd-party apps to use OSCAR. Obviously Gaim uses OSCAR now, so they must have backed off.

Cryptography support.

Can't encrypt messages if you want to chat with anyone who doesn't use your software. AIM for Mac OS X encrypts log files. Not sure how you'd sign log files in a useful way, since I only ever want to copy & paste an excerpt, not the whole log - but copy & paste is enough to satisfy anyone I talk to that the conversation really took place.

Stability.

See above - one reason they crash so much is because they're always trying to stay one step ahead of AOL, which is always trying to get rid of them. And I was told once that the Gaim code is a tangled mess of spaghetti, but that was a long time ago.

It should be IM client, and nothing else. Do one thing, and do it well.

Some of the features they add are actually useful, but nobody knew just how useful they'd be until they were implemented. Personally a stock ticker is a retarded thing to put in an IM client, but things like webcam & voice chat support are cool ideas.

Portability.

I agree here - why is this so hard? If only Apple had released Cocoa (YellowBox) for win32 and *nix, and everybody started using that. Or if only Qt was free on win32. Or whatever.

Zero tolerance policy on SPAM.

It amazes me that AOL hasn't caught onto this, after so many years of abuse.

Support for modules.

Might be hard to develop generic module support if you have no idea what kinds of modules might be created. Which feature enhancements need what functionality? Some Apache modules make you patch the source to install them, because if it were strictly a module the functionality wouldn't be available.

Why are AOL/ICQ, Yahoo, MSN, etc so scared of competition?

Banner ads.

Even better yet, make it an official RFC.

Nobody took it seriously when they tried.

A real revenue model, not based on ads or spyware.

How many people will pay money for an IM client, when there are so many free ones available? How much would they be willing to pay? Are these two numbers multiplied together anywhere near the cost of operating the service, let alone developing it?

I've come to the conclusion that I must write this software myself. Nobody else is going to implement a portable, spyware and ad free IM client that doesn't constantly crash.

Please do! I'd like to see what you can come up with. Make sure you release a Mac OS X version - you did mention portability. :-)

Re:Eh...

[BusDriver]

May I instead suggest Miranda for ICQ?

By default it's bare bones basic. You can add all the functionality you want with plugins. It's very stable (though some plugins can cause crashes)
Plugins are also available for AIM, Yahoo and MSN if you desire.
Win32 only though. But I find licq (the latest version) to be very stable for *nix.

Miranda:
http://miranda-icq.sf.net

Licq:
http://www.licq.org

Re:Eh...

[Moofie]

It didn't crash on me, but there were about three months there where I couldn't talk to half my contacts because of the ICQ2GO bug.

That sucked, and in a product I paid for, it was not acceptable.

Was it Trillian's fault? No. But they needed to show the sort of rapid update capacity I saw last year (where the bugs would be patched before I noticed them), rather than waiting.

And wondering.

And waiting.

I love Trillian. It's supacool. But there's no way I would run a business on it.

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I started using Trillian less than a week ago as a replacement for AIM.

I'm on WinXp, and the first time I started Trillian up, it crashed. Restart, crash. Repeat once more.

I went to the web page, found the patch, and applied it. Since then everything's been working fine.

Of course, there are some significant bugs, err, issues in Trillian. One I've noticed is taht in order for any changes to preferences or similar functions to be saved, you have to exit the program. Manually.

If Windows crashes, or if you simply hit shut down, preferences revert to the last save. This sucks, especially when you don't realizse it and have to go back and reconfigure everything several times.

Re:Eh...

[IamTheRealMike]

Have you heard of jabber?

Or perhaps more helpfully, Jabber Inc, who provide all the support and stability you need for corporate IM.

Again, lots of different clients. I think Psi's GUI is nice. It certainly isn't as crufty as ICQ. But YMMV on this one.

Check out RhymBox. It's one of the coolest looking clients around, and Seb is willing to do corporate customisation - for a price of course ;) Meanwhile I'm working on getting it to run on Linux via Wine.

Re:Eh...

[Jedi Alec]

It does, sort of :/ Basic functionality, a separate window for each channel, etc.

Re:Eh...

[Ploum]

I try rhymbox but it's really "heavy"...

Another really bad thing about rhymbox : you MUST have Internet Explorer 5.5 or 6 ! ! (Sorry, but I don't have this thing on my XP box, nor on my debian box ;) )

But what I like with jabber is that you can choose your client. You like rhymbox ? Use it ! I can chat with you with Psi and that's very cool ! Please try to forget this MSN thing...

Re:Eh...

[Ploum]

Trillian is cool, but no so cool as Jabber ;)

With trillian, you have in one program 4 clients. With jabber, you have only one client :) I think people with more than one IM must try Jabber...

You can choose your client, you can have a lot of features, you can make your own jabber server (really useful if you have a big LAN).

Isn't stupid that, in a LAN, when 2 people want to chat, messages are send over the whole world ! (MSN, AOL or ICQ server)
With jabber you can avoid that !
(you can also use pgp encryption and so one...)

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out IBM Lotus Sametime.

Re:Eh...

[pheede]

From the latest news bulletin on the Trillian website.. Note number one on the list.

Two new patches are now available. These will supersede all other patches for 0.74 and 1.0, so you will only need these files.

These patches include several changes to the AIM and ICQ engines within Trillian:

1. Fixes the AIM connectivity crash that started on 02/11/2003.
2. Adds ICQ2Go support.
3. Fixes the issues with AOL 8.0 and Trillian.

Update: If you downloaded 0.74 Patch C and are experiencing connection difficulties, please download the newest 0.74 Patch D below.

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Vague references"?
http://www.jabber.org/admin/serverli st.php

Re:Eh...

[budgenator]

and it interoperates one friend on MSN, no problem, one friend on Yahoo no problem, one friend on AOL usualy not a problem. and you can set up a conference between all of them a let them think your a freaken genius.

win32 clients for jabber were more polished than the Linux clients when I checked a few years ago.

Re:Eh...

[Daytona955i]

I haven't used Jabber in a while simply because of this server issue (and none of my friends use it and convincing them can be hard). However, I believe it is due to the fact that these servers aren't stable. In a corporate setting however, the company can run the server. A company could throw a few servers up (depending on it's size) and it would have it's own IM service. However, as we have seen with linux, many companies are slow to adopt open source technology. However, perhaps something like Jabber would be a good place to start. An IT department could start up a few servers, use it for the tech department and then once it's up and running propose to the pointy haiired bosses that it can be a tool that everyone can use. I don't know if this would work but I think it's worth a shot... Anyone already done something similar?
-Chris

Re:Eh...

[Greg Hewgill]

It could be very popular with Win32 users if someone sold support and a retail box.

See jabber.com for a commercial company selling service and support for jabber.

Re:Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the poster of the grandparent message.

I fully agree with the idea it's a server issue, not much incentive to maintain something that the admin pays for but not the user.

I was actually trying to get a server off the ground here at college because teachers are notorious for not checking email. I had this idealistic plan to hold help sessions over Jabber but I didn't take into account the immense work I'd have to do.

Re:Eh...

[strick]

>keeps the logs in a straight text file

Trillian rocks. The logging feature is the greatest thing to happen to my IM usage. I send URLs via IM all the time and promptly forget them. Weeks later I need to recall and now that is very easy. I have accounts with AOL, Yahoo, MSN, ICQ and even use it for IRC now and then. (I'd love to set up a socks IM gateway on my linux box with logging features so I could have a single log with all my IM history regardless of client/computer used.)

The only thing missing is jabber support. And that is a biggie.

I compiled and set up a jabber server on my linux box from scratch, but it appears that setting up transports for the other IM is a big time sink. So, switching to a jabber client as my IM gateway doesn't appear to be in the cards at the moment.

Trillian does what I need beautifully. I paid for the pro version. If something better comes along I will switch.

Re:Eh...

[Sloppy]

Cryptography support.

Servers currently support SSL, and future versions will allow end-to-end encryption of the conversation itself.

It's here today, with PGP/GPG. I have used jarl+gpg to interact with a coworker who was using winjab+pgp. Different tools, but one standard, so it works.

The nice thing about PGP-based solutions, is that you can really know there's no MitM, unlike the case with SSL, where the end-user of a tool typically has no idea what (or if) certs are being checked.

Re:Eh...

[hackrobat]

It should look nice and have a cool GUI. Blech. I hate the interfaces in most IM clients. They look like crap. ICQ has too many useless features to navigate through, Yahoo looks even uglier than a GTK program, and... well... let's not even touch AIM or MSN, which actually have ADS embedded in the client! Argh. Talk about user hostile!

So what IM are you using? This?

Re:Eh...

[sean.peters]

Probably the most widespread commercial IM product is IBM's Lotus SameTime. It offers industrial strength IM with good security, etc.

Note that I have no relationship w/ IBM except as a customer.

Sean

Re:Eh...

[infiniti99]

Definitely look into Jabber. The IETF recently got involved with it, and the official protocol name will be "XMPP". See the Jabber Software Foundation's website for more information and the full protocol specification (plus over 70 enhancement proposals).

As for a client, you should find one to your liking in the Jabber community. I am the author of Psi, which was recommended to you by another person in the thread. Though the program is incomplete, it is quite stable, and the requirements you list in your post are my thoughts exactly. Email me if you want to get involved ;-)

Btw, I noticed you marked yourself as a fan of me. What was the reason?

Re:Eh...

[Elbereth]

I don't remember... I set my filter very high, then add a substantial bonus to friends, friends of friends, fans, and funny moderation. Then, when I get really bored, I go back and read at -1.

I add a lot of people, usually because they say something particularly intelligent about a topic I like (semiconducters, DEC Alphas, Linux, C programming, heavy metal... the usual stuff).

Re:Eh...

[cbreaker]

I'll definately check it out, it sounds cool.

However, with Trillian, you only have one client too; it connects directly to AIM, ICQ, MSN, and YahooIM. One buddy list can contain all your buddies from all the different IM services.

Thanks for the tip on "Jabber" though I'm going to check it out now.

Re:Eh...

[cbreaker]

Okay I see what you mean; one client and all that. However, to access other IM services you still need to either set up your own Jabber server or connect to a public Jabber server that supports the gateways to the other IM services.

Either way, you're simply moving the connection issues associated with using an "unnofficial" IM client from one place to another.

I think I'll stick with Trillian Pro (It Just Works) until I have some time to fool with Jabber.

Re:Eh...

[Ploum]

With Trillian, you don't have the mobility of Jabbber.

With Jabber, your contact-list is on the server, and you can access it from anywhere...

What I don't like with trillian is the fact that, when you are on another computer, you cannot see your contact list !

With jabber, you can also connect from different places at the same time !

For example, I also leave my home Jabber on. When I connect, for example, from the PC of my mother, I have the same contact list (like it was my computer) and I can also see me on the other computer ("Away"). It's really useful because I can send to my self somes notes that I will read when I come back home.

People who send me message can also choose to send message to "me at home" or "me at mom's computer". But, if they don't know anything about jabber, they simply send the message and I have priority rules to receive message at mom's computer when it is online and then at home's computer !

Last, with the latest psi release (psi is a jabber client, check out psi.affinix.org I think), I can connect simultaneously to two different jabber account ! One is my public account, with a lot of people and I'm under "away" or "don't disturb" most of the times. The second accound is my private account with only some friends and I'm always "online"..

really useful ;) I recommend to check it out when you have time ;)

Re:Eh...

[Ploum]

Yes, but it's easier to change a few server.. no ?

Check my comment about jabber here :

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=55809&cid=54 47 818

Not feasible

[(1337) God]

Mark my words on this. If instant messaging is adopted by U.S. businesses, the economy will suffer like it has never suffered before. Productivity will come to a halt, and innovation will be stagnant for 10-15 years as a result.

Instant Messaging seems good at first. Always connected, always available -- I mean wow, what could possibly be bad about that?

But those of you who've chatted know what I'm talking about. We know the trap that's there.

Please stay away from enterprise IM applications. You and your boss will be glad you were able to resist the latest business fad.

Let's get back to the old bottom line and red/black calculations. Nothing -- not War, not Instant Messaging, nothing else -- will get us out of this depression that we're experiencing.

We'll have to wait it out. But when we finally escape, we'll be glad we didn't embrace IM. What a waste of time/money that'd have been.

Re:Not feasible

[SpikeSpiff]

Heck, we survived the internet and solitaire. I think we will survive IM.

More suggestive is the "serious" use of IM happening on trading desks. Logged, secure, time critical IM. These are the folks who do not screw around. At least not at work. (;

Re:Not feasible

[ekarjala]

These concerns are largely unfounded. Any organization that uses a groupware (e.g. Exchange/Outlook) package already has virtually instant messaging through their standard email conduit. Similar predictions were offered when high-speed access to the web came to employee's desktops. As with the web, novelty wears off quickly and everyone still needs to get their job done. In my experience, using IM in the office reduces the impulse for someone to walk to my cube and interrupt me face to face for something "quick" that becomes protracted and a more significant time sync as we converse. I see IM as a filter for "time-suckers".

Re:Not feasible

[FrayLo]

Obvious troll...I mean, seriously.

If businesses figured out that this was all happening as a result of IM services, they would ban it. Period. What kind of moronic businessmen would allow the use of such applications if they clearly caused what you claim will be blatant inefficiency in their company?

That's like saying adding telephones to each desk in a cubicle environment will be the end of the company, because all you have to do is pick up the phone and dial someone's extension.

Don't want to be disturbed? Put up your away message, or an even more novel solution: TURN OFF YOUR IM PROGRAM!

Re:Not feasible

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on the situation IM can be a real benefit. As an example, in a call center environment IM can be a powerful tool. A person can speak with a customer and consult their coworkers simultaneously.

On another note, I am not sure most companies require IM on an enterprise level, to much to manage, not enough ROI. It makes sense on a department level, and on a department level you do not need much more than icq qroupware, oh yah, AOL owns that. Maybe a better solution would be jabber.

The biggest draw back of IM in the corporate environment: to easy for your boss to check if you are online. :)

Re:Not feasible

[Cyno01]

an even more novel solution: TURN OFF YOUR IM PROGRAM

T-t-turn it off?!??! Heh, i even put an away message up at night to let people know i'm sleeping.

Re:Not feasible

[Lurgen]

A couple of thoughts on this...

