Slashdot Mirror
IM On Mobile Phones
Dr Occult writes "Some of the biggest mobile phone networks have joined forces to push instant messaging (IM) over mobiles.Fifteen operators, including Vodafone, Orange, T-Mobile and China Mobile have agreed to work together to make it easy to IM across networks.
Third-generation mobile networks can carry more data and move it around far faster so messages really can be instant.This is important because IM conversations typically involve more back and forth than text message chats and it ensures that the experience is similar to that enjoyed online.
Under the initiative, the 15 operators covering 700 million mobile phone users have agreed to use a single standard for IM, which would work across networks.The operators are looking to launch instant messaging mobile services later this year."
Do we REALLY need more stuff on our cell phones?
I mean, isn't an mp3 player, camera, games, calendar book, internet access, email access enough?
Soon we won't have to look at each other at all! Seriously, maybe this could lead to a replacement for Blackberry.
NINJA SPIRIT - The Ancient Art of Insanity
Is it just me, or is there not really that much point to this (unless you're deaf)? After all, the point of a text is that you can send it when you're not in a position to get involved in a lengthy conversation, just need a quick snippet of information, or just to send "pub, 8pm". But with IM, you're effectively just having a conversation.... why not just talk? Surely it's easier and more effective than typing like mad at keys that are hardly designed for the purpose?
As long as they don't charge PER message, this is a VERY promissing service. And even more so when the desktop IM clients start being compatible with this standard.
If I clone myself, can I call it a thread?
If a girl winks to us, can I call it a race condition?
I use Ramble IM on my Nextel BlackBerry and it works great as a real time AIM client.
How is this any different than that?
Just different because we call it IM now?
Now, voice over ip is slowly starting to replace textual conversations on computers. IM began as a way to mimick the way people talk to each other on the phone. Text was used because, well, not everyone had a sound card (especially not in office PCs) and the amount of data transfered in voice chat was a lot more than text (and that's not too convenient when you're on a 56k modem or when you're charged for every Megabyte transfered).
Now there's a medium that's perfectly capable of handling voice conversations. Why I know? Because that is (or at least was) it's main application!
Why the heck should I want to "downgrade" to typed conversation? Especially on a "keyboard" that breaks my fingers already when I'm forced to compile a short message? Granted, there are others unlike me who can actually use that tool to type fairly fast, but still, nothing beats the speed and easy of verbal communication.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's also the cheapeast way to mass-send photos etc, much cheaper than using MMS.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
I've been doing this for a couple of years without 3G thanks to applications like agilemessenger on series 60/80/UIQ phones. It is dead handy when firewalls block IM and you need to IM people.
I love text messaging, but that's because the message gets through whenever the recipient next looks at their phone and you can keep things concise.
IM on a phone, unless it's an unusual one with a full keyboard, would just be really unsatisfying and slow. By that point even I would call the other person, and I don't like speaking on the phone.
OTOH, I'm all for device convergence, the less things I have to carry around, the better. It's not like I was carrying around an IM client device though.
Hasn't anyone else noticed that it is hard to type on a 12-key keypad? I hate sending txt's simply because of that...
As a person also already said, txting is when you don't want a length convo and jsut want to say stuff like: "din pete 5" to make dinner plans at pete's at 5....
"You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
In an imaginary world, carriers cheerfully and competitively provide progressive services to their fellow humans.. in the real world, they're looking to gouge and limit things as much as possible. Maybe I just need to switch providers, but I have a feeling after this cabal gets their hands on it, this is not going to be the IM of dreams.
IC - Instant Conversing
It's just like a regular phone call except that you do not dial a number, you just say a name and start talking!
Perfect for those 'on the go' and for use while driving, sitting in a movie theater, or even while in class!
Just like Text Messaging has gone the way of Instant Messaging, regular phone calls are going the way of Instant Conversing!
With this amazing new technology, you will sure to be hooked!
