Slashdot Mirror


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."

26 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. More secure than AIM, no fucking way! by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And if you are worried about security, Google claims that it's more secure than AOL Instant Messenger," said Nathan Weinberg, who runs the InsideGoogle blog.

    You mean it's more secure than sending and receiving plaintext + HTML? Wow. I'm impressed. Personally I think everyone should be proxying their AIM sessions over encrypted tunnels (especially if you are on a college campus) but I'd be more worried about Google archiving and learning my chat preferences. Soon I'd be getting "spam" to my GMail account based on my most frequently used words.

    Personally, I don't want to log and search my AIM conversations. Most of that is quick chat or non-sense. I see where in corporate environments it would be useful but for MY home use I just don't see the need. YMMV.

    1. Re:More secure than AIM, no fucking way! by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Personally, I don't want to log and search my AIM conversations. Most of that is quick chat or non-sense. "
      While true it is also sad. Back when people wrote letters you used to take some time and put thought into it. I have kept some letters from friends that went a way too college or just moved. Look at the book Grumbles from the Grave or the letters that Gallieo's daughter wrote to him the see the value of keeping letters. Even the letters of "normal" people can provide an insite in the times they lived in or to make them more human.
      IM and email has take a lot of that away. It is just to easy to write a quick email or im that friend on the other side of the country. Little thought is put into it and it has the life of a mayfly. It is here and then gone.
      Google may be going the future a great service by keeping those emails. If they keep them for a very long time that is. Who knows? In 50 years we may get a copy of all of a Presidents emails from when he was a teenager. The same with his IM messages.
      Google could become the keepers of history. The new library of Alexandrea.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:More secure than AIM, no fucking way! by Dhalka226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IM and email has take a lot of that away. It is just to easy to write a quick email or im that friend on the other side of the country. Little thought is put into it and it has the life of a mayfly. It is here and then gone.

      I'm not entirely sure what I think about this issue, but let me play devil's advocate a little bit.

      You're right in the short sense. If you compare any single IM I send to any single letter I have ever written, the IM message is going to come up short. But then, that's the value of something like IM: It permits instant feedback. With a letter, you would put a lot of thought and time into it because you had to. Once you send that puppy, it might take a week just to get to your recipient, a day or two for them to read and find time to reply, and another week for your response to hit home. In short, there was a two week lag. This obviously means you want to make sure you say everything you've had to say in one pass.

      But I wonder--if instead of looking over a single message or something of IM, if you took the sum of all the messages with somebody for a day or two--would it still seem to come up short? I admit it. I have a lot of really silly IM conversations, just goofing around and being silly with friends, and believe it or not the things that come out in conversations like that often mean more to me than the prepared stuff. All that's true. I don't know about anybody else, but I have also had some extremely deep conversations in IM. I've helped people with girlfriend problems, I've helped friends through depression, helped some younger friends deal with things like having to move and potentially leave their friends behind. Or hell, just listened if they had a bad day and want to do a little complaining. All in real-time.

      The language might not be as flowery, the threads of conversation might not be thought out for days in advance--but I think all the emotion and compassion is there. And it provides a method for discussing things as they happen. Maybe we're being silly one minute and the next they find out something that devastates them--boom, that conversation changes in an instant. Certainly can't do that in a letter.

      In a lot of senses, I prefer IM because it's more personal. In terms of communications, it's the next best thing to being there with the person or maybe getting them on the phone (which isn't always feasible). It's personal, it's friendly, it's a couple of friends shooting the breeze and seeing what topics come up. Unlike letters, where there is usually some pre-planned "motive" (in quotes because I don't want to imply anything sinister) to writing, where the speech is pedantic and formal.

      About the only thing that bothers me about IM in particular and the Internet in general is the writing. I don't think I need to go into any details about that with this crowd. On the other hand, I have friends across the world who, thanks to this medium, I get to talk to every day. If that means putting up with a few Internet-isms, I consider it a small price.

