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?

[Jahf]

If it uses middleware to translate between them, then it most certainly does sound like Jabber. GAIM, no, Jabber yes.

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.

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.

AOL-Yahoo-MSN Unified

[tpgp]

AOL-Yahoo-MSN Unified

Man I'd hate to see the baby.

Not to sure about this ...

[auburnate]

If I were AOL or Yahoo, I'm not so sure i would want Microsoft providing the software to provide the intermediary connections. In the light of all the wonderful IE exploits and such.

My $0.02 ... Nate

Re:Net Send

[stratjakt]

net send is a source of great fun in an office full of morons.

Name your computer something ominous like "SYSTEM_KERNEL_DAEMON", then do some creative net sends, like:

net send * This machine has performed an illegal instruction and will self destruct in 45 seconds.

etc, etc, and so on.

Hours of fun for the whole family.

Or, when one new employee was fired around here, the next day I named my machine to his login id and sent some:

net send * You cant fire me! You are all fucked now! You'll be sorry!

And watched the panic stricken manager types run up and down the hall screaming "he's in the computer! he's in the computer!".

Aah.. Good times.