Only $19.99 if you act now, fee will be added to your regular monthly phone bill. Long distance and roaming charges do not apply. A surcharge will be added for incidental costs incurred. Service currently not available in Greenland, Antarctica, and China.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
My telephone runs windows mobile, and comes bundeld with MSN messenger. I can connect through GPRS, and that 'works'. The only problem is I/O. It is hell to type in any messages with my keypad, with or without the help of T9.
I feel that the biggest hurdle to take in this scenario is not the technical feasability of running IM apps on mobile networks, but the I/O capabilities of mobile devices. PDAs are largely business oriented, while the bulk of the IM-users consists of teenagers, who do not carry a stylus-based mobile device.
Anyone running a PocketPC Phone Edition smartphone, already has IM in the form of MSN Messenger.
It has been around since the release of the first SPV (about 5 years ago), so I can't see what all the hubub is about.
On the + side - most modern phones can run java, so plenty of scope for developing a non company controlled IM service -- maybe one that links all of the other together
Why don't you just use your phone to, you know, talk?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
If you're looking for a great, FREE client for AIM, check out Toccer. Its not as fully functional as Verichat, or others, but it's still great!
What, me Tweet?
I've used XMPP over GPRS from my laptop and palmtop, and it's very convenient. I can have about an hour of moderate activity for about the same price as a text message. I would love to have native support for XMPP in my 'phone, but something tells me that this will just be yet-another-proprietary-'standard'.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The idea is great. While it still dissolves the notion that a phone is primarily for voice communication, the move seems to be towards as many PDA functions as there can be, without calling it a PDA. The only thing is... what will be the costs involved? If its the same as SMS, then foget it =) Oh my, kids are going to chat even when I unplug the modem now =(((
http://www.automatiq.se
Guess what. Now they can even start working on a voice protocol.
Rethinking email
I use a Treo 650 which has a qwerty keyboard, the SMS application already places each text in a chat thread so you can see what you have sent and received from the person you are "chatting" to... however at Xp per message it's quite expensive and of course you can't chat with the IM clients on peoples computers.
Alternatively there are already IM clients for Palm OS allowing the use of AIM, Yahoo!, jabber etc on the Treo... personally I don't use them, but then again I don't use IM on my computer either.
I can't really see what the news is here, apart from some phones will be providing functionality other phones have had for ages.
Haydn.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
Wow, I'm ranting on like someone that saw a UFO - I'll stop now.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
Are these phones powerful enough yet to run voice recognition software yet? I know there are some phones that let you say "call Mom" but I'm talking a full setup that allows you to train your phone to handle speech. Typing on these is a bitch, especially for IMs. How 'bout it, Science?
How is this new? My nokia 3390 from 4-5 years ago had integrated aol instant messaging. In my mind they need to use a standardized protocol instead of inventing their own closed protocol. How about putting a jabber client on every phone? If each provider ran their own jabber server and peered between them everyone could talk to just about anyone. They could even peer with other jabber providers like google talk so people could chat with computer users as well. This isn't rocket science so why do they feel the need to re-invent the wheel?
I use BitlBee for talking to MSN/Yahoo!/AIM/ICQ/Jabber . Because BitlBee is a IRC to other chat networks gateway, it's possible to connect with an irc client for your mobile phone to some public server. I use jmIrc as IRC client. You only pay for GPRS or UMTS data. I bet this IM thingy will be more expensive.
I've had IM on my phone for donkeys (some ICQ client that I forget the name of). It's not like I've got some kick-ass smartphone - it's a run-of-the-mill SE K700i. Works fine, but the only real reason for using it as an alternative to SMS is that it's a hell of a lot cheaper...
What exactly is new here?????
+++ BASELINE REALITY FAILURE+++ +++ PLEASE REBOOT UNIVERSE +++
Here in darkest africa we have this already ... it is cross network and jabber based. Go see for yourself here - http://www.mxit.co.za/.
