Microsoft Messenger Architect On The Future Of IM

CowboyRobot writes "ACM Queue has an interview with Peter Ford, chief architect for MSN Messenger, by Eric Allman, CTO of Sendmail. They discuss the present and future states of IM, the current big players as industry shuffles toward standardization, some of the social implications of IM versus email or telephone, and technical issues such as using SIP as opposed to XMPP (Microsoft is pushing for SIP, everyone else seems to favor XMPP). They don't bring up Wallop, Microsoft's community application that will be built into Longhorn, but that's surely part of the long-term discussion."

Comments

SIP

[metamatic]

Microsoft is pushing for SIP.

IBM, which sells the #1 selling business IM solution (Lotus Instant Messaging), is using SIP.

Apple is using SIP.

So who are the "everyone else" who want XMPP?

Real Improvements

[Aneirin]

IMs are fine and dandy but when are they going to work on improving video confrencing. Typing is tedious but strides haven't been made in free video confrencing software. Perhaps that should be part of their implementation of the next "IM" software. Afterall even the old Netmeeting has a chat window you can bring up.

Am I the only one who doesn't use IM?

[SharpFang]

I used ICQ for a while, then uninstalled it, multiple times had to uninstall YIM that got installed with Netscape before Mozilla really came into play, fought kids installing GG (polish IM) on classroom computers, generally did a lot to get rid of instant messengers from my life. Am I weird or what?

Re:Am I the only one who doesn't use IM?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

generally did a lot to get rid of instant messengers from my life. Am I weird or what?

No, you are not weird. It's a well-known fact that IM, even more than computer games, is a notorious productivity killer. So much so that many companies have started to firewall IM clients off and edict company rules forbidding the use of IM at the office.

Now Windows will propose it by default in all standard installs, I bet that Microsoft decision will be very popular amongst IT personels : it's hard enough to discourage the use of third-party applications without having to deal with the Microsoft trojan-horsish IM client ...

My views on the future of IM...

[TheDarkener]

Protocols will become more proprietary, telco companies will continue to *squeeze* money out of consumers for sending text messages over networks which would otherwise be utilizing much more bandwidth for a normal voice call, and proprietary IM providers such as AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo will not collectively work toward a standard, because they have their hands too deep in consumers' pockets to see that it would benifit more people than just them to work together for a common good.

No, I don't think the major IM players will settle on a standard. The best thing we can hope for is that the Jabber protocol catches on and we all have an open IM standard.

That's most likely not going to happen, though, until the rest of the world catches on to the whole OSS movement. And at that point, there are going to be so much better things out there than text IM that people are working on together that it won't matter anyway.

great story, but one thing wasn't touched on

[astrashe]

That's a great story... I don't use IM or chat very often, so I haven't thought much about them. So a lot of what was said was fairly relevatory for me.

The thing that interests me is the way that Ford talked about differences in accessibility (can people you don't know communicate with you?), and verifiability (do I know who you are?) in various systems, and how one system (say chat) might be used to allow rough and tumble anonymous communications with strangers, while another (IMing) might be limited to friends on a whitelist.

Another characteristic that's particularly important to me is real time vs. instant response. I *hate* systems that interrupt me in real time, which is why I use email instead of IMs. I've pretty much stopped answering my phone, too, because I can, and now I depend on my machine to queue up calls, so I can deal with them when it makes sense to do so.

The question that all of this raises, for me, is whether or not it's practical to have a comprehensive messaging service that will allow people to tweak all of these different parameters in combinations that they like. Is there any need for email and IMs to be distinct?

Maybe we need a messaging "account" to be open, and another to be whitelisted, or one to be real time, and another to be queued -- but can't they be the same general sort of accounts, configured differently?

(I'm not talking about trying to twist email itself into this shape... but about a new system that would cover much of the same ground.)

Re:Kind of a side question

[jjhlk]

Netmeeting is 2.5mb in its directory on my win2k machine. Oh my, what a horrible waste of space. IM, a browser, and a video player too? Microsoft provides a platform for largly ignorant people to browse the web, play movies, check their email, and play games. Would you rather those things not to come with the operating system, so these users have no idea how to do anything? It doesn't make sense to add alternatives, first for the bloat, second because you'd need to include so many Windows would be a 5 disc set - but mostly the bloat. Anyone can go find an alternative tool, and many of the things that come installed with windows can be removed (movie creation, all the clearly extra bulk).

The OS/application boundary (if you mean DLLs) is a different thing.

Where is IRC?

[ciurana]

There was, in my opinion, a glaring omission in this article: no mention of IRC. I find this interesting because there is no reason why IRC shouldn't be adopted as the protocol of choice for text instant messaging. It's more stable than all the others. It interoperates nicely. There are IRC servers running on all kinds of operating systems. Endless clients.

How many millions of people use IRC? Why not adopt it as a mainstream system? I was surprised that the interviewer, being from Sendmail, so glaringly ignored throwing this into the mix. IRC can do everything instant messaging can, and then some.

Both the Mr. Ford and the interviewer failed in their mission: the former may not be much of an architect if he's willing to overlook this, and the latter should've asked more incisive questions.

Cheers,

Eugene

Do these guys actually use IM? Oh, and Yahoo

[nalfeshnee]

The interview was pretty useless for Slashdot: the technologies should be clear to anyone with five minutes to research SIP or XMPP. I'd have been far more interested in the features side of things. THAT's the thing which interests most people. It's also pretty obvious that Allman -- for all his matchless credentials -- doesn't actually use IM.

For example: without altering my firewall config, I get far far better cam performance with MSN than I do with Yahoo. Interesting point, if one is talking about Microsoft's protocols. (And yes, I *do* use cam for exactly what you are suspecting.)

Secondly, what the fuck is this point ahout?:

EA The ability to queue messages, of course, is one of the great things about e-mail. You don't have to be there right now to read it. Do you see any kind of queuing happening in IM along the lines of "Gee, when I log in next, I'll see any messages that came in for me in the meantime"?

PF A lot of us call that the offline messaging scenario. Offline basically says you're not available. Where does the instant message go if you are offline? You could either queue in an intermediary node or you could actually queue at the source. Typically, SIP, as it's designed today, is pretty much an end-to-end protocol.

Yahoo has queued messages for years, it's one of the things which I love about Yahoo.

MSN is all about re-doing windows in a messenger: same crap all over again, with an improved NetMeeting (which as I said, really has very good video performance).

AOL is in my opinion just an add-on, for years rubbish and not much better now. It's just an extension to the AOL 'portal environment' and in its own way a logical extension of the same. OK, but not breathtaking.

ICQ and Yahoo though, are very very different: they build real communities, and are NOT JUST ABOUT IM.

Yahoo for one -- and yeah I just love this IM -- is just bursting with features, like IMvironments, Archived messages, Queueing, had Cam *way* before other clients even considered it, and has a thriving chat-mode which makes conferencing in NetMeeting look like something out of the Stone Age.

Whyowhy doesn't Yahoo *advertise* it's own brilliance? It has so much good stuff, and it behaves like Apple. Invent gobsmackingly cool apps, and then halfheartedly advertise them. And all the while Microsoft papers the planet with adverts which announce a 'brand! new! chat! system!' for windows.

Great.

Nalfy