1. Anybody who enables IM for the masses, is going to regret it
2. Anybody who allows IM traffic into and out of their organisation, is going to regret it

That said though...

3. Anybody who uses IM for internal communication only can benefit from it
4. IM (internal) can encourage and facilitate interaction between staff who normally never talk (believe me, I've seen it here)
5. IM can be implemented in less than ONE day (again, I did it here in a matter of hours, including client rollout).

Bottom line? (because it all comes down to money):
A few hours of a techs time gave us an in-house communication tool that sees more use than our phones (for short questions between techs). With two helpdesk locations, it has seen a dramatic rise in interaction between the two sites, and a noticable boost in morale.

With the morale issue, I attribute it to a reduced feeling of "being alone". The 1st level support team now "speak" to the 2nd level team regularly via IM - a big improvement in my opinion.

(personally, I'd happily sacrifice a full working day if it yielded just a few conversations between techs who never speak. Or if it saw a few helpdesk calls each week solved faster).

Re:Not feasible

[lpret]

I bet you said the same thing about e-mail. You must realize the difference between chasing fads and quickly adopting standards. I have set up Instant Messaging for a non-profit organization that does a lot of linguistic work, and I have been told that it has increased their productivity simply by letting them communicate easier and faster to colleagues. They are able to communicate with colleagues across the globe, asking quick questions that are vital to a project, and instead of waiting for an email reply (which may be at least a few hours) they get an instantaneous response.

Another technology that you probably fear is P2P sharing. This is another useful tool that I believe will start to make an impact on the business world. Locutus is what I have set up for them, and they are able to share documents/media that have had to have been requested while still making sure priveleges and security are a priority.

Perhaps you didn't like the computer -- imagine the gaming that would go on...

Re:Not feasible

[secolactico]

Productivity will come to a halt, and innovation will be stagnant for 10-15 years as a result.


Are you for real? That's quite a "doomsayer" prediction.

A corporate IM solution will have the option to limit who you can connect to (ie, no one outside the company). Those whose productivity comes to a halt, will be the same people that spends all day chatting with co-workers over other means: telephone, water cooler, whatever.

Re:Not feasible

[ahaning]

I did this for a while, too. And the "At school/work." ones. And other ones if I felt that my being away granted my "buddies" to know why I was away.

Then I thought "Hey, I'm letting them know I'm away, as well as anyone else who may have my screenname, and AOL/TW and friends." I'm sorry, but as nice as they've been with AIM so far (I've never received AIM spam...*knock knock knock*) I just didn't like the idea of AOL knowing my schedule.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they log all conversations.

Re:Not feasible

[TuballoyThunder]

At my last job they deployed an IM client over the entire company and it proved to be a huge benefit. In fact, the general counsel issued guidelines on when the text of an IM conversation needed to be saved.

The benefits of IM, as I see it are:

• The ability to talk with a colleague on an asynchronous basis
• The ability to see if someone was at their computer
• A reduction in "non-work" related wandering

At first I was skeptical of IM, but after having it for awhile, I much prefer it over the phone. My current employer does not use it and find I am not as productive.

Re:Not feasible

[Cyno01]

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they log all conversations.

Thats a bit paranoid, AOL/TW probly doesn't care where you are, and loging all conversations... for all their millions of users this would take an insane amount of space. I've been using trillian for a few months now, and it logs everything, i have 12MB of logs, and those are in formated plain text. (1.5MB/month) x Time x Users... It all adds up.

Re:Not feasible

[Anonymous Coward]

The Space Program: Fourteen deaths in 20 years? Imagine seeing those kinds of statistics in, say, the trucking industry.

I always wonder about .sigs like this. Anyone who knows anything about statistics can see the holes in this one. So what's the point?

Re:Not feasible

[SpikeSpiff]

The point is that we do not have a national week of mourning with 76 hours straight of cable news coverage when a tractor trailer crosses into oncoming traffic on the interstate.

Life is full of risks, and the statistical lesson is that we should not panic and stay out of space.

This is the Firestone tires fallacy. A few highly publicized deaths seem to count more than a less-glamorous many. Ford spent $500MM or so fixing tires to prevent 10s of accidents. Imagine if Ford had spent that money on pre-natal care or starving people in Africa. Or even driver safety courses.

Also, I think it's sort of funny.

Re:Not feasible

[Anonymous Coward]

At my company, we are constantly on call with clients overseas. Coincidentally, I work for a marketing company. Usually we have at least 2 people on the phone at all times when on call. We use AIM constantly while on the call so that we can carry 2 conversations at once. I am fairly certain we are not the only company who practice such techniques.

Re:Not feasible

[Iguanaphobic]

Compare deaths per passenger mile. I haven't run the numbers but it seems to me that the shuttle is pretty safe compared to say, school busses.

Re:Not feasible

[Phroggy]

Any organization that uses a groupware (e.g. Exchange/Outlook) package already has virtually instant messaging through their standard email conduit.

This isn't always a good thing. Nothing like showing up for work Monday morning and having to sift through 30 e-mails that were sent to your entire department on Saturday, such as:

"Who wants in on pizza for lunch? Reply with your favorite toppings."

"There's some leftover pizza in the breakroom if anyone wants it."

"If you drive a blue Toyota with license plate ABC-123, your lights are on."

Those kinds of time-sensitive messages are great if you're there, but really annoying if you don't get them until later.

Re:Not feasible

[ahaning]

Shrink the time variable. Maybe 1 month of conversations. That would be pretty feasible. Don't forget that it's text, and thus very compressible.

If they can beat MS to the punch

[leerpm]

then they have a good chance of succeeding in this market. It will be interesting to see how much this service in particular differentiates from their consumer offering. If they let organizations run their own server for handling this, or if they just slap a new interface on the consumer version and add a few features for more security .

Taxes

[kaden]

Perhaps they could charge by the lol or 'omg u 2' used on their services? Make money and maybe even improve the interweb a little at the same time.

Re:Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

OMH TH@ W00D R00L d00d! LOLZ

Re:Taxes

[ramzak2k]

omg u 2 had the same feelings. lol !!

Jabber, the linux of IMing

[cybergeak]

I think the subject says it all, everyone feels open source is more secure, while that my or my not be the case, this arugment will have all slashdoters praising jabber as the free, and secure alternative for coperations and home users alike.

Re:Jabber, the linux of IMing

[Lurgen]

I think you might be mistaken...

Corporations are notoriously disinterested in Open Source. If they weren't Microsoft, Novell and Apple wouldn't have a leg to stand on (hey, it applies to at least one of them still!).

In my experience, Open Source scares the hell out of corporations.

Besides, business are more interested in solutions that fit into their current systems. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's cheap (TCO and all that). A simple example would be Jabber vs MSN Messenger. Jabber is free (I think), MSN will cost for internal use (soon). Jabber is a whole new product to manage, MSN is just an attribute in Active Directory.

Once you've paid for the software, the overhead is more important in a business case. MSN becomes a breeze to manage, so it is easily rolled out.

I wonder if AOL have considered that sort of thing....

Re:Jabber, the linux of IMing

[gehrehmee]

#1) Jabber isn't open or closed source, it's simply a protocol. Several closed source server and client implementations exist. #2) The commercial interest in Jabber is really quite astonishing. Involved name include:

• communications companies like France Telecom and Earthlink
• Winfessor and Tipic (who produce commercial server implementations)
• IBM (For use in emergency response systems in Washington

Won't help them.

[Chris_Stankowitz]

Why won't it help them? Let me quote from the article:

"Its core subscriber base is shrinking, its users are being swamped with junk e-mail,...."

I know one of the reasons family members of mine left was because of the spam. Its insane the crap that gets through to an AOL account. With young members of the family using the accounts it was intollerable. Instead of trying to make money in ways, how about fixing some of the issues with the service and maybe the userbase won't fall. Before long you may start getting new users again. *sigh*

Re:Won't help them.

[bm_luethke]

I just switched my uncle from AOL to bellsouth DSL. I have tried for over a year to get him to change and told him he would regret not doing it sooner - but he always said "I've been with AOL for 8 years, I know how to use it and it does everything I want".

Well, not only has the spam finally gotten to him but two other main problems.

First is that AOL is oversubscribed in my area so about every thirty or so minutes it drops the connection. He then has to wait a period of time with busy signals. This has cost him recently some very good ebay bids. He collects basketball cards and has missed two cards he had been searching for about 3 years because AOL kicked him before the end of the bidding (one with 1 minute left). If they are not doing this intentionaly it happens to all the AOL subscribers I know here.

Second is just stability in general. He ran windows 98 - typically he blue screened about twice a month or so. Since upgrading to the latest version of AOL he has blue screened about 3-5 times a week - only when AOL is running.

He has had DSL for about 3 weeks now - it took less than 3 days for him to feel comfortable with using individual clients instead of AOL's bundle, almost never crashes, and has little problem with spam. Not to mention the speed increase from a 56k to DSL :) I have shown him different clients he can run locally that he could not easily with AOL (it would timeout if you didn't use thier software about every 15 mins or so). He now has good access to binary newsgroups.

He is now pushing his friends to switch to either cable or DSL. They are as fed up as he is with AOL but they do not know any one that can give them good advice - they do now (I didn't count as they felt that I could not tell them what was easy and what was not - something my uncle thought also).

I firmly beleive that AOL is going to suffer from this more and more.

Re:Won't help them.

[ohzero]

Every notice how the spammers are now using various IM apps to try to sell the only thing that was ever a true commercial Internet success?
.....porn

Every time I sign on to Various IM Services, I end up getting things like:

*Cherry34539* Hi sexy. I'm a friend of Vicki's, she told me to IM you.
Would you like to see my webcam

Re:Won't help them.

[Anonymous Coward]

He now has good access to binary newsgroups.

Ah, you introduced your uncle to Internet porn. What a good nephew you are.

Re:Won't help them.

[ssyladin]

You seem to be (somewhat) missing the point that AOL really offers two up front consumer services. The first is that of an internet service provider - where you dial one of those ancient modulator-demodulators and the other end picks up and makes beeps and boops.

The other service is that of e-mail, IM, a flashy front page with tons of ads for crap no sane person would buy, etc. Plus the "AOL keyword".

Typically, the $23.99/month gets both services. However, you can keep the second (all flashy) for ~$12/month if you have an alternate dial-up. I know my brother (in my opinion) blows $12/month this way since he has a cable modem for high speed internet already. He just keeps the AOL interface because he's familiar with that and he wants to keep his e-mail address.

Re:Won't help them.

[Beatbyte]

If they are not doing this intentionaly it happens to all the AOL subscribers I know here.

Thats standard practice when you fill all PRI's, to knock off people that have been on for 30 minutes or more. Its usually only a very short-term problem as a normal ISP will order another PRI immediately. AOL doesn't seem to care though.

Re:Won't help them.

[strick]

>He now has good access to binary newsgroups

You turned your uncle on to porn? Doesn't it usually work the other way around?

Re:Won't help them.

[Anonymous Coward]

You turned your uncle on to porn? Doesn't it usually work the other way around?

Might have been warez. Got tired of giving his uncle copies, got him Agent and a burner :)

Warez is not a city in Mexico....

Keep it simple

[tedDancin]

..While it has no plans to charge consumers for the existing service, AOL is considering selling add-ons such as matchmaking and games.

It seems like we could be seeing another piece of IM software drifting down the ICQ "bloatware" path. IMHO, as far as IM is concerned, especially when the aim is to expand into the corporate arena, the less features the better.

Instant messaging is dead.

[callipygian-showsyst]

SMS killed it. It's just a matter of time. (Like the fact that Blockbuster and Kodak are dead.)

Re:Instant messaging is dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

who's the FAGGOT CUCKCUCKING MACINTOSH or linux USER who's modding these insightful posts down?

The Joke's On Them

[jade42]

Ha, they can charge all they want and I'll keep using Trillian. If they cut that off, we still have IRC!

IM in business?

[NineNine]

Is it just me, or does IM of an kind seem to be a 13-year-old-girl thing? I couldn't imagine using IM in a company. This just seems completely bizarre.

Re:IM in business?

[callipygian-showsyst]

I've NEVER used IM (or on-line CHAT for that matter.)

It's like flushing your time down the toilet.

You're right--it's for 13-year-old girls, or FBI agents pretending to be 13-year-old girls

Re:IM in business?

[Anonymous Coward]

Naughton is a perverted fuck! Boycott Java!

Re:IM in business?

[Montag2k]

I used it in school - a lot. It is great for sending little snippets of code to friends as a sanity check. It's also a great way to stay in touch with friends and family on the other side of the country - you can always tell that someone is there and available to talk, and the conversation is instantaneous.

I think this would be a great tool for large (think multi-national) companies - it would allow them to bring all of their resources together and I believe it would allow teamwork on a higher level. Of course, this could probably be accomplished with e-mail as well, but IM - as the article said - has that "presence" and spontanaety that really works for good collaboration.

One last note - I haven't used Netmeeting or similar things yet, but I think it would be a good bet that the way for this type of collaboration software to really get its foot in the door or corporate America is through IM.

Now all that is left is to get a large acceptance of a nice, open protocol for IM - that is at least the one way it should be more like e-mail!

-Montag

Re:IM in business?

[3dZaphod]

Not at all. We use it 'unofficially' in our company and it's invaluable for tracking which customer site your workmates are at, asking them quick questions that aren't worth the bother of a distracting phone call, discussing stuff in the 'background' while on conference calls - this last one had the unfortunate side-effect once of someone on the conference call not realising they weren't on mute, someone (ok it was me) sent them a funny IM to which they started laughing out loud, for all on the call to hear... oops. Wouldn't live without it!

Re:IM in business?

[Anonymous Coward]

You my friend are a true Luddite :)

Re:IM in business?

[tedDancin]

Yeah, you'd think so, but there are several uses for it. I've listed a few below.

RTFM

STFU

..|.,

Re:IM in business?

[sporty]

Depends. What's faster.

Walking across the office to get to communicate with a person.

Looking up a phone number, then dialing, to communicate with a person.

Opening an IM window to communicate with a person.

now mind you, I'm not measuring the time it takes to type out a question or hold a conversation. Just getting to them is faster than ever.