      After all, the purpose of IM and email and writing letters are all the same: to allow people to communicate. I'm not sure it ultimately matters on what "intellectual level" we're communicating on so long as the writer and the recipient understand the message and the meaning behind it.

      And I've really gone on a ramble without much of a point. Sorry. Just kind of dropping my thoughts on "paper" and seeing where it leads.

  2. Right.... by ltbarcly · · Score: 5, Funny

    Right after they release their web browser.

    1. Re:Right.... by irn_bru · · Score: 5, Funny

      When is their Cola coming out?

    2. Re:Right.... by Ingolfke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cola? You understimate Google. They are releasing an energy drink that has a simple sweet flavor similar to Sprite. It is mixed with ginsing and nanobots that will search your soul and reveal your innermost desires.

    3. Re:Right.... by HyperChicken · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'll save them some time: My innermost desire is a fat-free pudding that doesn't let you down in the flavor department like so many others.

      --
      Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
  3. Awesome by mrn121 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have grown so tired of the AOL IM client (for a multitude of obvious reasons, not the least of which is excessive bloating), but I find myself stuck with AIM because *everyone* is using it.

    I would love to see a google solution. Google could take over the world for all I care right now. They keep kicking out quality products, and I keep on eating them up. kudos, GOOG.

  4. Re:whoohoo by maskedbishounen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Like targetted ads towards your conversation? Woo!

    <friend> hey, got rejected again last night, eh?
    <you> yeah. :/ one look at the duct tape around my glasses and she ran out screaming.
    Google Ad: Russian Brides~

    Okay, where do I sign up?

    --
    "An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
  5. Gaim by SeanDuggan · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Gaim by BaldGhoti · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      [insert witty sig here]
  6. One day... by TheGatekeeper · · Score: 5, Funny

    With Google branching into so many fields, one day you'll drive your Google to the Goggle to buy some Goggle to eat while you watch Google on your Google.

    I'm serious. Please do not mod funny.

    --
    'The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age,' -Hamá, the doorward
    1. Re:One day... by D-Cypell · · Score: 5, Funny

      I find that notion terribly google, but who am I to google!

    2. Re:One day... by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh no! It's the Smurfs fiasco all over again!!

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
  7. Isn't that a bit cautious? :-) by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    How about -- soon to be a reality? :-)

    Hmmm... I hope they'll go for Jabber. IMHO, the world doesn't need yet another IM protocol. Actually, I don't think we need yet another IM client either, but that's just me. Who knows what innovative features Google might come up with. I have a hard time imagining the next generation for IM clients myself. Any ideas? :-/

    Hmm, maybe a shared virtual storage among a group of invited IM buddies. Have no idea if someone already did this though. And I think they'd need to stay free even while coughing up with the hard drives to accomplish this if they'd want any kind of user base. Hmm...

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  8. IM market too crowded by __aaitqo8496 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't possibly imagie them trying to take over a large portion of the IM market. It's already quite crowded as it is (AIM, MSN, Y!, ICQ, Jabber, etc.)

    What I can see them doing is making a universal IM client with the addition of a GIM protocol or maybe GIM-only features that might sit on top of other clients (who knows?).

    Although it is also interesting that Google has implemented AIM log searching into thier desktop search, it doesn't mean they'll be extending this to a GIM service; that also is to say that just because the desktop search looks through IE history, doesn't neccessarily mean they'll be make a GBrowser.

  9. Re:whoohoo by prescot6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IM, how original... but I guess they can add their own twist to it.

    Google's reputation was built from their search engine. Not exactly an original idea, but they did it better than anybody else. Gmail, web-based mail... Not very original either, but they've done something with it that nobody else has. So isn't it feasible that they could revolutionize IM the same way?

    With all of the great ideas that come out of Google, I believe they can do anything.

