Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo and Microsoft to Merge Instant Messengers
Primotech writes "Betanews has word that Microsoft and Yahoo plan to link their respective IM clients again so that users of both can communicate with each other on one, shared network. Facing threats from third-party applications, like Trillian and Skype, the two tech giants will claim 44% of the instant messaging market, analysts predict. They will also go head to head together with the biggest competitor, AOL."
That's interesting, since they have waffled back and forth on the issue of compatibility with other messenger systems. First they complained because they didn't have access to AOL. Then they closed their systems and didn't let others in. Now they are sharing again...does this mean they will grant access to their closed network to all outside clients? Hmmmmmm?
Could this be a step towards a single IM protocol? Not XMPP, but good enough for me :-)
DxBlog - It's where you want to be
When are they going to integrate with AIM?
Normally stuff like this from MS makes me shudder with dread. But the lack of a standard communication IM protocal has driven me crazy for years. Trillian and other programs are ways to get around that, of course. But, having a single standard would go a long way, and this is a nice step towards that.
Compete in features you offer in your IM clients, but for heavens sake unify the networks.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
I have no buddies on MSN. Most are on either AIM or Yahoo. But I hate the fact that Yahoo seems to not want to develop for Mac OS X anymore. The Mac MSN client is pretty darn good, though, so it would be great to be able to use the MSN client to chat with my Yahoo buddies.
Do the Google IM servers already know how to talk to other Jabber servers or is it still an open protocol in a closed environment?
bash$
Speaking of implementing multi-protocol clients...
How long until Google implements Jabber's nice transport features in Google Talk? This would allow people to use Google Talk to IM their MSN, Yahoo, ICQ and AIM buddies. While they would still have to have an account with each service, at least the client would be centralized, and to most people, that's the same thing as having one account. Google would gain huge market share (even though people are still using other protocols), and it would basically cost them nothing.
Like Jabber? XMPP is an open specification IM protocol with support for all kinds of neat features (encryption, for one, network bridging for another). The problem isn't in having a protocol, but in convincing everyone to use it and support it. (Yeah, I know, the spec was only finalized more recently than the MSN and Yahoo! networks were created. The point stands, though.)
If they can get AOL in on this too, it could be very bad.
Everyone being able to talk to everyone else would be nice, but there are big downsides if it's a closed network. If it ends up that 9X% of users are on a single A/M/Y-IM network then it would be very hard for anyone else to break into the market.
Google is in very direct competition with Yahoo, and Microsoft sees Google as the biggest threat to their dominance. Now, a couple of months after GTalk's release, Yahoo and MS are ganging together. They aren't doing this because they want their users to benefit (if they really cared they would've done this a long time ago). This is MS and Yahoo trying to keep Google from gaining a foothold in IM.
I really hope Jabber will take off, but this move makes it less likely. With everyone split up over AIM, MSN and Yahoo, Jabber could at least offer a means of unification. Now it's looking like we could get stuck with a single closed network.
If a handful of players lock up the network, innovation will die.
I would _really_ prefer a widespread jabber net, complete with client->server and client->client encryption, but that seems to be a pipe dream.
All hope for this lies with Google - if enough people start using Google Talk, Google will extend the protocol to make it support the features people want, and third parties will update their clients to add support (and then other third parties will update their servers to add support for the new features in the updated clients). If Google Talk doesn't take off, Jabber will continue to suck.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
What I would like to see is active adoption of Jabber by the big players. Jabber for the most part is still like Ogg Vorbis: "interesting, but who's using it?". Google using it is certainly helping push its adoption, but at this point in time I haven't heard of any ISPs, or Fortune 500 companies, actively taking it up and connecting. Apple has also chipped into the effort, by providing a Jabber server as part of MacOS X, but how long before we see that rub off I am not sure.
Voice chat and video chat are the next two aspects that need to become part of the Jabber portfolio and adopted.
Looking at the road ahead voice chat is going to be migrate into telephony, but before it does certain things must happen first. Telephony needs to support emergency services, until then players like Google will state 'this is not a telephony service', in order to avoid FTC type regulations. The steps I see are:
We can't predict what the future will hold, but we can influence the journey getting there.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Wow, just what we need now days. I realize that it was popular in the past, but really... we have VOIP and did that like 3 or 4 years ago, so whats the great deal about IM? (at least for me it sucks) I generally gab with my bro via a cell phone and there ya go. Painless, free (if you have a decent plan) and that's about it.
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
Just so you know, Drunkenbatman had this pegged.