Mind you, you also have the value of not having to tear yourself completely away from your work. Phones can do this, but it's possible to dial without taking your attn from the screen. Walking over? Forget it. Total context switch.

I've had to scold coworkers who work 10 feet away to not use IM.. that is.. unless I really hate them.

Re:IM in business?

[teeker]

Yeah,it is, but it's true. Our company (a 150-ish person company in a tech industry) uses it pretty extesively internally... turns out half of our supply chain uses it too.

Our IT staff (read: me) threw fits about it when I first started seeing so much traffic to AOL's servers and discovered all kinds of people had been installing it. Turns out the owner and the president both have it on their personal machines and just gave everybody the go-ahead to install it, quite against my recomendations.

As much as I still despise it, I am stunned at how many people actually legitimately use it.

If it weren't being used for legit uses to communicate outside our LAN, then I could get Jabber in the door, but I can't rely on AOL not to screw with the protocols in the future. So it's either risk that, which would naturally be my fault, or endure the ad-supported AIM, security risks and all (exploitation of which would also be my fault). Grr...sorry, I'm beginning to vent...

All I really meant to say is that it really, truly is gaining popularity in legitimate business. AIM isn't just for breakfast anymore...

Re:IM in business?

[smilingirl]

In my generation, IM has replaced telephone significantly (not completely), at least with all my friends. In the world of college where everyone has ethernet connections, and even at my house where most of my friends have cable or DSL, we can pretty much stay online 24-7. Why call if you can just IM? I know this isn't a business use, but EVERYONE I know LIVES by AIM. I talk on AIM *way* more than I talk on the phone. I become better friends with people through AIM, because you talk to people that you probably wouldn't call, but will talk to on AIM. AIM is like our life support, and I would be extremely mad/upset/die if they started charging for it. It would totally change my lifestyle, and many others in the teen and young 20s/college age catergory. AIM is part of our culture, you can't take it away!

Also, AIM is a very good way to communicate with people w/o the long distance charges. I talk to my parents on AIM from college all the time, for hours, and it doesn't cost any long distance or cell phone minutes. Of course, you can use other free messenging programs to do this, but I prefer AIM since all my other friends use it.

Since AIM is used mostly by teens and college kids, I really don't see AOL making money off of the program by charging for its use. We don't have the means to pay for it. And why use it if your friends aren't paying for it? There's no point in the program if everyone has to pay to use it, and the people you want to talk to on it aren't there. AIM needs to be free to use for it to continue to be successful.

Besides, they *do* have advertisements in AIM at the top of the buddy list window. Aren't they making money off of that? I'm sure it isn't a whopping amount, but they could toss in a few more unobtrusive and unannoying adverts in to make a little more cash. And since AIM has such a large user base, there would be plenty of incentive for advertisers to buy the space.

Anyways, I will conclude with: PLEASE KEEP AIM FREE FOR ME TO USE!

Re:IM in business?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this would be a great tool for large (think multi-national) companies - it would allow them to bring all of their resources together and I believe it would allow teamwork on a higher level.

In the name of all that is holy - please, NO!

In the past week I've been interrupted by phone calls from India, our New York office, and two people trying to set up phone screen times. On top of that, there's the number of people who jsut "wander by" to ask a question or two... yah, they might take 5 minutes, but then it takes another 10 to get back to your train of thought.

Right about now, I'd say I'm loosing 1-2 hours a day to this kind of thing... and that's when people have to expend a minimum of effort to walk down the hall and talk to me, or pick up the phone and call. If I were expected to be online and available for IM every hour during the workday... gah. I'd spend the entire day fielding "Are you there? I just have a quick question...." type of IMs from someone on the support staff every 15 minutes.

At least with email, I can ignore the queue, and more importantly, the sender knows that it's in a queue and that I might not get to it right away. Not so with IM - my experience is that the expectation is, if you are running an IM client, you must be available for a quick chat. Something that works out very well for interrupt driven jobs (ex, managerial positions), but works very poorly for developers and other folks who need to have longer, uninterrupted periods of concentration.

Re:IM in business?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I couldn't imagine using IM in a company.
> This just seems completely bizarre.

We use it at IBM. (our own Lotus Sametime, none of this AOL crap) Still sound bizarre to you?

And as much as it sometimes allows for unwanted interruptions, it's a lifeline for some. We have teams dispersed across the country and a quick instant msg can be more convenient than a phone call. Or it lets you know at a glance if somebody's in the office or online.

Bottom line: when used in moderation it's very useful.

Re:IM in business?

[Anonymous Coward]

We use it at IBM. (our own Lotus Sametime, none of this AOL crap) Still sound bizarre to you?


They let the janitors have computers?

Re:IM in business?

[slriv]

I'm 33... I live on AIM, Y!, MSN instant messaging. So do all my coworkers for the past 5 years. It's here buddy, adopt it.

Re:IM in business?

[toddler420]

Perhaps this is one of the benefits of "enterprise-class" IM software? The ability to "tier" the support organization. I.e. - Tier 1 support can only IM to other Tier 1 agents, with the exception of the "senior" tech staff, who can get to Tier 2. The systematic streamlining of support requests could be implemented using some im.allow/im.deny type functionality (preferably at the server level, so I can still yell at the lower tier guys if i want to:) ).

I have the same issue at my employer; 80 times per day, I get quick "can you help me" type messages. There are these things called "Away Messages" tho that seem to work really well.

Re:IM in business?

[budgenator]

what's faster old way,
1. stop what your doing,
2. talk on phone
3. write copius not about conversation
4. open word make 64Kb word.doc to contain 10kb memo of unsterstanding about above conversation.
5. Fax copy and send as an Email attachment(just to be sure)
6. talk on phone agian to make sure he got the fax and agrees.
7. fax ran out of toner so resend.
8. recall to make sure it worked this time.

new way
1. chat online with IM
2. both save a copy as a file of conversation.

Re:IM in business?

[sporty]

There have been times when I've made the phone call only because, while I type very fast, the loss of markers or live props is a hinderance.

Same ol' rule, +1 redundant: every tool for its job.

But they still need...

[IronTek]

Amongst other things, AIM still needs some sort of Quality of Service guarentees thrown into the protocol...thus saving conversations like,

Tech Peon: Sorry boss, I didn't get the IM informing me I've been laid off due to the tech downturn.

CEODude: But I sent it via AIM to you.

Tech Peon: Ah...putting all our faith into AIM streamlining operations, are we?

...watch...it'll happen!

Untapped?

[Mabidex]

I hate it when they say... this @$#@ thing has an untapped audience, when aol pushes so much spam...

sounds like IM will likely contain instant URLs for adertersing soon..

Crap

Paying for AOL Instant Messanger?

[HohlerMann]

Significantly, this enterprise package will include features that the free consumer version of IM lacks: ensuring that messages are transmitted over secure networks, with the capability to save messages for future reference, for example... On the consumer side... there are no pop-up ads, or other commercial intrusions, to get in the way of communicating. America Online executives fear that charging consumers for basic IM use, which they are not considering, or loading the service with ads and promotions could drive people to use the services offered by Microsoft and Yahoo.

I'd personally be interested in paying a small fee to get a customizable official version of AOL Instant Messanger per month, maybe $1/mo with corporate features. I understand that there are alternatives available at this time, but a legal no-ad version (as opposed to the hacks that remove the banner from the official client) with secure messaging (assuming the other party also had the secure edition) would be something that I would consider investing in.

IM on windows networks?

[jkauzlar]

It just occurred to me how useful IM could be in a business environment and that while Linux has a number of useful methods of IM that come with the OS, Windows doesn't seem to have a counterpart. Why hasn't MS integrated instant messaging into Windows NT or even Outlook Express?

Set up like AOL IM, it would be SO SO SO useful in a business environment. It would cut down on so much pointless email and voicemail.

Re:IM on windows networks?

[NightmareDNS]

In windows XP, your messenger is always on from the getgo, and it's automatically integrated into outlook express. You can even, if you're so inclined, set AOL IM to be your default messenger and see your AIM buddies in outlook express.

At work we use the MSN messenger for its ease of use with exchange server, and use it for in house messenging only. It's handy to be able to talk to people in the office without being hassled by your friends and relatives signed on to the regular service. In windows NT you can even set permissions so that users can't change their account settings (letting them sign onto the .net service). As a tech support manager I can say it definitely increases productivity, and even lessens the frustration of having to wait for a reply email, etc.

Re:IM on windows networks?

[toddestan]

It's too late, they already did that in Windows XP. (yet another reason to stick with 2000Pro)

Re:IM on windows networks?

[Lurgen]

They (MS) have integrated IM into existing products - take a look at Exchange 2000.

Re:IM on windows networks?

[andih8u]

the thing I don't get is that MS used to include winpop with the win9x products, which was essentially a network based IM client. Then with the introduction of 2000/XP this nifty little feature vanished.

Maybe they should sue AOL for prior art

Re:IM on windows networks?

[Anonymous Coward]

net send [insert your buddy's computer name here] [insert your message here]

In fact you unix nerds can do this to with Samba.

Re:IM on windows networks?

[Blackknight]

Messenging has been implemented on windows since NT 4.0, maybe even earlier.

If you open a command prompt and type in "net send computername Your message here", a message window will pop up on that machine's desktop.

well

[Twister002]

Corporate IM has been around for a while, Microsoft includes it for free i their Exchange server 2000 package. It doesn't seem to be doing too well for them.

corporate interest

[ramzak2k]

Analysts predict that corporate interest in keeping track of employees' instant messaging will drive demand for new software from AOL

No wonder that AOL did not agree on a standard to interoprate with other IMs like MSN. They must have been on a mission of making their corporate IM version that would allow employees to have with personal contacts,who are only on AOL . More than one company can play the monopoly game.

Re:corporate interest

[raydaniels]

It seems to me that the one thing .. the only thing really that differentiates any of these standards / technologies is that they have a central directory and a userbase to match. If there were some way to connect them all via an open source type directory system, I don't see why they couldn't all be trumped. The client could even auto-update itself if any of the vendors tried to subvert it. This client would have to merge peer-to-peer filesharing technologies with instant messaging, but I think this is an opportunity for open source products to pull ahead of the corporations' technologies.

Re:UT 2003...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know AIM could connect to EFNet...

More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day

[(1337) God]

More than 1.1 billion Instant Messages are sent out worldwide every day. For no reason.

IMs are an attention-grabbing and nonsensical, not to mention unproductive, means of communication. Most people who use IMs to talk or share information also have access to other, non-IM technologies that pollute the Internet less and are cheaper.

IMs are some of the most wasteful products, in terms of resources used, that continue to be marketed on our planet. Why do we send them out by the billions? Just to enjoy the transient pleasure of saying LOL time and time again?

Re:More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day

[Montag2k]

Why are they more wasteful than the 15 spam e-mails that I recieve every day? I have used IM to both collaborate on projects and talk with friends across the country (and in other countries). Sometimes writing a letter is not the best way to communicate - and talking on the phone is too expensive.

I don't really understand your "pollute the internet less" quote. What technologies are you talking about?

Montag

Re:More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder, seriously, are you thirteen olds? There are MANY useful purposes for IM in the real world.

Re:More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day

[Anonymous Coward]

well then dont. no one will miss your presence on the networks

Re:More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day

[Anonymous Coward]

IMs are an attention-grabbing and nonsensical, not to mention unproductive, means of communication. Most people who use IMs to talk or share information also have access to other, non-IM technologies that pollute the Internet less and are cheaper.

IMs are some of the most wasteful products, in terms of resources used, that continue to be marketed on our planet. Why do we send them out by the billions? Just to enjoy the transient pleasure of saying LOL time and time again?


LOL, you fucking troll (which you're not very good at). Leave it to the professionals.

Re:More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day

[smilingirl]

IMs ARE NOT NON-SENSICAL!

You are assuming that it is a bunch of teeny-bopper 14-year-olds using the program. Well, believe me, it isn't.

I have had many deep, meaningful conversations with my intelligent friends on it, and they did not contain merely "lol"s and "sups". AIM is widely used by those of college-age, I assure you, and is as popular as cell-phone communication by many (more popular by me as I can't afford a fancy cell phone plan)

And AIM is a good way to talk to people that are long distance FREE, like my parents from college. What other non-IM technology such as this is available that is CHEAPER than FREE? And also teachable to a mother who does not understand computers all that well?

AIM is very convenient to use b/c many of my friends use DSL/Cable/dorm ethernet connections and we can stay on forever and are very reachable through these connections. If we're home, we're probably on AIM. Very convenient for homework questions, conversations about your day, listening to a friend who's mother just died, I mean WHATever you need to talk about. It is not what you people seem to think it is. It has totally taken off with my generation (I'm 18) and is a large part of our culture.

In conclusion, IMs are very productive, cheap, efficient, and easy-to-use forms of communication. If you have a lot of friends and family using it, it is way better than the telephone, and is certainly not non-sensical if used in the ways that my friends and I use it.

Re:More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day

[Anonymous Coward]

thats 2 trolls in one thread. what a champ. how many members in your klan? you fucking loser.

Re:More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day

[fucksl4shd0t]

Getting a little defensive, are we?

That said, I use IM to fight with my dad, and I'm just under the 30 mark. :)

Re:More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day

[TheRaven64]

Hey, don't be too hard on the guy, at least he's honest. He knows he's a freak, and so filed himself in my freaks list as he appropriately...

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

me too!

Trillian

[PepperedApple]

Trillian lets you connect to AIM, ICQ, MSN messenger, Yahoo messenger, and IRC.

The biggest problem with IM is that you dont' choose a client because of features, you choose it because it's what the people you want to communicate with use. Trillian makes it a lot easier to talk to everyone you want.

Re:Trillian

[toddestan]

The only problem with Trillian is that they reversed engineered the protocols for the IM services, and thus it sometimes acts a little strange, though it's getting better.

Also it's full of security holes.
http://www.der-keiler.de/Mailing-Lists/Sec uriteam/ 2002-09/0095.html

Re:Trillian

[Anonymous Coward]

What idiot called the parent flamebait? Probably the same idiot that says people choose Word for its features not its proprietary file format.

ObJabberPlug

[spoonyfork]

I ran a Jabber server at work until corporate provided an IM solution. They chose IBM Lotus Sametime.