I'm not sure how that's news, there has already been a whole bunch of associations / working groups around this such as Wireless Village and OMA and companies developing such products for the mobile space in partnership with the various IM vendors. It's not as closed as the article make it sound if you sign a whole bunch of NDAs and partnership agreements.
There is a unified text messaging system, it's standardised across all GSM networks. Yes some countries do have different text message lengths to others, which can get annoying if you send international texts and have them truncated. And there are a couple of countries that refuse to standardise on anything, like the USA, so use bizarre non-GSM systems. But for the vast majority of the world, which is on some variant of GSM, text messages are standardised and more or less seamless.
And IM is different to SMS. SMS is about sending messages one at a time from one phone to another. It only works on phone networks, and the messages are not connected together in e.g. threads. If your phone is off, they queue up until you turn it on; the person sending you a text can't see if you're 'online' at the moment. IM is at least in principle network-neutral; you should be able to send IMs back and forth between your phone and an Internet-based IM service, for example. People can see that you're online, and messages are threaded. The two are very different.
I want Skype on me mobile phone!
People, live with it. There are BILLIONS of text messages exchanged and there are hundreds of thousands of Agile Messenger "subscribers".
Real alerting thing is, there is no mention of "Jabber" (XMPP) in the article. No word at http://www.jabber.com/ or http://www.jabber.org/ too.
We are speaking about huge GSM companies here. One must start a petition, send some "people" to these companies IMMEDIATELY.
FYI, XMPP is the _official_ protocol of Internet 2. http://www.internet2.edu/
Enough with "I am so cool, who uses cell phone" attitude.
Seriously, the BlackBerry messenger---and Google's GTalk is available for it as well. I love how the 'pushed' email, 'pushed' internet, free ring-tones, now IM and all of that is finally catching on---but the BlackBerry has had this for years now.
Yes, the technology to 'chat' on mobiles has been around, like GPRS, and then logging into whatever chat service. To have direct phone to phone instant chat has NOT been created and rolled out on a global scale yet. Why would people want to use it, well simple, you can use it anywhere and it is instant, and it will be much cheaper. The mobile operators know that text is a million times cheaper than voice data, yet they can charge a simple flat rate fee.
/. *
*slap all your twats on
When there's a solution that does not store my password remotely.
Probably so they can charge a "per message" surcharge.
I'll give you the number one reason why I am changing to a phone that supports IM.
WORK!
With all the monitoring they do at my place of work and worse, what I read being done at others, I will take steps to insure my privacy.
Phone calls can be monitored, Internet usage usually is, IM can be as well, and e-mail is scanned, some times censored, and even saved.
With IM on my phone I can stay in touch with those who need me without the interruption of an actual phone call as well as keep my life private from my employer. Also IM messages tend to be more to the point that some phone calls can be. Granted there are lots of "silly" one liners but people tend to refrain from having never ending conversations with them
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Why do people IM instead of pick up their office phone? because they want to "talk" silently in some cases. I'd be so much happier if people didn't discuss their business/ personal lives at top volume in train carriages. I'm sure there are other functionalities of IM in preference to voice...
Plus price - if it's priced at less than voice calls, it will take off like SMS did. People have quit long "conversations" via SMS.
pay no attention to the text behind the subject
As much as the trendoids out there may feel that they are the "digerati" since they use all the latest buzzy technologies, it all comes down to one thing: two tin cans and a string. When it comes to communication, people only fall into one of two camps especially when they are young:
/home/mystuff
1. You and your best friend rigged up some kind of comm system between your houses because you were actual real live techno geeks.
or...
2. You were a catty, snippy teen who passed around "he said/she said" notes in school all day and that's about the extent of what communication means to you.
