AOL-Yahoo-MSN Messaging Unified... in the Workplace Only

bakreule writes "Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo! are teaming up to link their separate instant messaging services for use in the workplace, 'the first major step by the industry leaders to enable computer users to communicate with one another no matter which of the three systems they use.' Sound to good to be true? It is. 'What this does not do,' Root said (yes, that's his name), 'is the holy grail of instant messaging, which is to allow anybody on any network to send a message to anybody on any other network.' It seems that the system, which is aimed for corporations, involves some MS software which acts as an intermediary between the different systems. Sounds like a fancy version of all the open source IM clients out there."

Comments

Why not an Open initiative?

[garcia]

Sounds like a fancy version of all the open source IM clients out there."

No, it doesn't sound like gaim or any other client. It sounds like a centralized control center for tighter watching over employee's IM conversations. gaim doesn't automatically forward my AIM messages to someone on MSN or Yahoo without me having an account on each. This seems like it would do that. gaim doesn't log all my conversations from all networks and store that information in one spot so that my boss can watch what I am sending across the networks.

Why does MSFT need to be the one doing this? How about an Open initiative that wouldn't require the three IM giants? It would likely be less money, better for the employers, and operate with more features and less bugs.

Too bad the employers only trust those that shouldn't be trusted.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[ePhil_One]

However even though this uses MS middleware, it could still be a good thing as it might make MSN/Yahoo/AIM less likely to break their protocols just to stymie the open source clients. Maybe not, maybe they will just tell MS to update their middleware, but no way to tell just yet.

Unless MS is paying them for access to their protocols, I doubt anything will change. I actually think that even if MS is paying for access to their protocols, they will still want the software broken every so often by the other guys, since it forces users to buy the software subscription, while they remain innocent.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[baudilus]

Correction: E-mail in most corporate environments is not usually actively monitored, which is why you never hear about someone being caught for something they sent. Separate from the government, corporations have to justify costs. Spending any amount of money for someone to read through e-mail is counterproductive (read: cuts into the bottom line). E-mail is usually monitored after someone is already suspected of something.

On a side note, we don't have a centralized IM chat server at my office, but I do know that MSN conversations are logged. IM messages are plain text, being sent over a network, over known ports. So just because you company isn't opting for the MSFT solution to chatting, doesn't mean your conversations aren't out in the open. Any network tech with 2 minutes of free time can do the same thing that you fear so much from Microsoft, without the added cost of the software.

Jabber anyone?

[nhstar]

Isn't that kinda what jabber does? I know it's not spot on, but it's close.

No ICQ????

[Dak_Peoples]

Does anyone even use ICQ?

and a way to get paid

[PDAToday]

It also sounds like a way to institute a payment/subscription service similar to OfficeOnline offered by AT&T Wireless and other types of "corporate" services.

That's cool, but it doesn't affect me

[trompete]

I was a trillian user for two years and have now been a Gaim user for a year. The only thing that would change for me is the number of sockets that my computer would maintain.

I wonder if this movement would also spark a movement toward disabling 3rd-party clients. That would NOT be good.

Trillian
Gaim

It sure would be nice...

[Iphtashu Fitz]

If gaim supported all this. My company standardized on Microsofts corporate IM system but all our operations people use linux exclusively. We use gaim to IM with each other but can't access the corporate IM system since there's currently no linux client that supports it...

SameTime

[PktLoss]

When I worked for a larger company we all used Lotus SameTime (often called sometime, as in it should work sometime), it worked quite well, and the integration between the client and corporate lists was really usefull.

IM clients are a happy comprimise between the phone and email. A phone nesesarily distracts the contactee from whatever they were doing, while many people only check for email every X minutes. An IM message doesn't have to pull them away from whatevery they are doing, and they can respond at an apropriate moment.

IM clients also provide more granular controll over your status, and display that status to others. With a phone you can answer, check call display and let voice mail handle it, or send all to voice mail. With IM you can be available, busy, do not disturb, away, etc. The fact that this is displayed to others can also allow them to make decisions on wether or not to bother you.

All in all I am glad to see greater acceptance of IM in the workplace

Re:Step toward the future?

[ACNiel]

You see, one company charges another to carry their call, and the first company, in turn, charges you.

With all this money floating around, coming out of your pocket, these companies are more than glad to route each other's calls. It all happens for a price.

If you don't want to have to worry about 4 different clients, there is always email, with its highly standardized protocols that anyone can route anywhere.

What we really need is a ubiquitous standard like SMTP, for IM. That way, any person can start up their own service, and everyone else could still get the messages. And then a whole new spam threat would emerge, the main downside.

The fact that we need centralized servers to be logged into is part of the core problem. If anyone could set up a server, it wouldn't matter what messages Yahoo would forward to where, someone else won't be such a prick.

Re:Not to sure about this ...

[Mr_Silver]

If I were AOL or Yahoo, I'm not so sure i would want Microsoft providing the software to provide the intermediary connections.

If I was AOL or Yahoo I'd be happy with MS doing it.

Why? Because neither AOL and Yahoo probably have the development resources to do this and, by having Microsoft, you're almost certain that it'll gain widespread adoptance as soon as they bundle the service into the default install of their server or integrate it into Microsoft Outlook.

In addition, if it all falls apart, it's Microsoft that has put the most time and resources into it.

Live Communications Server?

[Joe5678]

Although the article had just about zero details. My guess would be that Microsoft has simply convinced Yahoo and AOL (read: give big piles of cash to) to connect to the already existing Microsoft Live Communications Server.

I *think* that Live Communications Server uses "Session Initiation Protocol" which I *think* is a public standard. I would guess that, theoretically any IM client could implement it and connect to Live Communications Server. Although that is purely speculation, there might be licensing fees associated with SIP or Microsoft might have "adjusted" the standard in their own special way.

So why does Microsoft *want* Yahoo and AOL to integrate with Live Communications Server you ask? Probably because Microsoft's IM market share is so small that nobody really wants to use Live Communications Server. And really, there is not much money in basic instant messaging. However, at $700 for the server, and then an additional $25 per user on the server, there is a lot of money in Live Communications Server.

We recently installed the trial version and it's crap. The only real thing it gives over basic instant messaging is the ability to archive all messages on the server, which is a necessity for some business. Although they don't give you any way to search through archived messages, it's just a SQL database full of records. Not exactly worth $25 per person.

Re:Competition vs. Conflagration

[Anonymous Coward]

"so ISPs can offer their own servers and still have people communicate cross-network"

I think you hit on something great there. I haven't talked to many people that ever considered ISPs running jabber servers, but that could possibly help to swing things. Imagine if the majority of cox, comcast, and RR users out there could get IM names that matched their email addresses.

No spam jokes, please. I believe most jabber clients allow you to accept messages only from users you've authenticated. Perhaps that's enough incentive to keep the spammers out? (I shudder to think it's that easy, if it caught on they'd probably write worms to message everybody in your jabber roster).

Converge the protocols, diverge the media

[naily]

When will they learn? The essential power of IM is not just in the current text medium, but in its potential as a multimedia realtime browser. See iChat for a glimpse into the future.

You see who is currently online (the realtime bit), then decide on how you want to interact: voice, video or text. Easy-peasy. Except 1. it's part of AIM and 2. AIM on PCs doesn't do vid or voice.

So once again, it's the big boys trying to carve up their own piece of the internet. IT'S NOT REAL ESTATE, IT'S VIRTUAL ESTATE!