Re:ObJabberPlug

[mshiltonj]

Why did they choose sametime over jabber?

Re:ObJabberPlug

[octaene]

I am an IBM Employee who has used IBM Lotus Sametime for 3 years now. It is easily the most used application at our company!

In network support, is sure is helpful to be able to communicate quickly with co-workers. And if there is a network or customer problem taking place, we can start an online "chat" with our client account team and the support folks to share information (e.g., "what does netstat -nr look like on that busted ass server?") and things of that nature.

Best of all, it is quite stable and stripped of features like RTF - who needs that! Gimmie straight text and the dang person's name...

Re:ObJabberPlug

[spoonyfork]

Why did they choose sametime over jabber?

At the time of the descision, Jabber was still immature product as far as features like availability of support, SSL, LDAP/ActiveDirectory authentication, scaleability, and stability. But I think the real reason was that IBM is their IT vendor of choice.

13 comments and a slashdotting

[trmj]

so, here are some others for your reading enjoyment:

MSN Money Article

Boston Globe Article

BizReport Article

On an offtopic note, the new strong bad email is also slashdotted. Anybody got a link for me?

A typical IM conversation at work...

[AnimeFreak]

Worker 1: so i hear that layoffs are coming :(
Worker 2: i am getting a promotion
Worker 1: STFU
Worker 1: i have been told i am going to get nailed
Worker 2: HAHAHAHA
Worker 2: u r so screwed man

Or...

Boss: you're fired! :P
Worker 1: no, i quit!
*** Worker 1 signs off
(Boss, thinking: "Umm, he didn't catch my ":P", did he?")

But, in any case, how subject would this IM service be to abuse?

Re:A typical IM conversation at work...

[Anonymous Coward]

Worker 1: so i hear that layoffs are coming :(
Worker 2: i am getting a promotion
Worker 1: STFU
Worker 1: i have been told i am going to get nailed
Worker 2: HAHAHAHA
Worker 2: u r so screwed man


There are too many contexts those lines could be put in..

Re:A typical IM conversation at work...

[Anonymous Coward]

Worker 1: yo I just quit heh
Worker 2: woah no way man
Worker 1: I told u i was hardcore

jabber?

[sublime99]

Why not use jabber, it is free and open. I think there is an ability to set ips and certain people to only connect to the services. This is just another thing AOL is going to try and stay a float. then one thing leads to another and they end up lossing more customers.

Re:jabber?

[Clockwurk]

I don't use jabber because none of my friends do. Ubiquity is the entire point of IMing, to be able to talk to as many people as possible. I don't care about which protocol is used or if it's free or open if I'm the only person I know using it.

Re:jabber?

[omega9]

One of the beauties of Jabber, and also one that hasn't received as much attention as it should IMHO, is that is can connect to pretty much every other network out there. Granted this is a server feature, just having a Jabber client doesn't mean you get this connectivity.

FEX:

I admin at an .edu. Even though we have software policies (both ethical and those mandated physically on the network) we still find students installing every known IM client to man. To solve this we installed a Jabber server with transports that would allow it to connect to MSN/Yahoo/ICQ/AIM/IRC/etc.. and installed a Jabber client on each machine. Then we created policy stating that you can connect to any network you need to, but you must use the Jabber client to do so. Once students get over the hump of figuring out YAIMC, they actually enjoy being able to login once and be connected to any network with which they have an account. It also concretely gives them no excuse to install any other IM client on our machines.

At home I've taken to doing the same thing. I run a local Jabber server with a full transport setup and just connect to myself with my client. It's a bit backwards, but pays off in desk space and effeciency in the end.

Re:jabber?

[rednix]

that's exactly what I did in our company. It didn't want everybody to install whatever IM is out there, now they are using psi and seem to be quite happy with it. They can still talk to whomever I want to, because our server has transports to AIM, ICQ, MSN and Yahoo. Jabber rocks! :)

Re:jabber?

[budgenator]

not to mention the possible inclution of spy-ware into the IM clients having security implications. I think some healthcare providers are going to get burned by this when HIPPA comes on line

Re:jabber?

[alecto]

How do the students feel assured you're not keeping their user IDs and passwords--since if I understand how Jabber works this magic correctly, it has to collect and pass login credentials to the "real" servers for each protocol?

(I know you wouldn't do anything like that--but has anyone even expressed concern?)

Re:jabber?

[omega9]

You've got a good point bringing that up. Jabber keeps most (all?) of it's information in XML files, which are of course plaintext. From a simple IM client side view, there's no way to examine those XML files remotely. The only way to gain access is to have shell access to the server, so we implement security that revolves around that type of access.

As far as we, as MIS staff, are concerned, yes, we do have access to that information at any given time. So far we've relied on personal ethics not to pry into others confidential information and it's worked well for us. Only three of us have access to that server, and, while I can't speak directly for the other two, I have full trust that those ethics are firm.

More direct to your question, the students don't really feel anything about that. While we do brief students on many aspects of network usage, we don't get into details about which services do or do not store their configs in plaintext files. We're open to inquiries if students have questions, but there are many pieces of info we don't outright offer.

Re:jabber?

[alecto]

That seems pretty reasonable and sane--you sure you work in an institution of higher learning :)?

BTW, cool sig--I actually remembered enough Latin to translate it, and got a chuckle!

Trillian Pro

[PepperedApple]

Here is a description of what trillian offers people who pay.

Re:Trillian Pro

[Arrgh]

I bought Trillian Pro, it's pretty good.

Here's what I like about it that's better than the free version:

• The POP3-checking plugin is decent
• The RSS plugin is great! I don't have to check Slashdot, kerneltrap and WWDN anymore, I just get notified in a fairly subtle way when new stuff is posted.
• When you drag windows around, they snap to each other, to taskbars, screen edges, other windows, etc.
• You can configure it so that when a Trillian window loses focus, it either turns translucent or goes black-and-white

One minor downside is that the menus in Trillian Pro don't really work with the X-Mouse feature from TweakUI. But I'd rather live without X-Mouse than Trillian Pro, oddly enough.

All in all, $25 well spent. Considering that I actively use all four major IM networks and IRC, Trillian saves me from wasting a lot of RAM, cluttering up my system tray, seeing ads in IM clients, etc. The only single-network IM client I ever use now is Yahoo, and that's only when I want to do voice chat or see someone's webcam. I never use mIRC anymore.

Note that I'm not affiliated with Cerulean in any way, I'm just a satisfied customer.

They are going to have a hard time charging...

[toddestan]

How is AOL going to charge for IM, when others offer it for free? If someone starts charging everyone will flock to the free services. If the other free services start charging new ones will spring up. It's kind of the same problem that the free email providers have - except worse, as people tend to be a little more reluctant to change email than IM screennames.

As for this business IM, how do they expect to charge for that? Games and matchmaking are not going to cut it. And how many people really use those features anyway? I certainly don't use 98% of the features of ICQ2002. And what's to keep the businesses from installing the free version anyway?

And finally they really need to address the spam issue too. I used to get ICQ spam constantly before I turned it so only people on my contact list can message me. And ICQ seems to have no place to report the spam either. AIM seems to be better set up with the warning level system atleast.

Re:They are going to have a hard time charging...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your anology to free webmail services. I remember not long ago a free yahoo account came with options galore, pop3 access, email forwarding, effective SPAM filtering . . . If anything, I think free IM service will go the path that webmail has recently. A bare-bones service, clogged and jammed with ads to upgrade to the Preferred AIM Service for only $5.95 a month every where you click.
I'm part of the Help Desk for a small web development company of approx. 50 employees, and I take questions from Customer Service, Sales, and my boss daily via MS Exchange Instant Messaging, and it IS a valuable resource, and NO Exchange IM does not work well. Our sysadmin has spent literally weeks trying to figure out why it is so flaky, isn't supported for MacOS's, etc. However, when it isn't working, I'm already signed into .Net service, and gee! it does the same thing, and I waste a helluva lot more time reading /. everyday then I do IM'ing people outside of work. No one in my IS dept. has the time or inclination to monitor what people are saying via IM, and I can't imagine anyone sending an IM worth of encryption, so wtf is all the fuss about really? At this point, I'm just glad I don't have to deal with bloatware and a subscription upgrade every ten seconds.

How about IM in IDEs?

[SurfTheWorld]

Here's an idea that I'd really love to see implemented. Imagine if somebody were to come up with a grammar that worked on top of an open instant messaging protocol (jabber?) that encapsulated features useful for developers within an IDE?

The usage scenario would go something like this: I'm working Foo.java and have a question about some line of code. I right click on the line of code and a popup menu appears. I select Discuss, and then a side menu appears that lists my coworkers. The IDE uses "cvs annotate" (if I'm using CVS) to see who last modified the line of code I mouse'd over, and highlights their user id in my "Discuss" menu. I click the author (or anyone else for that matter), and my IDE sends an instant message to the other user indicating that I would like to collaborate on Foo.java. The remote user accepts the collaboration invitation and my version of the code appears in their editor window. At that point we can both edit the file at the same time, ask questions about code, or maybe even share a mouse? (Might be nice to be able to point to some code, ask a question, and have the remote user not only read what you are typing, but SEE what you are referring to).

Anyhow, it's a pipe dream, but man that would be cool.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[Enonu]

That's a pretty cool idea. Why don't you check out the Eclipse IDE, and see about writting the plugin or offering the suggestion. They already have CVS support, so I'm sure a proof-of-concept would only take a few weeks to get banged out.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[1nv4d3r]

Allow a simple parody. Is this the scenario you're trying to avoid:

I'm working an Foo.java and have a question about a line of code. I use cvs annotate to determine that Bob last modified it. I turn my head to the left and say "Bob, I need help with Foo.java," which sends him a message that instantly conveys that I would like to collaborate on Foo.java. Bob accepts the collaboration and walks 4 feet over to my cube. He can see my version of the code right on my screen. At this point we can both edit the file, ask questions about the code, and even share the mouse. (Bob not only reads what I type, but SEES what I am referring to).

It's a pipe dream, but man it would be cool if programmers had social skills.

Every day I see engineers go to great lengths to avoid a simple 'hello' to each other in the hallway. They send email to people who are close enough to hear it being typed. I used to be that way but am slowly pulling out of it.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[SN74S181]

You mean an Emacs lisp module for AIM?

heh

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[Steveftoth]

I dunno, I'd say that 1/2 the time I walk over and the other half I email.

When you need a one word answer to a question sometimes email is better then getting up and walking. Especially ifwhat you are working on gets in your way of /. ;)

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the author of Foo.java tells you to do your own frickin job and leave him alone.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[Jester99]

Bob accepts the collaboration and walks 4 feet over to my cube.

Oh, how nice. All your developers work together.

In many companies, developers might be spread out among multiple sites which makes such "simple" communication rather meaningless. If you've ever tried to debug SQL code over the phone with someone, you'll know that the parent of your post has a good idea going.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[rzbx]

Pipe dream? No way. You can't imagine how long ago I thought up this idea. I'm sure it'll happen sooner or later.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[SurfTheWorld]

I was mostly thinking this would be useful in the case where developers collaborate from different geographic locations, the most common case being open source. When I'm in the office I'll holler down the hall or go ask a Human (tm), but in cases where coworkers are working at home or in the world of open source I could definitely see this feature being useful.

Just my opinion tho.

I do agree with your last paragraph tho.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[SurfTheWorld]

I thought about Eclipse, as well as NetBeans. Unfortunately, between my primary job ($$), my second job ($$), my house, trying to become more involved with Python development, my meta-tools open source project, my mp3 shadow open source project, and my new weather web services open source project I simply don't have the time... :(

And, something tells me that this is something best left to a group of folks to talk about. I'm sure that I could not come up with a grammar extensible or flexible enough to suit today's needs and tomorrow's unknowns. If anything I could create a mailing list, but that's kind of weak.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[silvaran]

I don't agree with that at all. Imagine an accountant, sitting at her desk, working on a balance sheet, and she gets a tap on her shoulder. She loses complete focus, makes a mistake, and has to take several minutes to get back into things. Her work suffers because she has all these people tapping her on the shoulder asking for help. She's not a programmer, but this situation represents many in thousands of occupations.

Similar with programmers. If you have a roomful of programmers, they can be the most social animals in the world (I say "could"). But when it's time to work, they sit quietly for hours on end, doing their work. A second of interruption can cause minutes of lost time. Several interruptions during the day and those minutes add up to an hour, or more.

Instead, you have a small applet/icon on your panel/taskbar that changes color when you have an incoming message. So you can take 30-45 seconds or so to finish your idea so you don't lose it right on the spot.

There's nothing more startling than a roomful of people, quietly typing away, not much noise, etc., and all of a sudden somebody says, "Hey Bob! What did you think you were doing on line 435 of someprojectmarshal.c?". Everybody loses their train of thought automatically, because they sense a disruption.

Even if you're used to people shouting across the room or talking to a person 4 feet away from them, it can still be disruptive. You subconsciously pick up pieces of the sentences until your brain gets interested in that and you completely lose focus on your work.

I don't care if it's 4 inches, 4 feet, or 4 yards. Any special sounds (special ie: talking, not special ie: keypress, tapping, breathing, etc.) can disrupt your work more than you might think, because it's directed, focused, and rarely ambient.

And these same people who can sit quietly and work can go out that same evening and throw back a few beers, hit on some chicks, etc, etc. Some are geeks, some aren't. But most people would like relative silence when they work.

(Just trying to debunk your cool if programmers had social skills, though I doubt it'll work).

And turn off those "UH OH!"'s in ICQ. They somewhat defeat the purpose of silent messaging.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[davidkw]

which reminds me of the other day when one of the guys phoned from the other side of the cube wall... just develop the app, it'll be quicker than teaching us to talk to each other.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[Ragica]

Not really an IDE, but GForge (the opensource fork of SourceForge), which certainly is a collaborative development system, had some discussion about add Jabber support. I'm not sure what the nature of the support is, but it appears there must be some as they have a link to jabber on their main page.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[Bodrius]

From my point of view, 70-80% of the time technical or formal arguments are better expressed in written format.

This is perhaps even a higher percentage in the case of code, or even pseudocode. This is partly because talking about "{ i+=p/w*x; print("@poit"); i^=2;}" is inconvenient, but also because it avoids confusions by forcing people to put things clearly before "opening their mouths".