Now obviously there's a right way and a wrong way to look at communication. The right way is to ogle the technology itself and try to learn how it works so you can do more interesting things with it. The wrong way is to use it to pass around "he said/she said" information (ie. what most morons consider communication to be). Personally, I think IM is overrated because there are very few IM systems that you can actually force into serving you properly. My preference is Jabber because I can actually run my own IM server for private use among friends and family. I can also do very interesting things with it, like trigger events remotely by sending commands to a "bot" account. I've got one at home on my Jabber server that I call "Bash Boy". All I have to do is send IM messages to it like:
cd /
ls
mv file1
and it obeys. I challenge you to do that with the proprietary IM that other companies offer. If your IM can't do that, then you're not really using IM to it's fullest capabilities. And that's a VERY basic example. Now adding this IM feature to cell phones is ridiculous. Think about all the fat, lazy white trash you see walking around with a cell phone grafted to their ears in the grocery store. You know why they won't use IM? Because they can barely read let alone spell. Can you imagine what sort of horrors they will be "typing" via their IM???
SnuffyBear25: "i heart u babay"
MotorMan: "yeh"
SnuffyBear25: "whatchu doin"?
MotorMan: "yeh"
SnuffyBear25: "do u no how much i heart u"?
MotorMan: "how much"?
SnuffyBear25: "i heart you bigger than peter north's pole"
MotorMan: "damn baby. git on over here. i got a 40 and we can party"
SnuffyBear25: "i b there in a flash 4 u babay. hugs".
Do we really want to promote this kind of sick behavior? If anything we should be building re-education centers to clean this kind of thing up. Who's with me!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Wow, just imagine all the messages you can get from the Yahoo sex bots, Viagra peddlers, and home loan sharks! And guess what, you'll probably get to pay for receiving each message!
This all has a good chance to fail. Just remember the WAP initiative. One of the foremost reasons why WAP didn't take off was because WAP-forum, the owners of the standard, took so much time to agree on anything that the standard didn't evolove as fast as the technology. In the end it was close to crap.
My money goes on the bet that all mobile devices will have actual broadband access (can anyone say WiFi and FON?) and [insert favourite IM program here] before the operators can agree on a standard, pricing model, roaming agreements, interfaces and the whole what-not.
Go Open(Source)InternetInfrastructure!
/John Sjolander, project manager Contribio
But In all seriousness, I love to text, I use almost all of my monthly 1000 free texts. The reason being is that it's a useful way of communicating without being intrusive. When you're in a public place and want to have a conversation (provided you're not doing anything serious like operating machinery), I'd much prefer you to type away than having to hear you have a loud conversation.
Communication and social relations evolve/change (perhaps good, perhaps bad) with stuff like this. For example, it's a lot easier for you to send an innocent text message to a girl you like rather than calling her and fumbling over your words.
You just have to *hope* that people aren't stupid enough to use an IM whilst driving, but that's the same as hoping they don't drink and drive.
I've had AIM, Yahoo! IM and MSN Messenger flat rate on Nextel for years. If you can browse the web via WAP on your Nextel, then you have this, too. I'm typically more mobile than my contacts, so I prefer this over "texting". I'd rather my conversations blend in with the others they're already having on their desktop.
Intelligent Life on Earth
Think of the 14-year-old schoolgirl (steady, slashdotters).
From their perspective, communication with their friends is their LIFE.
When they get home, they instantly go online and chat to their friends.
When they go to school, they start using their mobile phone to SMS them.
herein lies the disparity: that when they are on the way to school,
and when they are in class, they aren't in front of a computer, they're
on the mobile phone.
If the phone operators can make it possible for people who are used to
massive amounts of computer-enabled world-wide communications to use
ONE device to "seamlessly" stay connected, irrespective of where those
people are, then that's GOT to be an all-round winner.
My take on this initiative is that it will be an absolute massive hit,
IF the pricing is kept reasonable, bearing in mind that it's going to
have to be GSM-based.
What they need to do is to proxy UDP traffic over SMS, and to write
an IM protocol that is UDP-based, not TCP-based, that has its own
_very slow_ self-sequencing acknowledgment (to save people SMS charges!)
YOURE On Mobile Phones???
Kaetemi
This is a step in the right direction. Although using T9 to enter all the smilies is a real PITA. Waht we need is an application that can, in real time, convert my speech into binary, then transmit it to person I'm calling where it will, in real time be converted back into a sound, not entirely unlike my voice... oh.