Within the last few weeks, there appears to have been a meeting between MSN, Yahoo and AOL. They'd all been talking amongst themselves -- and sparsely with each other -- about how to respond to Google, but were still trying to make up their minds...
The Cow Abides
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
It depends in the area and quite frankly in certain cases the age of the users. Yahoo! seems to have an older (in terms of age) user base than does AIM. Also I've noticed in certain areas one client is more popular than others. I was part of a now defunct web based chat system that had a large number of users from a few towns in Indiana (not that I am from there) which spread via word of mouth, a large majority of them seem to have migrated over to Yahoo! messenger (there is a way on the now defunct site to share contact info with other ex-users so they can get in contact with you). In my experience AIM is far more popular, but Yahoo! has a user base as well.
Disclaimer: I run the ursine.ca Jabber server.
The yahoo transport sucks donkeyballs. It's unreliable and crashes for no reason, usually while I'm trying to get other work done. As evil as Microsoft typically is, they're doing us a favor: Now Jabber only has to maintain two or three transports and none of them involving some bletcherous hack from jabberd's transports if you're using the otherwise far easier to deal with ejabberd. Microsoft has to have their way, so you can pretty much kiss the YIM protocol good bye and everybody with a YIM ID suddenly having @yahoo.com Passports instead, and good riddance. Now there's only two proprietary protocols left: Oscar (AIM/ICQ) and MSN.
The 80 gajillion Google fanboys are suddenly able to access the rest of the IM landscape that isn't stuck in the last millennium with their Google Talk JID. Google users and the rest of the Jabber network rejoice, AOL shits itself seeing headlights coming from both directions.
Microsoft and Time Warner are going to strike a deal that will be kind of like AOL announcing that October 1993 would effectively follow January 2005 on the Usenet calendar. Except instead of AOL continuing to exist, Time Warner flushes AOL like an unwanted fetus on prom night, selling it out to Microsoft. Microsoft has to have their way, so you can pretty much kiss the Oscar protocol goodbye. Everybody with AIM IDs suddenly get @aim.com passports. Everybody at ICQ gets @icq.com passports.
And then there was one. MSN Messenger fights to the bitter death, losing mindshare bit by bit until 10 years from now, Microsoft's holding an empty bag and wondering how the hell they missed the boat on IM. Everybody loves Google, and many will switch to Google Talk on basis of name recognition alone. Thank God that they don't abuse that power.
(And in other news, the Portland Winterhawks probably won't make the playoffs this year. Again. Dammit.)
Help us build a better map!
When you set up a Yahoo! account for IM, you can give them a "spammy" email account that you only check whenever you need to supply an email address for something.
I did that when I linked my Trillian into Yahoo! and it's worked great. Except for very recently when Yahoo upgraded it's file sharing and now Trillian needs to play catch-up or something.
-David
Recent usage statistics actually look a bit like this:
Of course, there is also Jabber which was 10 million at last count which was a couple of years ago but more than likely growing. There is also QQ messenger, which supposedly has over 100 million users, but every news story like this conveniently ignores.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
What makes you think that they aren't making money from their IM services?
It seems pretty obvious to me that the main reason these companies offer these services is to attract people to more of their services. Have you looked at Yahoo Messenger lately? It's filled with links and features to various Yahoo services. Same with MSN and AOL messengers. They give you links up the ass to basically everything that their company offers.
Additionally, many people on Yahoo, MSN, and AOL messengers often use that company's e-mail services. If you took a look at AOL's upcoming replacement for AIM that's currently in beta (called Triton), you'd see that they have integrated AOL Mail with the client, along with AOL Radio, and many many other features. Hell, they actually automatically bundle extra software when you run the installation (including AOL Explorer, which is a very decent replacement for IE).
Basically, the IM clients are gateways to the services of each respective company, and I think this business plan has been quite successful so far. Otherwise, they'd've abandoned these services years ago.
UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
I can't understand why Americans say "I could care less" - the sentence makes no sense... what does it mean? I could care less if I tried? If I wanted to? It always seems to be used in the context of "I could NOT care less" or, "It doesn't bother me", "I'm not interested." It means the exact opposite though! Are you just too lazy to type the extra 3 characters? (n't)?
Any there American Etymologists around who can explain this?
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
Or at the very least, fix your webcams streaming and audio, guys. Audio's generally fine (minus Yahoo's sudden stopping if it detects a period of constant volume level, so sometimes I'm playing my guitar with hands-free on and the damned program stops streaming my audio,) but when I want to videochat with my mother, I don't want super mode dropping out on me, suddenly, without any reason or cause, and we both know we've touched nothing that would make it stop.