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[sql*kitten]

I'm working an Foo.java and have a question about a line of code. I use cvs annotate to determine that Bob last modified it. I turn my head to the left and say "Bob, I need help with Foo.java,"

and then I remember that Bob has taken his laptop and is working in Geneva this week. I've no idea what his phone number is there, but wherever he is logged in his IM address is the same. So I drop him an IM containing the line of code I'm curious about, since reading out code over the phone is an imappropriate use of the medium. Bob's actually on the phone, but rather than interrupt him, he notices that he has an IM waiting. 5 minutes later, he's off the phone, he types and line of code back, and we're done.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[Phroggy]

Try that when Bob lives in another state or country. Face-to-face contact is almost always better when it's available, but often it's not.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[nutbar]

That is the funniest thing I've ever seen on slashdot. I wish it could be modded up past 5!

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[Biff]

You mean a bit like Chat a multi-user IM plugin for Intellij?

Seems to be become a habbit since I switched to using Intellij. I will be talking to another developer and he will say "Wouldn't it be great if the editor would do xyz for you automatically." and I say "You mean like it does in Intellij?". Seriously give it a go, get addicted!

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a slightly scary manner, this is my final year uni project :)

I'm working within Eclipse, but rather than being an P2P style IM, it all bounces off a SQL DB via a SOAP layer (trying to keep stuff open :) ). It's not complete yet, but parts are taking shape.

For anyone interested, info is at http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~pbm99/project, or you can get me on pbm99@doc.ic.ac.uk

Pete

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[eyeball]

Here's an idea that I'd really love to see implemented. Imagine if somebody were to come up with a grammar that worked on top of an open instant messaging protocol (jabber?) that encapsulated features useful for developers within an IDE?

No doubt there's an "IM-My-Coworkers.el" thingie out there for emacs that does exactly this (and probably washes your car, emails your boss for a raise, and does your taxes while you're at it).

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[Schnapple]

Back when I was in college I was in an organization called the Corps of Cadets (think JROTC), so the people I was in a dorm with weren't total strangers, we were all in an outfit together. When ICQ first hit big, the first instinct everyone had was not only to get everyone else hooked up with it, but to then get everyone in the dorm on your ICQ list. Whenever someone would try to get me on their list though I'd always deny them saying I LIVE IN THE SAME FUCKING BUILDING AS YOU! IF YOU WANT TO CHAT THEN CALL ME ON THE PHONE OR WALK DOWN HERE BUT DON'T WASTE MY TIME ICQ'ING ME! I probably would have been politer if I'd ever been ICQ'd with anything other than useless bullshit from my non-savvy friends.

Of course now we're all graduated and spread out all over the place so I kinda wish I had let them on my list and vice versa, but oh well. Granted, last I checked (and it's been a while), ICQ didn't have server side buddy lists, so I don't think my buddy list would have survived all the upgrades and reformats over the years anyway. Plus no one uses ICQ anymore anyways.

On a related note, you know how Google is scared of "Google" becoming a verb or generic term? Isn't it funny how "ICQ" was becoming a verb ("I ICQ'd him") but now ICQ is pretty much a forgotten program? I mean, I have all the Trillian accounts lit up and I used to know lots of people on ICQ, but in the last few years I've gotten maybe three or four ICQ messages, and they've all been those random spam bots advertising necrobeastialanalbuttsex.

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[Uart]

Uart has never used, nor heard anyone use ICQ as a verb. He has heard AIM used as one though... hmmm....

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[axxackall]

I used ICQ and IRC in Emacs - it's been working nice for me. Very good environment to create "semi-human semi-bots" :)

Re:How about IM in IDEs?

[1nv4d3r]

I don't agree with that at all. Imagine an accountant, sitting at her desk, working on a balance sheet, and she gets a tap on her shoulder. She loses complete focus, makes a mistake, and has to take several minutes to get back into things.

But, given that the original suggestion was about instant messaging, the same amount of in-your-face interruption would be going on.

If peaple turned it off or ignored it, then it wouldn't work any better than e-mail.

Sounds good, but will it work?

[vga_init]

I have used many instant messaging clients over the years, and have only used AIM for very short periods of time. Every time I use it, I am very surprised at what a spartan piece of software it really is; any other messenger is easily more feature rich, so why don't people use them instead?

I believe that it is this simplicity that is part of what makes AIM so popular. The average AIM user, which never seemed to be very bright to me, could probably really appreciate the straightforward approach AIM takes to instant messaging. ICQ, which is almost the exact opposite, might repulse those same users, but since AOL owns both, then all is good! They are making use of the best of both worlds, it seems.

However, I currently use Yahoo as my primary messenger, and I have no intention of switching. As far as I'm concerned, Yahoo has found a happy medium, and provides, in my opinion, a much more effecient and useful system than the aforementioned clients.

What AOL should be afraid of is users migrating away from them if they get too pushy on the dollar, though since they claim not to be charging money for existing services, they ought to be secure in this area.

Though I'm not a personal supporter of AOL, I do think that they definitely do have a good opportunity for growth, and believe that any innovations they make might help to benefit everyone.

Re:Sounds good, but will it work?

[smilingirl]

Yahoo messenger is very buggy in my experience. It often replaces one person on my contanct list with the name of another, so that one person's name shows up twice and another's not at all. And the sounds have never worked right on either of my computers when people buzz me. AIM has enough features; you can use webcam with it if you use the Logitech web cam viewer (which is usable with any brand of camera and free). The talking on mikes works fine. Typing works fine. Why is this worse than Yahoo? And how is it less straightforward than AIM?

Re:Sounds good, but will it work?

[Kirby-meister]

Eh, you should see iChat, Apple's IM client that works with AIM, .Mac and Rendevious chatting - it's lacking in features so much that I can't even get into warning-wars with my friends.

But it's still the best client I've used.

Re:Sounds good, but will it work?

[Phroggy]

I have used many instant messaging clients over the years, and have only used AIM for very short periods of time. Every time I use it, I am very surprised at what a spartan piece of software it really is; any other messenger is easily more feature rich, so why don't people use them instead?

Weird - I feel exactly the same way, except backwards. AIM has just about everything I can think of, while other clients lack even the most obvious features. OK, Yahoo has webcam support, which is neat, but that's all I use it for, and not for very long before it crashes.

Is the situation that much different on Windows? I've used AIM on Windows, and it had all the same functionality, although the layout was horrible (although the Windows version has gotten a little better while the Mac OS X version is significantly worse than the Mac OS 9 version).

Re:Sounds good, but will it work?

[Anonymous Coward]

warning-wars ?

Re:Sounds good, but will it work?

[vga_init]

As much as I'd like to reply to all of the replies to my post, I think I'll stick to just this one.

First of all, the features that I talk about that Yahoo has and AIM does not are more inherent to the system that the clients are based on, and don't actually cause the messengers to function profoundly different from one another, though the differences are very notable to most people.

Here are list of areas I found AIM lacking in:

1. Permissions

   Any decent messenger should have a security system that helps you to regulate who can and cannot contact you. AIM does implement an ignore list, and one may also put constraints on how conspicuous one is to the outside world, but all in all the system is lacking a certain subtlety and finesse found in others. Clients such as yahoo and ICQ use a permissions system for users who wish to add you to their contacts list. To me, this has been extremely important, and AIM does not offer this.

2. Offline Messages

   Yet another feature that I have not seen implimented in AIM. It is possible that they have by now, but it has been a while since I last used it.

3. Member Directory

   AIM has one, but it was always seriously lacking. Though it might come in handy if you were looking for somebody specific you know, it is basically useless for general socialization, a feature that ICQ and Odigo excel in while Yahoo falls shortly behind them.

4. Chat Rooms

   Honestly, AOL has the worst chat system I have ever seen. This is not a big deal however, since I'm sure hardly any of you use it. In my experience, Yahoo wins in this area, but it's good to keep in mind that this feature is actually rather frivelous in the grand scheme of things, and this is only a minor gripe in comparison to the ones listed above.

Also, people have mentioned features such as file transfer and web cam. Firstly, I don't view the webcam as being an important feature at all. I use my webcam with my friends sometimes, and I always use something like netmeeting; why have a middleman?

On the subject of file transfers, I have used file transfer capability on all of the aforemention message clients, and have found no one more better than the other. The idea that AIM's is superior in any way seems strange to me.

Also, on a final note, I have heard that Yahoo was very buggy, but never actually experienced any claimed bugs first hand. I consider myself most fortunate. ^^

The only thing I can say in AIM's favor is that it's generally been faster than other clients when I've used it.

Definite niche

[singularity]

As more and more employees are using products like AIM to communicate, there is a definte need for some accountability with this communication, especially with security and logging.

If I call someone else in the company, the PBX system (or whatever else is in use) can be set up to log the call. Email is very easily tracked and logged.

AIM conversations, however, use a third-party for most of the communication. Logging is not great in most clients.

The article mentions an enterprise solution developed by IBM to help with that, and I think that there is a market for AOL to get into. Provide a plug-and-play either hardware or software solution that allows internal AIM traffic to remain encrypted on the internal network (internal Buddy Lists and so on) and completely logged. There would also have to be a way for the system to work with other AIM users not on the internal network.

The nice thing about a solution like that would be that the logging and traffic could be completely internal, and the company could place restrictions on outside traffic (no file transfers from the outside, for example).

Re:Definite niche

[Phroggy]

Enterprise AIM.

How to make IM an integrual part of my work day...

[Yo Grark]

Been struggling with allowing customers access to me when I'm sitting down in front of my pc, and I've done a bit of a test.

I found that customers who demand my time more is a great thing, makes customer service all the easier, but let's face it, INSTANT MESSAGING is just that. Instant.

When you say hello to someone, you don't expect them to take 10 min to say hello back.

When you leave a voicemail, you expect a reply in one business day unless you mark it urgent. With email you expect a response back what? Half day?

I equate an IM an IMMEDIDATE priority even if I'm busy with something else.

Personally, I have seen customers only let down by me not able to keep up with IM customers fast enough.

Great idea, but in the end, the purchasing agents, CEO's with decision making ability and the standards committee's don't have time for me, let alone IM me.

Any other account managers successfully integrate this into their 100-200 customer/month workday?

Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering.

mod parent down as troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark my words on this. If instant messaging is adopted by U.S. businesses, the economy will suffer like it has never suffered before. Productivity will come to a halt, and innovation will be stagnant for 10-15 years as a result.

Wow, I sure wish I could predict the future like that.
/sarcasm

AIM in corporate environment

[bdigit]

I have worked for a few companies where AIM was used by almost everyone in the company. Its alot easier to IM you're coworker who is 300 yards away about something. It comes in handy when you dont want to make a phone call or you're on the phone and you can just send an IM to get something accomplished. I remember when my friends saw me sitting on AIM at work they thought i had the best job in the world, I just saw it as part of being at work, plus it was nice to be able to chat with the outside world when you were stressed out and needed a break.

The next nail in the coffin for AOL

[ukryule]

I'm sure there must be loads of intelligent, internet-savvy people working in AOL, but are any of them in managment?

Company insiders are putting together targeted pitches to capitalize on the demographics of the AOL instant messaging community.

Do you:

a) Provide as good an IM tool as you can, which allows you to talk to anyone else on the internet, or

b) 'Capitalize on your community' by providing an inward looking tool which is only any good when talking to other AOL users?

An easy one to answer that. Now a test. Look through that article, and count the number of times that interoperability with MS/Yahoo is mentioned. Count the number of mentions for open standards for interoperability. Count the number of potential exciting innovations there (IM to mobiles? News headlines over IM? IM as pushed alerts for updated webpages?).

Does anyone want to predict how badly AOL will muck this up?

Re:The next nail in the coffin for AOL

[FecklessGorgon]

Absolutely right. Non-interoperability has been a problem for American corps. since, hell, I dunno, 1920, when AT&T and the independent phone companies competed with different telephone systems that couldn't call each other. It's the same with instant messenging today. It's ironic that AOL, that famous walled garden of content, has developed one unique communication tool that's successful, and it's the one that goes over the walled garden. Competition will push each service to develop better features, but who gives a hoot if you have to keep six of 'em on your desktop at once?

Please MOD the parent of THIS comment WAY UP!

[I FAIL IT!]

I was attempting to capture the humour in l337 god's pathetic attempt to explain the logic behind his post. I also wanted to point out the pathetic-ness of the user and his obsession w/positive karma. God forbid he should post anything that's considered offtopic or redundant! If anything, I think I should be modded up +5 funny. Moderators, if you would, mod up...

Right

[Mmmrky]

If only AOL expanded their instant messenger service. Sure you can type and they can type back, but what if you could actually hear the person you were chatting with? Maybe this could even be done in "Real Time." We could come up with a device so you could walk around the room and talk at the same time without tricky networking setup. We could take everyone's name and give it a number and put them in a big book so that if you wanted to chat with someone and didn't know their number you could look it up. It would even have their address!

Think of the possibilities!

Re:Right

[jcenters]

Yeah, and just imagine if you could talk to someone on the other side of the globe with this device for no extra charge!

Think of the possibilities!

Re:Right

[fuzdout]

Yahoo already has this on Yahoo Instant Messenger where you can activate "voice chat" and with speakers and a microphone you can talk back and fourth with who ever has the same.
You can even set up web cams so the other person can see you :)

Re:Right

[limbostar]

The 'woosh' sound you just heard was the joke going right over your head. Thank god you're not taller or it may have hit you.

Re:Right

[KUHurdler]

If only AOL expanded their instant messenger service. Sure you can type and they can type back, but what if you could actually hear the person you were chatting with? Maybe this could even be done in "Real Time." We could come up with a device so you could walk around the room and talk at the same time without tricky networking setup. We could take everyone's name and give it a number and put them in a big book so that if you wanted to chat with someone and didn't know their number you could look it up. It would even have their address!


Nah, That would never work

Re:Right

[wobblie]

If only AOL expanded their instant messenger service. Sure you can type and they can type back, but what if you could actually hear the person you were chatting with? Maybe this could even be done in "Real Time." We could come up with a device so you could walk around the room and talk at the same time without tricky networking setup. We could take everyone's name and give it a number and put them in a big book so that if you wanted to chat with someone and didn't know their number you could look it up. It would even have their address! Think of the possibilities!