If people are using your network to text and IM each other, in preference to talking YOU ARE CHARGING TOO MUCH!
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
(with a 2 year contract that has you paying in 2008 for something that others will get free)
The betting line in Las Vegas starts out with 20:1 payoff for those betting contrary to this.
Once this thing gets succesful, they'll charge you for each message... happy joy..
While it might sound nice to have IM on your mobile, the story summary about 3G providing a more real-time experience is nonsense.
How fast can you key a sentence on a mobile phone, even with predictive T9 input? My guess is about a tenth of the speed that you can with a keyboard.
This is just another desperate strategy from the mobile companies to try and get back some of the ridiculous fees they paid for their 3G licenses.
The carriers should charge a minimal amount (like $0.10 per KB), and split it with the recipient. Who can whitelist senders for "instant refunds" of the entire amount, blacklist senders for higher charges and/or deletion, and greylist others for variable charges. Alternate servers for senders and recipients should compete for the base subscription rates, with any value adds they can offer. But the black/white/grey "postage" should be a required framework. It will stop spam and subsidize the system, under the control of the recipient.
--
make install -not war
I M txtn u frm my phon
IM is never going to be popular in North America until the providers get their heads out of their asses and start charging reasonable amounts for data access. They wonder why no one sends pictures over their phone or uses all theyr hyper-cool content, it is because they'd have to sell their first-born child to afford it.
Why can I get unlimited evening and weekend talk time for 25 bucks or less a month, but I can't get more than 5 MB of data transfer for that same price? It is foolish. I'd exhaust 5MB in a few days just by polling my POP server for email every 5 minutes.
Give me unlimited data for 15 or 20 bucks a month, like I have at my house, and I'll start using some of these "awesome features", like IM and emailing pictures. Right now it is just not worth it.
A lot of people are saying things like "Why the hell would I want to type things into my phone when I can just talk?" This is a fair point. However IM has another important use: presence. IM would allow people with their phone switched to silent mode to appear to other users as Do Not Disturb. If you hadn't been near your phone for an hour, you might appear as Away. Perhaps most importantly you could tell if someone was on a call before even phoning them. This is what makes IM on phones important.
Lets just pray to god they use XMPP.
Rediff's BOL (Hindi for "talk") has been doing this for ages and ages. When you go idle or offline, it automagically forwards IMs to your phone.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I win! --> 1 p0wnz0rz j00!1!
Procrastination Man strikes again!
real-time msn-webcam chat with mobile... priceless.
According to the 2nd paragraph (in German) the sender pays, although GPRS traffic is on both ends. The companys didn't say specifically what happens when the reciever is roaming in a foreign net.
"It's about raising the turnover and to prevent others from taking over the service of offering IM, Chat and Videoconferencing", said Wang Jianzhou, president of the world largest cellular service China Mobile.
So, another conglomerate of money grabbing companies that throw themself vigorously behind the train that already left the station.
They should have learnt from the movie/music industry. After a free service is already established, there is very little incentive for a customer to pay for the product.
There are already lots of software for smartphones which allows you to IM over normal networks at no other cost than GPRS.
IM+ for example, has support for Google talk, Standard Jabber, AOL, MSN, ICQ, Yahoo.
BTW: Very expensive if you do not have the "data plan".
Thanks Cousin Jane for the 5 pictures of baby Katie that cost me $80!!
There has been WAP enabled ICQ/MSN and similar for about five years now, prior even to colour screens. Yeah, it was ugly, but it's not new, aside from the specific way they are doing it.
My name is coaxeus, and I approve this message. In fact, I think it is awesome.
mobile phones have had IM for years. Most of the world calls it SMS TXTing.
The key user experience difference between SMS and internet IM, is that on the internet you usually have a full size keyboard to type longer messages quicker.
Getting your phone to send a SMS over IP isn't going to change that.