MSN fares no better with it's astonishingly fast 3-6 fps. Screw that. Camfrog does this better. IM, voice, video, and even has some pretty awesome video chat rooms. It's good enough for deaf people to speak using sign language on cam. Does that tell you how good it is? You two should strive to be more like that program, Yahoo and Microsoft. It's small, (compared to Yahoo's 10 meg install size and MSN's 11.5 meg install,) it's fast, and it WORKS. Camfrog's only downside is it's 2k/XP only, though I understand there may be an OSX version in development.
MSN's audio sucks even more. MSN needs to be like Yahoo, and add a PUSH TO TALK BUTTON. Nothing is more annoying than feedback in my headphones, thanks to my Logitech's mic/webcam combo (quickcam messenger) having an uber-sensitive microphone. It's almost at it's lowest possible level and it's still getting feedback off of my headphones, with me sitting about 4 feet from the microphone.
Can we fix our programs first, guys?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The yahoo transport sucks donkeyballs.
And how much did you fucking pay for it? I seriously don't know why everyone here is so down on yahoo. Besides overcommercialising everything, they provide absoloutely great services for free, the best of which is their yahoo messenger. Its the only place where the relatively uninitiated can log in and chat to complete strangers a planet away. MSN won't let you do it without paying them. And don't talk to me about the IRC channels; yahoo is to them what a concorde is to a guy jumping off his house.
Trillian, jabber, all of these might be technically slightly better under the hood, but in terms of end user experience, the slick and FREE package offered by yahoo is so far ahead that these chat clients will in all probability never catch up.
I have met some fascinating people and turned up a great deal of commercial opportunity by the use of yahoo. Where else can you click a button and chat to people from Vietnam to Africa to Brazil to the US? I was talking to an Iranian woman there the last day. She astounded me with her quick witted and very together responses. Not at all what I expected from what I assumed would be a trampled-upon muslim female. Then again, she was astounded to hear the US was threatening to invade her country, so you live and learn, eh...
Yahoo isn't sharp enough to be google, and its not evil enough to be microsoft. Its like the bumbling uncle of the internet. Yahoo mail is solid as a rock, and so simple to use that it beats most client side interfaces hands down. And did I mention free? Honestly, most of the crying about yahoo comes back to their use of advertising. If you don't like advertising, give back your TV. Because its not much use without any programming. And you may as well return your DVD collection too. And polish up your credit cards for slashdot's coffers, because you can bet Taco and co aren't going to fork over the fees for bandwidth so you can whine publicly about advertising and its evils. And google, everyone's favourite, would not be here tomorrow if you turned off the advertising (unlike M$).
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
GTalk's use of open protocols (Jabber/XMPP) is the biggest single thing that differentiates it from the other IM providers. Yahoo, MSN, AIM all have a history of locking third-party clients and protocols out of their networks.
This is probably why we're seeing this move from MSN and Yahoo -- GTalk is a disruptive technology. It's like GMail's introduction of 1GB quotas: before GMail, users settled with a few MB quota because that's all that was available. GMail's introduction forced the competitors into a reactionary state -- to Google's benefit.
I think we're seeing the same kind of effect here from GTalk's introduction. GTalk's use of open protocols signals an end to the segregated, proprietary IM networks of today -- because if your company wishes to create a new IM client or a new IM network, does it really make sense to make it a new, proprietary and closed network? Certainly not, if you can just plug into the Jabber/GTalk network and instantly get a massive (potential) user base. At the least, it lowers the barrier of entry for users to use your product.
Being Yahoo, it must be at least a little tempting to convert your Yahoo Messenger network to Jabber and merge seamlessly with the Jabber/GTalk userbase. Yahoo is forced to decide whether they want to stay proprietary, and hope they can keep users locked-in with their excellent messenger software and existing userbase -- or go open, gaining the benefit of an increased userbase and more user freedom, but with only the quality of their software and user loyalty to keep their messenger-derived revenue stream kicking.
So merging with MSN would seem to make a lot of sense. Time will tell whether it's enough to save both closed IM providers from eventual obsolescence, though.
Trillian works because of its simplicity, these companies need a standard IM protocol and then let the best interface win!
I prefer the stripped down versions like 'DeadAim' where only the most basic features work. I have no need for stock updates, sports scores and directed advertising. Is this too much to ask?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson