Could IM Be The Next Step For Google?

Rob_Warwick writes "Silicon.com has released an article theorizing that Google might be thinking about releasing an Instant Message client. Between a google_im:// protocol embedded in the Google Desktop Search, and their acquisition of Picasa and their IM client this summer, it almost sounds possible."

Comments

Gaim

[SeanDuggan]

Try using GAIM. It's a chat client that allows you to use a variety of protocols, including AIM. No ads, no bloat, and if you have multiple messenger services, it can cut the number of extraneous icons in your taskbar. Only drawback IMO is the lack of video and sound options and the occasional interruption of service when one of the messenger services decides to get clever with their protocol. However, Gaim tends to catch up within about 24 hours on the latter case.

Re:Gaim

[BaldGhoti]

I'm sorry, but I've been using gaim exclusively for about five months and I just dropped it today due to its general poor performance on my ancient 450mHz machines. Yeah, I know, you aren't surprised that they're slow. But guess what? MirandaIM runs MUCH more smoothly. I just started using it today, so I haven't found any annoyances with it yet, but boy is it smooth.

Re:I hope so!

[Jucius Maximus]

gim.com
gchat.com
gmessage.com
gtalk.com

All *not* registered by google (unless they're doing some sort of proxy registration to hide their name.) I'll be watching gbrowser.com anyway which *is* owned by them.

Re:Don't forget gmail notification

[blackicye]

I tried out the Gmail notifier for two weeks, then uninstalled it.

Aside from it having some minor issues (popup requesting confirmation of email login and address every reboot not always being able to connect and check you messages, among other things)

It has a 7+ MB memory footprint for its process.

Re:just curious

[qodfathr]

You can find the index here: \Documents and Settings\userid\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Google Desktop Search

In my case, GDS found 134,576 items it deemed worthy of indexing; the index consumes 1.58GB of disk space.

Maybe they're cautious cuz they read the article

[mcc]

And saw this part at the end:

A Google representative said the protocol flagged by Smith does not hint at a pending Google IM product; rather, it is merely a component used to capture IM data from AOL Instant Messenger and make it searchable on the desktop.

Re:Awesome

[Dragoon412]

You may want to look into Miranda. It's a GPLed, light-weight, multi-network IM client that's much less of an eyesore than GAIM, and with the rather large number of plugins, is as flexible as you want it to be.

Think of it like Trillian's smaller, sleeker cousin.

Gmail and dots :)

[Elementalor]

http://gmail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answ er=10313&query=dot&topic=&type=f

Think about how many different gmail addresses you have just adding dots :)

You're welcome :)

Re:no...

[rednip]

1. No feedback on message delivery.

UDP means that the application is reponsiable for delivery. When a TCP message fails in transit, it has to wait for the timeout.
2. Bandwidth overhead introduced by error correction/checking (UDP is the wrong protocol)
For voice applications UDP is the correct protocol because it's quick.
3. Central server still needed to record IP addresses to pass to clients. This is the 'big' issue. I there are ways around it, such as the 'super node' concept used in distributed file sharing. Also, I've got an idea of my own... (patent pending!)

4. Massive bandwidth outlay on connection. (Modem user has to send buddy image to all 100 buddies online). As oppossed to the modem user which would need to download all 100 buddy images from that *lovable* central server.
5. It wouldnt work throught a NAT firewall. I am not sure which firewall you use, but I have never seen one that won't support UDP.

6. You wouldnt know if you had become disconnected. Sure this is a bit of an issue, but as more poeple get on stable broad band connections, this will become less of an issue.

7. You couldnt log on from any machine (ala msn, icq), because no central server to give you your contacts list.
It would also mean that no central server will have your contacts, sure you might have to carry your own buddy list info, but then you would also be the only one responsiable for securing it.
UDP is an underated protocol, it has been eclipsed by TCP mainly becuase (IMHO) TCP is easier. For an IM application which incorporates voice along with text, I believe that it would be a good choice.