  10. One has to wonder by Jakhel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    did we indeed create a monster? Look at the evelolution

    -search engine
    -search engine/mail service
    -search engine/mail service/file searching system
    -search engine/mail service/file searching system/possible OS/IM Client

    Granted that yes this is the same route yahoo took (only yahoo doesn't have a file searching system and possible OS on it's development list), but google seems to be taking this to the next level. If google continues to grow and adds more Gfunctions to their already large collection, will it eventually become as large and distrusted (possibly even hated as far as /. is concerned) as microsoft? I mean, do you really welcome your new Goverlords?

    I could just be overreacting.

  11. interoperability, google by majid_aldo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    as long as they play nice and get past the legal hurdles; interoperability is key.
    no, not like trillian.

    --
    --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
  12. no... by dhowells · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that would fucking suck.

    1. No feedback on message delivery.
    2. Bandwidth overhead introduced by error correction/checking (UDP is the wrong protocol)
    3. Central server still needed to record IP addresses to pass to clients.
    4. Massive bandwidth outlay on connection. (Modem user has to send buddy image to all 100 buddies online).
    5. It wouldnt work throught a NAT firewall.
    6. You wouldnt know if you had become disconnected.
    7. You couldnt log on from any machine (ala msn, icq), because no central server to give you your contacts list.

    In short i think your idea sucks in SO many ways. It would be suck a step back. Serverless UDP is not a scaleable communications system. It sucks for P2P and would for IM too.

    If you want to consider more intelligent message delivery system, consider networks like OpenFastTrack.

    Dom.

    --
    use Blunt::Instrument;
    1. Re:no... by rednip · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
  13. Still now linux support.. anywhere by cybrthng · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, there may be hacks.. but for a TECH company with BILLIONS in the bank - why - oh why - is there no forward momentum, develop and thinking in regards to capitalizing on the linux market?

    Sure the protocol will probable be hacked into gaim or kopete, but thats not enough.

    The web is supposed to be platform independant - introduce cross platform tools google! Please!!!

  14. Re:just curious by qodfathr · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
  15. Hmm. by mcc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everything Google has done so far has been things where the level of consumer lock-in has been relatively low. Search and news services, all that it takes to switch products is to go to a different URL. Email requires a bit more work to change but people do change their email address from time to time. Googlebar and the hard drive search, well, all that takes is installing a little program.

    IM though is drastically different because you don't use IM to communicate, you use IM to communicate with people you already know. Does anyone really think AIM is the best IM client? I doubt it, but AIM is what is popular because AIM lets you talk to the people you already know. The degree of lock-in for IM is immense. So launching a new IM client wouldn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. People have been making IM clients for years and years now and "alternative" IM clients have never generally seemed to get anywhere unless, like, Trillian, they can support a lot of different IM networks in one app; doing this is a lot of thankless work for not much payback. Unless you're Microsoft and you have to own everything, exactly what does "wow, people are using an IM app with my logo on it instead of an IM app with those other people's logo on it" gain you?

    Maybe it would make sense if gmail added some YG-like or IM-like (or both) features between people with gmail accounts. Maybe it would make sense if gmail added some kind of small proxy so that people logged in to gmail could send and receive messages from AIM. But I think some of these googlewatchers just periodically attribute every possible software product under the sun to being part of Google's plans. So far we've had Google planning to make an operating system, a browser, and I've even heard the IM client rumor before. So far Google's new products have consistently been a bit more subtle and surprising than that.

  16. Maybe they're cautious cuz they read the article by mcc · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  17. Do we really need another? by LinuxHam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be much easier and more cost effective if they would just announce "hey gmail users, now your id & pwd work on our Jabber IM server!" It would instantly become the most popular Jabber server on the net, and the only effort would be in creating a cluster resilient enough to handle the onslaught, something they seem to be "pretty good" at. Wasn't that one of the original design goals of Jabber? So people could reuse their email addresses as IM uids, and service providers can host their own IM servers?

    Finally, for everyone pushing Gaim, don't forget to mention Gaim-encryption to go along with it. It staples SSL and its own key management over top of any protocol Gaim supports. No SSL proxies or shyte like that. The chats are encrypted the entire path, client-to-client.

    --
    Intelligent Life on Earth