Yeah! It would almost be like ... a telephone!

Re:Right

[smilingirl]

Old Joke... Look at it here at BBSpot... AT&T Offers Instant Messenging Hehe.

Re:Right

[fuzdout]

[paranoid]how did you know I'm short?![/paranoid]

Re:Right

[Anonymous Coward]

We could come up with a device so you could walk around the room and talk at the same time without tricky networking setup.

It's called a cordless telephone. They've been around in one form or another for almost 30 years...

What Profit?

[Metrol]

Did I miss something in the article or what? I didn't see ANY mention of how AOL plans on turning a profit. Not much more than the very old news that there "should" be a way to turn that many eyeballs into dollars. I wouldn't bet on it.

As to all the folks whining on about how awful IM is in the workplace, I couldn't disagree more. A couple years back our sales force started using IM to message eachother, as it was the only way to communicate while on the phone. This spread to other areas of the company, and has grown in importance to how we do business.

For example, say a salesman has a customer on the phone and needs detailed inventory data that only the purchasing folks have. Rather than putting that customer on hold, an IM over to the right person and the call never has to go on hold to get an answer.

Like any other Internet technology, there's a fair amount of non-business related communication going on. This doesn't even begin to outweigh the benefits IM has had at my company. YMMV.

Re:What Profit?

[$$$$$exyGal]

The article sure doesn't say much about how AOL plans to make money with AIM, but it did say this:

Significantly, this enterprise package will include features that the free consumer version of IM lacks: ensuring that messages are transmitted over secure networks, with the capability to save messages for future reference, for example.

That was on the second page of the article.

Re:What Profit?

[MagPulse]

Interesting. Trillian already has both encrypted IMs and logging. AOL is just following their lead.

Are people willing to pay for instant messaging?

[skinnydskitzo]

NO

In the business world it's also kind of stupid

[JudgeFurious]

Considering that you have email, which you can connect to a pager in case they aren't there, the telephone (ah, old faithful) with voicemail which also can be paging you in case you miss an important call, your cell phone which many of us have permanently attached to our ears, and the list goes on and on and on....

Personally were I running a business this is about the last thing in the world I would bother spending any money on. That's just me though. Maybe there is some great benefit to this that I don't see. Someone make me a case for why I would need to spend some money on something like this. I'm curious here. Doubtlessly there's got to be something I'm missing.

Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid

[Osty]

You seem to have missed the point. The technologies you mentioned are great when you don't know whether or not the person is there. However, it's difficult to have a conversation over e-mail or voice mail, and that's where IM shines. IM is not about leaving a message for somebody, but engaging them in conversation when you can't speak to them in person. Yes, you could use the telephone, but you don't know for sure if they're there or not, and that also involves interrupting whatever you happen to be doing at the moment. IM let's you know when somebody is available, and you can ping back and forth without having to walk across the building or stop your work to pick up the phone.

A good example of IM technology being used in a "business" would be my college job as a computer lab sitter. During each shift, there were sitters at all of the different labs on campus, and we were all in contact through an internal IRC server. It made it very easy to keep in touch with other sitters, and even managers. We could ask questions of the other sitters when we didn't know the answer, and doing it over IRC was a lot less disruptive than telling the user, "Hold on while I call over to another lab." One advantage this system has over IM is that for a small group, we were all in the same channel (chat room, conference, party line, whatever you want to call it), so if one sitter was away from his desk, any of the others could still see the question and help out.

Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid

[j-pimp]

So I guess that fact that I have gaim running on a vnc session set up purely for runnin said gaim session, attemopt to be signed on 99.99% of the time. Only log on from this one client (until I get the time to to write a program to update the chat logs remotely), hardly check my IMs, don't always put up an away message and frequently have voicemail tag like conversations with people ove the course of several days is missing the whole point.

Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid

[Iguanaphobic]

Yes.

Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid

[sql*kitten]

Personally were I running a business this is about the last thing in the world I would bother spending any money on. That's just me though. Maybe there is some great benefit to this that I don't see. Someone make me a case for why I would need to spend some money on something like this. I'm curious here. Doubtlessly there's got to be something I'm missing.

Chat is taken very seriously in the financial services industry.

Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid

[j-pimp]

Well how do we stop everyone from doing this. Most of my friends leave aim on all the time. Most of them are engineering students some of which will go on to write software which might be instant messaging clients. Some might propose to management that more features might be added for using it as a non realtime method. I think I'm just an early adopter that implemented these features in a home-grown manner.

Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid

[commodoresloat]

Maybe there is some great benefit to this that I don't see. Someone make me a case for why I would need to spend some money on something like this. I'm curious here. Doubtlessly there's got to be something I'm missing.

So you can click a window and type "what are you wearing?" when you're supposed to be working.

Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid

[lewp]

Most of your friends are in the minority. The general public (not engineering students, for the most part) signs on when they're at the computer then signs off or sets themselves away when they leave. I use AIM in much the same way you do, but I understand that there are a lot more of them than there are of me.

Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid

[j-pimp]

Ok but the point is my friends are early adopter type people. They were the first to leave there home PCs on 24/7. Now even my aunt who's a salesman for a shipping company does. Stuff we do tends to drip down to the masses. More and more people are leaving there computer on 24/7. I think the pattern is going to continue until everyone but the I don't have a cell phone crowd does it. At that point people are going to adopt newer clients and protocols that will eventually turn it email.

Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid

[budgenator]

why I would need to spend some money on something like this.

you absoultly don't need to spend any money,
1 Jabber is free as is the clients, you can use their server or set up your own.
2. Yahoo is free just tell your people a yahoo account is required period and that they have to run ymessenger at work.

IM is going to be one of those things that one year from now will be a disaster if it goes down. If nothing else think of all of the time spent by employees not having stop and answer a phone for Honey pick up milk messenges.

Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid

[fucksl4shd0t]

Ok but the point is my friends are early adopter type people. They were the first to leave there home PCs on 24/7. Now even my aunt who's a salesman for a shipping company does. Stuff we do tends to drip down to the masses. More and more people are leaving there computer on 24/7. I think the pattern is going to continue until everyone but the I don't have a cell phone crowd does it. At that point people are going to adopt newer clients and protocols that will eventually turn it email.

The solution is for your IM client to turn on an away message automatically when you're idle, much like turning on a screensaver. GAIM does it with the MSN plugin, I don't know how many other IM setups support it. Presumably it'll do it for AIM as well. In fact, MSN does it too.

The underlying assumption is that if you're at your desk, you're using the computer, and that your idle is representative of your presence. I've gotten in the habit of wiggling the mouse when I'm on the phone just to keep the idler from turning on, but for most users it's probably good enough. Short of a webcam that shows you're available for IM, anyway.

Re:How to make IM an integrual part of my work day

[Metrol]

Been struggling with allowing customers access to me when I'm sitting down in front of my pc, and I've done a bit of a test.

Probably a bad idea out of the gate. IM's primary business use is allowing for more efficient internal communications. I'd never give a customer my IM name as a contact, as I couldn't possibly guarantee I'd be right in front of my computer to respond.

This is where E-Mail is a far better solution. Best tool for the job and all.

key sentence....

[tx_mgm]

from the article:

...while it has no plans to charge consumers for the existing service...

phew, alright then. i stopped reading there as that is all i was concerned with. glad they put it close to the beginning, heh. i thought for sure they were about to make ICQ or one of their competetors the NEW number 1 instant messaging program. glad to hear i won't be having to inform my friends of a new screenname on another service.
as soon as AOL starts charging for instant messenger, I (and probably the rest of the world) will move on.

Overheard at AOL boardroom

[Anonymous Coward]

"We transported 400 billion instant messages last year and didn't even get a lousy t-shirt."

Re:translation please?

[DarthWiggle]

Wow..... FUD and troll all rolled into one. God has got some mad skillz...

I'm not saying the poster doesn't have a valid point, just dial it back a few notches.

IM is just another means of communication, and, I'm sorry, if we've been able to survive into the world of telephones (especially annoying cubicle-neighbors talking about their personal business for hours during the workday) then we'll survive a transition to an IM workplace.

I dunno, I found IM to be an indispensible tool for getting quick situation reports from staff and other project teams, especially when I had an angry client on the phone demanding an answer RIGHT DAMN NOW.

But, again, the poster does have a valid point, if I can extract this from what s/he wrote: face time really is valuable, and IM _can_ allow non-confrontational people to avoid face time by firing off IMs rather than dealing with issues face to face.

Still, there is one benefit to IMs for this purpose: no accidental REPLY-TO-ALL events with IM. :)

By the way, this isn't a "depression." A depression, I think, presupposes a critical failure to utilize otherwise appropriate industrial/service capacity because of a serious breach of consumer and corporate confidence. We're going through - at least in the technology world - a shakeout of the overbuilt industries of the last decade.

advertisement banner

[mickcim]

What about that advertisement banner at the top of the buddy list? "2.3 billion instant messages are sent around the world via America Online" every day. That means there are a lot of people looking at that buddy list, and in turn that add at the top of it.

Seems like they are making a good bit selling that add space. Like most other free things making money through advertisement sells like television, radio, and web sites.

I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there that are willing to pay to have that kind of exposure. Especially if they can reach "40 percent of all Americans from age of 14 to 24."

Re:advertisement banner

[Junta]

If stuck in Windows, I prefer Trillian myself.

No Spam!

[mark_space2001]

An interesting line from the article mentions that one reason adults and businesses are turning to IM is that email is increasingly filled with spam. This is a great counter point to Barry Shein's interview earlier on Slashdot today.

Mr. Shein wants to legalize spam and allow ISP to charge for it, a position that I completely oppose. Shein's proposal will result in more spam and flood our in-boxes with even more junk. Meanwhile, users are grabing any technology that is less spam friendly (and not acrane and difficult to use).

when are tech writers going to learn how to write

[ohzero]

"But users of different instant messaging systems cannot communicate readily with each other. AOL has the biggest IM system in the United States, followed by Microsoft and Yahoo."
Ahem. Trillian. -EOF-

ok, this has got to stop.

[DarthWiggle]

Why the hell does my subject line get replaced with "Re: translation please?" in EVERY SINGLE POST I make?

Is this a bug in the slashcode? I mean, I made a post with "translation please?" about two months ago, and it seems to have stuck.

*growl*

Haha

[Spleenl3oy]

I just wrote a paper on this last week for a writing class, as a proposed change to AIM. Never thought I would get such a fast response :)

Microsoft Real-time Communications Server

[cpeterso]

Microsoft is trying to play in this arena, too. Their new Real-time Communications Server ("Greenwich") just entered beta. It will include security, logging and "follow-me" functionality. Apparently Reuters has already deployed the beta to over 250,000 users already, for customers such as Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch.

"Microsoft Preps RTC Server Beta"

Arthur Andersen and Re:Keep it simple

[SpikeSpiff]

Simple works inside a small-workgroup.

The potential of IM is largely in cross-department and cross-company applications. When I IM Amazon asking about an order, Amazon is going to want to have a record of what they said, who said it, and when. And this goes even more so for commercial transactions. It will be important to retain, search, and re-use conversations.

Finally, in the financial services arena, this is required by law.

Of course, the next Arthur Andersen scandal will relate to the shredding of IM logs.

What I don't understand...

[TheDarkener]

is if Instant Messaging has become so popular, how come corporations haven't accepted standardization of it's platform (I.E. Jabber)? Everyone's got incompatabilities with AIM, Yahoo Messenger, MSN, etc. etc. So you've always either got a half-ass client that tries to do them all, or you have a bunch of different ones open all at once to keep all of your contacts happy. Why isn't the Jabber server being used like a corporate E-Mail server, instead of a central server governed by one, multinational company? In my mind, that's just bogus. Would you use fileserver.aol.com to store all of your sensitive marketing/accounting information? I don't think so. So why use a central server for all of your correspondance about the same subjects? Why waste internet bandwidth transferring files to someone 10 feet away from you in the office when you can send it to them through a private IM server? Hell, you can even require SSL connections!! What else could you ask for?

Re:What I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just use gaim. Duh!

logging?

[lazira]

...the capability to save messages for future reference, for example

They want to charge for logging? Will they make money off of something already available in countless other third-party clients? If anything, they'll lose advertising money when more people go elsewhere for their IM clients. Of course, I could be underestimating the power of laziness...

Making money off IM everywhere

[polyiguana]

There's a lot of money to be made in the IM to SMS arena. Companies like Verizon Wireless make tons of money off SMS. At 10 cents per text message, and 2 cents per incoming message, money can go down the drain very quickly. Also, since the average IM message is much shorter than the average SMS message, the amount of money that come in increases. If AOL can promote the use of its servers as means of passing SMS's through between carriers (as inter-carrier SMS is still not ready for prime time in my area), and use it as a means of communication to the home, they can rake in the money. But first they need to negotiate for a cut of the money first. I doubt they are getting a cut of the money from the wireless providers now, simply because the providers are treating AIM messages the same as SMS. But when the AOL domination of the SMS to computer IM market takes hold, I wouldn't be surprised to see them lobby for a cut of the proceeds.

Re:How to make IM an integrual part of my work day

[Yo Grark]

The auto-away works really well.

If I'm not typing for more than 30 seconds, it shows AWAY, which is right.

And I've been reading good articles in business magazines which shows how IM is actually better than email, in that you can SEE when someone is there, then send them an email.

Knowing when a customer is there is certainly quite helpful, and in return, they know when you're there.

I still like the idea personally.

Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering

What's missing is...

[MoThugz]

an IM for Power Users. Something that doesn't use a lot of system resources. Can support broadcasting to multiple clients. I was thinking something along the lines of NET SEND (for Win32 freaks) or WALL (for *nix freaks).

I mean, which management would resist an oppertunity to improve communication dymanics of their staff but without reducing productivity by playing with UI (they came from hell I tell you!) uselessness?!

That's it... I'm patenting this idea and selling it to AOL!

Re:What's missing is...

[TheRaven64]

If you're in the admin group on a Jabber server, then you can broadcast to everyone online on that server.

It could go either way.

[ChibiTaryn]

Yes, there will be some people who will use IM badly. They'll spend all day on it, messaging people both inside and outside of their organisation, gossiping about their weekends or whatever.

