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
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.
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;
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...
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!
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!
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.