Here's the deal. This feature is NOT for you. It's for teenagers who are used to IM as their social glue. Period. Your description didn't show any advantages of IM over email for cell phones - both are asynchronous and could cross the phone/pc divide. There aren't any advantages, for any normal adult. The only difference is you can see if the other person is 'online' - how the hell cares when you're dealing with an asynchronous medium?
But if you're a teen chatting away in study hall - different story.
Not all tech 'features' need to be defended. This is stupid with a capital stoop.
How long is instant? I see the term thrown around a lot, but it's never been clear to me how long it is. I suppose the question is how long can it take before the user would consider it not to be instant. My guess would be on the order of 100 ms in most cases. Which isn't much time to get data through a network.
And yes, this is a serious question for networking types who have to consider user experience.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
hopefully they find a way to display more than 10 buddies at a time. thats the way my phone is and it sucks
Uhm... Hello, IM over Mobile is already here! Just pick up a Pocket PC phone, ONLY order Unlimited Internet Service over Mobile (Preferably EVDO or 1X), and Presto, you got a VoIP/IM Phone now. That is what I am using now. EVDO and VoIP works pretty fast, but does have a significant delay. Also, MS Messenger is standard on a PocketPC phone so you can always stay in contact with your existing contacts at work or Home... Oh and you use SJPhone for your phone interface on PocketPC or Skype if you want (Don't like them personally cause the the Intel/Skype collaboration/ Anti-AMD issues).
I use a Jabber client on my Treo650. Does what it is supposed to - but since not many bytes are sent during a 'chat' I guess there is no money in that for the operators.
Telecom and cellular providers periodically offer competitive rates to support some ad campaign or other. These rates are rarely advertised--by phone you oftne have to ask about them specifically--but they must exist during the campaign so the company can't be accused of lying. The thing is, these deals are far better than the usual fare, and many are not time-limited. Over the years, I've gotten a wireless plan with more than twice the minutes of my provider's current offering for the same price, unlimited mobile to mobile (which isn't even offered any more), etc. Sure, this requires an occasional glance at your provider's website and in some cases renewing your contract, but if you don't plan to switch providers regularly it's definately worth it.
RU going to charge us 20c per IM like you do for SMSs too? Sure sounds like a cash cow eh?
Why is it Japan can charge 0.9c for not just an SMS but a REAL EMAIL from mobile phones, and 5yrs on western carriers are still ripping off teenage kids with $500 bills because of a few SMS conversations?
Oh, trust me, they can sell it even if it uses no bandwidth at all.
... "If it looks good, it must be good; if the box looks good, the inside must be good"...
... "That has not happened on cellphones until now; this must be very complicated technology to make IM work on cellphones"...
;)
We are in a time where lots of "commercial goods" are based entirely (only) on looks.
like
or
A customer not knowing anything of technology, which is the largest base of most cellphone operators; will not even know or care, but just pay for it.
Cellphone (and many other sectors) know this and will lock in to be the best in their field; which is even easier now with all those patent/dmca acts in the US and EU (partially). It would not suprise me one of the next patents will be IM over a cellular carrier network.
It's the naivity of the customers what makes a monopoly big; Think with your wallet and it will stay a lot fatter. What most people are willing to pay for their convenience; if it is a fair price? That's another question a lot more people should ask in this money-hungry^H^H^H^H^Hdriven economy.
If I'd have the time I'd make an open-source release on the spot to have prior art and lock in on opensource solutions like Jabber with gatewaying to MSN and other echel^H^H^H^H^Hmessenger networks. I don't got the experience in mobile page development although I got the Perl and Jabber experience and know it should be fairly easy to program or port an existing open-source web-messenger application to the mobile desktop... not?
Maybe we can better call this the bling-bling age?
Where the shine of the coin is defining the trust
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Why cant they just licence MSN, AIM, ICQ and Yahoo and put them on phones instead.
:)
Oh yeah, because they cant use those protocols as another way to suck money out of clueless users