There will also be people who will use it productively, and won't waste massive amounts of time on it.

It's just like people talking at work or surfing the internet. Some people will talk all day if they can get away with it, others will still talk every now and then, but they won't waste their work time on it.

People are all different. Because of that, Instant Messaging could go either way. I don't think it would make that much of an impact on a businessplace as far as productivity goes.

It's just yet another tool that staff could use, simple as that.

Sad

[WindBourne]

AOL/TM actually has the opportunity to take on and whoop the shit out of a number of these companies. The real problem is that the Markeeters and managers are total morons. They think that just doing more of the same will enable them to take on the likes of MS. It is impossible
So a couple of ideas to the new CEO:

1. Offer up a contest on the net and asked for new ideas. The top ones get their idea implemented AND a percentage of it.
2. Do not try and take on MS directly. Do not use their channels. They control CompUSA, Micro Computer center, etc. You can not win.
3. Build a different system and create new channels. This is eaier than taking on the MS establishment in a head on contest. BTW, that is why you folks are winning at IM.
4. Port to Linux. Do it now. Quit saying we will do it later. You can not take on MS in their yeard. They own channels, the markeeters, and I would guess the current admin. Make MS and others come to you.
5. Use wireless in areas that you do not control with cable. This is easier than it sounds.
6. Quit trying to manipulate MS with what you control. You will lose. MS is winning by simpl buying time . If you stay on MS, even with a hot product than MS is winning.
7. Fire your current markeeters/sales ppl. They are worthless morons.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why a troll? Re:Isnt it funny

[SpikeSpiff]

I've got to ask, what makes this a troll? Buddy lists are an interesting and unique piece of technology, and they drive how we use IM.

Let me be the first to concede non-rocket-science-ness. But the sames goes for about 98% of commercial (useful) software.

Trillain.

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

http://www.ceruleanstudios.com/trillian/index.html

IMO the BEST chat prog for Windoze. Oh, and the "normal" version is FREE.

From *this morning's* front-page of the post.

[Morologous]

Just now making the slashdot headlines 16 hours later... :/

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Corporate AIM?

[Junta]

I can't see corporations seeing a benefit from anything beyond the current form of AIM (or MSN, or whatever).
Those that would embrace it see nothing wrong with using the central servers. That is what enables it to work. If the servers go down, *everyone* knows and understands. Reliability is important, but accountability is more important. If it is obvious to people that it isn't the company's fault, it isn't so bad for the company as it would be if they perceived that the company is too incompetent to maintain their mail server, or else not realize the server is down and assume an important communication goes through that didn't. If companies *really* wanted IM on that level, Jabber would see more widespread deployment.

On the other hand, a great number of companies don't take IM seriously. The market perception, especially by those in suits, is that IM is seen as a toy technology, for personal use only. At the previous two companies I worked at, any kind of IM client was banned by company policy, it was seen as too much of a distraction. Didn't stop people. The network administrator was forced to 'block' traffic. He then proceeded to block it only to the point where the suits could test and think it was effectively blocked, yet provided people circumvention tips when asked. This is a boneheaded strategy, it is another viable communication form. Even now, when dealing with companies with a problematic mail server who need to communicate with me and I ask if they have an IM service and they seem to find it funny to even think of using IM in such a way. The attitude reflects 'this is a place of business, why would we be on an IM service while working, that is preposterous!'. Phones are for 'instant communication', email is for electronic correspondence, and many suits see that as that, with no middleground to fill.

Personally, I think IM services are a great thing for business and personal use. It is a great way to communicate without being obtrusive into work. While doing IM, I can do other things while waiting for responses. If on the phone, it is really hard to do anything else but focus on the phone. I've always been fond of Jabber, and wish that it would catch on. I know better though. Suits that have stereotyped IM as a toy are going to be a really hard sell on this I think.

Re:Corporate AIM?

[TheDarkener]

Maybe most people think of instant messaging as only for personal use because AOL were the ones that had a huge part in bringing it to the masses. Tell me, if Jabber was portrayed as an incredibly useful, professional corporate communication tool instead of a "chat program" (see, that word "chat" just makes it seem so non-professional), and you didn't have the history of AIM or ICQ or anything like that, it would be a lot like E-Mail is today. Do you not remember when E-Mail was rarely used in business? It wasn't that long ago... And there was a big fuss about that, too.

Where is Jabber?

[cranos]

Just a question, but with AOL, Yahoo and MSN all making plays for the Corperate IM market, where is Jabber?

I know it could really help out in the organisation that I work at as we have offices right across the country and its bloody expensive to get all the execs together for a meeting. If Jabber had Video/Audio support it would be just what the doctor ordered.

If I wasn't already building something else, I might even take it on myself.

Re:Where is Jabber?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.endeavors.com ....has secure instant msesaging/collaboration tools

Re:Where is Jabber?

[MyHair]

My employer, a Fortune 500 company, is apparently going to deploy Jabber soon. The project is announce, but I haven't been able to get hold of a beta or get the server IP yet.

Officially AIM and YIM shouldn't be used, but people do, anyway. I never did until I found out all my counterparts in HQ are on AIM, so I grudgingly installed AIM and now I can IM them anytime (it was always hard to catch them on the phone). Very handy, but it bugs me that our messages fly across the internet instead of just the point-point T1 from my building to their theirs.

um

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else read this as "Kodak Releases Digital Camera With Instant Messaging"?

Feasible: Yes; Probrable: No.

[Rufford]

What I'm interested in seeing in the IM software is how they are going to set up the hierarchy. Will the sensitive business information exchanged between two engineers designing the next best product be traveling around the internet? Or will AOL release a client/server model that will allow a company to contain their information and optional contain messages from/to the outside world?

My two cents is that most businesses are more ready to take a Microsoft answer in the all-in-one suite or find a open solution if their staff has the time. Besides, AOL IMer is nowhere near business app status.

And to those that don't think IMs have a place in business or that people just trade smiley faces all day, you haven't seen how many meetings are avoided by simple online real-time at-your-own-computer-and-chair chat.

Why should AOL make money with it?

[g4dget]

IM may look like a service being offered by AOL, but it really isn't. IM could be provided in the same way that E-mail is: through our ISPs. That is, each ISP would run an IM server, just like they are running an SMTP server, they'd use an open protocol, and your IM id could be the same as your e-mail (or maybe not, if you don't like that). That's, effectively, how IM started out on UNIX and mainframe systems, long before AOL or any of the other players.

It's a historical accident that, instead, we have this kludgy, centralized, closed infrastructure that's owned by AOL and a few other players. If AOL goes away and takes their "free service" with them, all the better, as far as I'm concerned. But we'll probably have to listen to this kind of whining over and over again.

Re:Why should AOL make money with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Suprasphere is like a distributed AOL for independent ISP's. It's designed to integrate Internet functionality (as distinct from protocols) into a single interface, and allow ISP's to create interoperable "spheres". The idea is that a larger number of interoperable nodes will be a larger force than any centralized service could possibly be.

It's like a cross between IM, email, mailing lists, newsgroups, voice mail, and a remote filesystem in a single secure interface. Check out screenshots at suprasphere.com.

Re:Why should AOL make money with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like that's closed source and closed protocol.

Why do we need more software or protocols anyways? We already have enough of those. All we need is to get ISPs to deploy software like Jabber and IRC nodes.

Re:Why should AOL make money with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The source and protocols are available. Besides, it integrates them together. If you haven't used it, you should check it out before you rule it out.

Re:Why should AOL make money with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a bad idea. I don't want a new IM address every time I change ISPs!! It is hard enough to keep having my email address changed. I finally just gave up using ISP's mail services and now use Hotmail for my email, only because I know my address will never change even though Hotmail's user interface and disk quotas suck.

Jabber people have thought about this

[_egg]

Here's the "Jabber Enhancement Proposal":
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0058.ht ml

There're tons of other interesting JEPs as well:
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jeplist.php

Check 'em out!

Re:Jabber people have thought about this

[SurfTheWorld]

Looks promising. It didn't look like it covered some of the things I'm imaging (being able to move your mouse over a block of code while speaking into a microphone asking questions (or typing them)), but it's definitely a start.

Jabber's so great....

Re:Jabber people have thought about this

[axxackall]

There're tons of other interesting JEPs as well: http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jeplist.php

Check 'em out!

Some one should check 'em in before another one can check 'em out. :)

Re:Replace useless voicemail?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to laugh ;-)
It seems if you are away from your desk, you won't see and reply to an AIM message or answer the phone. If you are at your desk to get the AIM, If you answered the phone, it wouldn't go to voicemail.

Sheesh, it's easy to make money with AIM!

[Fantastic Lad]

In 4 easy steps. Follow along if you will. . .

1. Give the service away for free to everybody, promote its use in companies, etc., so that, after a couple of years, "Nobody Can Live Without It."

2. Create an agreement with the other major instant message service providers to implement a pay-per-use system each either at the same time or in quick succession, so that there is no viable competition. This way, each of the big parties makes money and there is nobody for the feeble consumer to turn to. --Sure, this is only pseudo legal, (cartels?), but that's never stopped anybody before. And anyway, you're probably a terrorist.

3. Buy up the competition, bribe service providers so as to ensure low quality, irritating and unreliable service on free systems, and create the illusion that it costs billions of dollars to maintain the internet. Public relate, indirectly advertise, play the 'bleak ecconomic outlook' for all it's worth, and generally tenderize the public like a side of beef so that they'll willingly shell out for something which could easily be as free as water were it not for the creative greedy and their ilk. (And heck, we're paying through the nose for water these days, a vital commodity, and people bought that one, so how tough will it be to sell them on a frivolous toy like AIM?)

--And AOL facing an uncertain financial future? Suuuure they are. Let's do the math:

35 million AOL users x $23.90 a month = $836,500,000 Every Goddamned Month

My calculator ran out of available zeros and gave me an error when I tried to multiply the above by 12, prompting me to institute Lad's Law #3: "A company which produces an over-run error when trying to calculate yearly grosses deserves no sympathy whatsoever."

I can't believe that stupid article had the audacity to claim financial hard times for AOL. The only reason such could be the case is one of three things; Corruption, Stupidity, or Both.

4. Ridicule, harrase and Kill anybody who gets in the way.

Voila! Free money!

It's not that nobody's figured out how to make money off the internet, it's that only a the top layer of assholes have, and everybody else is just chump-fodder for the show.

But then nobody has ever accused AOLers of being particularly bright, have they?

-Fantastic Lad

Re:Sheesh, it's easy to make money with AIM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say I sell cars for $100. Now, if I sell to 240 million people, then I've just made 24 _billion_ dollars! That's like 2 orders of magnitude beyond what your calc can handle! OTOH, I bought the cars for $15,000 each.

High revenue stream != success. If they're having problems, then they should try to trim the fat or something, but maybe there business model is just becoming untenable. Who knows?

Re:Sheesh, it's easy to make money with AIM!

[Anonymous Coward]

My calculator ran out of available zeros and gave me an error when I tried to multiply the above by 12

The version of Calculator that shipped with Windows 95 had this problem. Why haven't you upgraded yet?

Re:Sheesh, it's easy to make money with AIM!

[sweede]

you have seemed to forget about how AOL also has
[1] several thousand employees, if not many more.
[2] an entire network infastructure to support AOL.com and its many other domains and websites(all the AOL keyword websites are hosted on AOL Servers), its 35 million users. Im sure that costs a few dollars or so.
[3] countless dollars invested in Research, Marketing and those damned Free AOL CD's

Re:Sheesh, it's easy to make money with AIM!

[jsewell]

The 35 million customers they say they have is way over inflated. That includes all the people who D/L AIM for free - they're AOL users, they have a screen name and all that, but they don't pay AOL no 23.90 a month. Hell the 35 mil probably includes every user they ever had who got the service and tried to cancel, becuase we all know how hard it is to actually get through to someone and cancel an AOL account. I have no idea what the true paying subscriber base is but it's not 35 million.

Re:Sheesh, it's easy to make money with AIM!

[devnull17]

Ummm, AOL is facing hard times. That idiotic merger with Time Warner isn't doing them any favors right now, and they're bleeding subscribers to their dialup service out the arse. The markup on broadband service is much lower than on dialup, so they're in some serious trouble there. Don't get me wrong; I hope AOL dies of gonorrhea and rots in hell, but they're not looking too good right now. Besides, how many people do you think would keep AIM if AOL began to charge for it? There are dozens of other companies around just waiting for that to happen, one of whom happens to be Slashdot's favorite. AOL's in some serious trouble.

Re:Sheesh, it's easy to make money with AIM!

[Fantastic Lad]

Ummm, AOL is facing hard times. That idiotic merger with Time Warner isn't doing them any favors right now, and they're bleeding subscribers to their dialup service out the arse. The markup on broadband service is much lower than on dialup, so they're in some serious trouble there.

Well, I did mention 'Stupdity'. I guess I should have tossed in 'Greed' for good measure.

-Fantastic Lad

Offtopic?

[toddler420]

just a thought:
are you using the m$ internet exploder? is it (or whatever browser) caching some form data for you?

since the base url is always http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?insertvariousvaria bleshere=inserttheirvalues

doesn't autocomplete always want to put something in there, if it's turned on?

(as an aside: is something offtopic if it's in reply to a parent that's already offtopic? just questioning my /. semantics...)

Re:Offtopic?

[DarthWiggle]

zen... there's no way this'll ever be read, but no, I'm faithfully using Phoenix. Yes, it has autocomplete turned on, but there's already something in there. It's just odd. odd odd odd.

Re:Offtopic?

[toddler420]

at least the subject worked on this reply :)

rotflmao!!

[Anonymous Coward]

rotflmao!!

No possible way you can make money off IM

[Rooked_One]

There are so many free alternatives out there. I mean, look at efnet and dalnet. Someone out there will follow suit and create a server on their resources. I think a lot of people pay for AOL becuase they are ignorant - not stupid.

Rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is what the morons at AOL must be smoking. This is just stupid. Far to many out there, if they charge for theirs, people will just find a free one to use.

FYI - OLD NEWS!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

FIrst, realize that stuff happens in the corporate world BEYOND what is posted to /.

