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

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

[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

[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: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".

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: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...

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).

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.