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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[_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

[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

[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

[jedrek]

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

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.

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: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. (;

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!

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.

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: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!

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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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: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...

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.

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!

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.

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).

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: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: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. :)

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.

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