Then after realizing how much bigger the world is than all of us, go here and do some reading.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=tech& ca t=instant_messaging

Long story short, AOL, MS, and Yahoo! are all tripping over themselves to offer a corporate IM solution after they dropped the ball squabbling about standards and opening up each other's IM networks to each other. Right now, there are something like 30+ IM startups all trying to be number one in the corporate IM game. Currently, IBM/Lotus (didn't see that coming did you?) SameTime has like 65% market share in corporate IM.

MS does have some rudimentary IM stuff in older Exchange variants but its anemic for corp needs. They have a project called Greenwich which will be their corporate solution. It's mostly a collaborative effort with another IM startup.

Also, late last year AOL was awarded a patent for IM technology. Seems the original patent was filed for in '97 by Mirabilis, which AOL bought in '98. So, hence they have THE patent on IM now. What that holds remains to be seen...

We use sametime

[Archfeld]

but the first thing we did was neuter the bundled AOL IM :) Unless they plan on making money by providing encrypted or VPN like services I don't see where they are gonna make any $$$ on IM's.

I've been wrong all this time!?

[LongJohnStewartMill]

So what you're saying is that I really should send around all those messages that say, "Keep ICQ FREE! Send this to you entire contact list!". Now if you'll excuse me, I have to apologize to a few people...

Space: Getting OT here

[MCZapf]

On the other hand, think of how few people have been into space. The percentage of astronauts/cosmonauts who have died in the effort is relatively high.

Roughly 2% of space shuttle flights have ended in total loss of vehicle and crew. Two of a fleet of five spaceworthy shuttles have been destroyed.

With that said, I understand that space travel is risky. If I had the opportunity to go into space, I'd certainly be willing to take the risk. I think our space program should definitely continue.

Who in their right mind would pay for that?

[forgoil]

First off, in a corporate environment you can pay for IM, but then it has to be something more than simply the same stuff you can get for free. And it is the same old "buy the software and use it" that is going to do then.

I am quite sure I could get tons of people to switch to Jabber the second they would have to pay for AIM/ICQ/MSN. I would be one of the first to close down my ICQ and MSN (which I never use anyway) accounts and in a last message tell everyone that if they want to contact me, do it on jabber, because I will never touch this crap again.

How could they ever make money on this?

The upside is that all jabber software would improve :)

Re:Who in their right mind would pay for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

and who's jabber server owns enough bandwidth to handle 1.1 billion+ messages a day?

That costs money you know.

Re:Who in their right mind would pay for that?

[MyHair]

Who in their right mind would pay for that?

Who would pay for Windows/IIS when Linux/Apache is free?

Who would pay for Exchange server when there are free alternatives?

Who would pay Novell or Microsoft for simple directory services and file/printer sharing when LDAP and Samba are freely available?

My initial reaction was just like yours, but then I looked at the rest of the industry. I bet the big boys will find features and support that companies will pay for. Unfortunately.

I just posted that my Fortune 500 company employer is deploying Jabber, but they've been talking about it for months and it's not out of beta testing. Now that I think about it, it wouldn't surprise me if some exec said "screw it, AOL promises to get or corporate IM working and has the experience" and pay them instead.

Do you work in a distributed environment?

[toddler420]

I work in a company with 4 locations, two on the West Coast, one in the Rockies, and one on the East Coast. I send/receive on the order of 300 IM's per day, discussing any topic from customer issues to what I had for dinner last night. I have resolved at least 4 customer issues today alone utilizing *only* IM; another employee has the customer on the phone and I am able to work with the employee to determine the issue and resolve it remotely *without having to get directly involved via phone*. That's it, the customer's issue is resolved and they are happy; both I and my co-worker can get back to work (immediately) knowing that our customer is satisified.
And it didn't take an email, a trouble ticket, or 4-24 hours to get completed (these are regular process for dealing with issues that technicians can't personally resolve immediately).

While not *all* of my IM's are work-related in the strictest sense, about 85% of my traffic is directly related to my work directives. And the rest saves me from having to walk over/drive over/call over to speak with people who I would normally shoot the proverbial "bull" with anyway.

Unproductive? I think you're eating too many paint chips.

Re:Do you work in a distributed environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, just YOU, just scale that up to be a PUBLIC interface to the company :D NIGHTMARE. What you then need is some form of IM load balancer distributer like CALL CENTERS have.

NO SOLUTIONS EXIST for that today taht I know off.

I had to . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you try Trillion Pro?

Suprasphere

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out Suprasphere. In particular look at the screen shots and the new user interface it has. One of my friends who has the beta showed it to me, and I thought it was quite impressive. It's Java, so it has the cross platform support, and encrypts all traffic. If you initiated the IM session, you can publish the transcript into a thread.

The ultimate instant messaging

[DaCool42]

I have only one thing to say:

$ write user

Re:How to make IM an integrual part of my work day

[realdpk]

I'm not an account manager, I'm basically a tech support rep (just one of the many hats, really) in a group of people. We used to do IM support, but it's fundamentally flawed for groups - customers end up always contacting the same IM address, and get frustrated when the one person is not there. Or even if you're all there, one person has to handle all the requests.

I think an IM client that allows multiple people to use the same nick could be very useful for ISP TS departments.

Check out suprasphere.com

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a hybrid threaded discussion server and instant messaging system. You can publish IM transcripts and then highlight specific sections of a transcript to reply to it. This is really nice when you miss an IM session and you want to be able to comment on a specific point that was mentioned. When you click on a reply in the thread it will highlight the section of transcript the person wanted to comment on.

Also, it supports most of the features of IM, like file transfer, but it can also do revision control and has support for moderation of transcripts and comments through a voting mechanism. It's like being able to use instant messaging for workflow. It's kinda hard to describe even, but go to suprasphere.com and get the beta. I just asked for the beta and they gave it to me even though they said they have an official program.

Suprasphere

[Anonymous Coward]

Suprasphere does exactly that. Some people have developed modules in suprasphere to make it act like a cross between a development environment and a version control system, and it obviously has support for IM, threaded discussions, and workflow out of the box. You can highlight a section of source code, right-click, and hit "chat". This will create an encrypted IM session, the transcript of which will be published as a followup to the file in thread. You can post your changed versions of files into a sphere. It will do a diff, and any conflicts will require a vote by the last author of the conflicting file. The voting model can even be overridden on certain files to require a percentage of all developers to vote to approve the changes, a certain number of votes, an average score given by moderators, or specific listed developers or managers to vote. You can create event notifications for when certain files are opened, or certain lines of code are changed.

Then, a build action gets submitted (which itself can be voted on), the finished build appears in the sphere as a new asset, and you can run it from there. This makes it really useful for testing and deployment too, since you can run it from different environments where Java's installed. It even allows you to define your own editor, which IDE's often do not.

Try Jabber !

[Ploum]

I use Jabber for a few month now on "amessage.de". The server was one day down and the MSN gateway was one day down too. But that's all ! I had this with MSN and ICQ too sometimes ! Lot of features are really cool ! ( http://ploum.user.amessage.de my blog for example ) I create a webpage to explain "why choosing Jabber?" but it's in french... (anyone would translate it ? ;) ) http://frimouvy.udev.org/formation/jabber/ Jabber is IMHO the only alternative ! Try it ! And you say : "gateway are not fully reliable" but others IMs don't have any gateway and try to block gateway from Jabber ! ! ! Try Jabber with a few Jabber contact in your rooster, it's another world... Welcome to jabber ;)

Senior Design Project

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm writing a Jabber IM client for my Senior Design project, and if you're looking to write this client, you may consider looking into the Muse API.

From the echomine.org web page:
The Muse API is a Java API with the goal of integrating all network-collaboration services into one. The API will give an easy-to-use interface that allows you to log on to multiple services (ie. ICQ, AIM, MSN, Yahoo Messenger, IRC, Napster, Gnutella, Jabber, XMLRPC). There will be a client GUI Framework to combine the use of all these service under one easy-to-access API so that you can write GUI clients with much less effort.

Re:How to make IM an integrual part of my work day

[Anonymous Coward]

Company called Relavis has a support center product that allows IM (as one of several communication channels - also email, phone, etc), but intelligently routes it to an available agent, same as it does with a phone call. That way you get the responsiveness you're looking for.

Oh and another thing: support agents can multi-task on IM chat - handling several "calls" at once. Try doing that with phones.

More than one kind of spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, there is also the fledgling IM-spam business, thriving on AOL. At first, I thought I had acquired a secret admirer, and then perhaps another. But with a quick reality check, I knew it was just spam. I feel so used.

Jabber has bots

[HeelToe]

Point in case; there are plenty of bots available for jabber servers. Join any of the public groupchats conference.jabber.org hosts and there are often bots hanging around with that "common knowledge." Additionally, there are plenty of examples of bots already around built upon the numerous APIs to jabber, including a number written in perl against NET::Jabber.

I personally use one that checks my presence and sends me messages if mail shows up in my inbox and I'm in one of the availability modes I've defined as meaning I'd like to hear biff bark.

file transfer/direct connect

[chocolatetrumpet]

The only reason I use aol's client is because of file transfer/direct connect abilities. They seem most successful with aol's client, and much, much less successful with a client such as Gaim.

I love the tabs... but the most important thing is ease of exchange of information. For my friends, aim file transfer is all they know, so if I want to communicate with them, that is what I must use. They're too busy to learn something new, and I'm not sure I really care, personally.

open source doesnt mean 'do it yourself'

[Anonymous Coward]

if you are spending money then doesnt make more sense to just hire jabber team to tweak it for you?

you hire the experts who actually build it.
you can keep the source.
you support open source.
your karma goes up.

I think its better use of money. :)

Logging and more on MSIM

[shreak]

I use MSN Messenger for IM. Don't know why I chose them over AIM. Two devils, pick your poison I guess...

Check out Messenger Plus http://msgplus.patchou.com/

It keeps chat logs as well as provides other features (customized status etc...)

=Shreak

Oh Yeah GREAT

[Greyfox]

Chatter between the phone monkeys was strongly discouraged in the support environment I worked in. Our job was to act as a buffer between the 90% of the customers who had common and easy problems and level 2 who got the other 10%. Talking to the other phone monkeys distracted you, distracted them and reduced the number of calls you could handle on a given day. And at the phone monkey level, it's all about the number of calls you can handle on a given day. Phone support is the "You want fries with that" equivalent of the IT world. The company doesn't care if you actually fix the customer's problem. They just care that you talk to 20 to 30 customers a day.

In that environment, IM would only be a distraction. It'd be distracting for the techs who actually know something and could reduce their call volume and their efficiency, potentially getting them fired. Try handling a live and almost always pissed off customer on the phone while trying to juggle 1, 2 or 3 other people IMing you at the same time. If the answers are trivial enough for you to do it effectively, they could have found them as easily in the support database, and they'd eventually memorize the common ones if you weren't spoon feeding them (I *STILL* remember the RSPDSPI command flags to reset your system video drivers back to VGA and it's been almost a decade.)

Re:Oh Yeah GREAT

[pebs]

Well, sure for "phone monkeys" this may not be a good idea. But in a development environment it can be useful for someone to be on the phone and sending IM's at the same time. For example, someone will be on the phone with a client, discussing a bug that they are experiencing, and at the same time sending me an IM telling me about the bug so that I can start investigating it immediately. We use IM extensively here, and its often that someone will be teleconferencing and sending out IM's at the same time. A lot of our communication is done through IM. Its faster than e-mail, is more conducive to discussing software development than voice, and it gets logged.

The real world-sweeping apps

[Anonymous Coward]

are compact, have one or few purposes, and often fill a hole that was there but unknown.

What about emacs?

I like Everybuddy

[big_groo]

Check it out. here

AIM is reliable

[Trepidity]

Of the variuos IM services I know of, AIM is the most reliable. Over the past four or so years, there hasn't been a service outage longer than a few minutes (the last major outage of 4-5 hours was five or so years ago, iirc). It occasionally has weird quirks with loading your buddy list from the server, but it's pretty much never actually down. This isn't true of most of its competitors.

sametime sucks, and don't get me started on lotus

[diablobynight]

That was a brilliant idea, building a database oriented mail server that isn't even real time. fun fun. I hate lotus. Oh and sametime, ICQ corporate edition was out long before.

Re:this is very urgent bizzness deal

[malia8888]

Dear Ndugu....

Nope. 35 million is about right.

[Fantastic Lad]

The 35 million customers they say they have is way over inflated. That includes all the people who D/L AIM for free - they're AOL users, they have a screen name and all that, but they don't pay AOL no 23.90 a month.

Nice try, but. . .

You may be right of course, in that AOL's public relations department might have an agenda which requires false figures be broadcast. But all I did to get the 35 million figure was type into Google, "AOL Subscriber Base," (subscribers, meaning people who pay), and then I averaged the returns. I wasn't looking at how many people use AIM, (which is much, much higher).

-Fantastic Lad

Nonsense.

[Fantastic Lad]

you have seemed to forget about how AOL also has
[1] several thousand employees, if not many more.
[2] an entire network infastructure to support AOL.com and its many other domains and websites(all the AOL keyword websites are hosted on AOL Servers), its 35 million users. Im sure that costs a few dollars or so.
[3] countless dollars invested in Research, Marketing and those damned Free AOL CD's

Awww. Poor AOL. They have overhead like every other company on the planet.

YOU seem to forget that they don't actually make anything. They don't lay cable. They don't do any real R&D. They don't need to constantly buy raw materials, or pay to ship anything, (or alternatively manage a fleet of trucks). In fact, most of the costs which chew up most of the revenue in other companies are entirely absent with AOL. All they do is manage information; they're a glorified switching company. The phone companies run the exact same racket, and they don't seem to have any trouble racking up billion dollar profits. --And they lay cable and do R&D, and build switching systems. If AOL can't make a profit in their Playskool business environment, then they are, as I already suggested, stupid. Though, I might upon reflection, up that to, 'Incredibly Stupid.'

As somebody else pointed out, their primary cause of woe these days is most likely their poor management of the TimeWarner takeover. (ie, Stupidity.)

I have no sympathy for AOL. They're greedy dolts and they deserve to founder.

-Fantastic Lad

Knock knock, who's there?

[pr0ntab]

Jabber.

You've just described it (including the email address as ID idiom). Go do a search on google and you'll know why it addresses your suggestions.

kibitz

[200_success]

You can get most of that functionality using kibitz and talk.