Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and AOL Fight Over Instant Messaging
Fizgig writes "Is it just me, or do they only call for standards when they're not winning? Microsoft just released their MSN instant messaging client, which could talk with AOL Instant Messenger users. AOL then changed the protocol slightly to break Microsoft's. Now Microsoft is calling for standards. And they somehow managed to mention Linux in a story that really has nothing to do with it. " Update: Around 11:30 p.m. EST, Keefesis noticed that MS had released an updated version of their Messenger client that works with the latest version of the AOL product. This MSN page has details.
It's called IRC. IRC has nearly every feature of any of these new fangled messaging applications including (but not limited to) ICQ, AOLIM, etc. Whenever a new messaging client comes out, it has all these new features... that have already been integrated into IRC for years.
IRC development is already decentralized as well, any new feature is developed in the server first, then the client. And most servers are open source.
My friends, family, etc, all keep telling me to get ICQ or AIM but I always say no. I already have a real-time chat program, and a presence on a few channels.
In my opinion, all these new messangers are just trying to reinvent their own proprietary wheel.
--Eil.
As long as the protocol itself is freely implementable/extendable under other licenses and not hindered by any licensing restrictions of the GPL, it has a chance of working.
Smart move, actually.. Once they start putting ads in all their products, they'll have even more products to sell ad space in instead of just having only one big product to sell ad space in.
You can license your work, but if the protocol is not openly implementable across different licenses then it is proprietary to GPL-based platforms and therefore unusable by larger segments of the computing community.
How would you feel if you wrote a nice platform independant messaging client, with plugin modules to easily add support for AIM, or ICQ, or any future protocol, etc, and then MS came, took the code, released it in future versions of windows, and sold banner space, increasing their revenues while denying users the benefits of the OSS that you wrote, and without even paying you for it?
I'd feel pretty good, because, in the end, they'd still have to give me credit for it. :)
This is a beautiful example of why the most frothingly rabid Free Software advocacy is good and proper.
Look at instant messaging- sort of like the cell phones of the Internet, annoying but some people absolutely love it- but guess what? There are major security lapses in established products, there's no way to audit the code or have anybody audit the code to track such security holes, and the proprietary vendors are fighting each other to death without caring a tinker's damn about their customers. It's a complete power game and has nothing to do with providing value to customers.
Next thing you know, they'll have the whole field tied up in patents and nothing will be compatible with anything else.
This is horrible. It's disgusting, and it's hopeless to expect these large corporate companies to act any other way. MS is inciting people to ignore AOL's TOS. AOL is churning their messaging format to break the MS client. They're not going to stop- internet messaging is going to remain a battleground. MS is probably going to behave more like a good guy in this situation- but can you put a price tag on having a choke-hold on internet messaging? They're not in it for their health, and they're damned well not it in for benefitting customers. It's a vitally important leverage point for controlling information flow, and they will capture it (all of it) at any cost- to use as leverage for controlling even more.
To hell with all of them. Use the situation to highlight how pathetically little freedom the mainstream computer consumer actually has. If you go with the commercial sector, you have less and less power over your own fate- things are shaping up to really turn the screws. Picture it: "Oh yeah? Well, we'll revise AIM so _only_ the newest clients can use it!" "Oh, you think you're tough? We'll have IE install _our_ client by _automatic_ _update_." "Bastards! We'll put strong encryption on ours and sue you for enticing our customers to violate our TOS!" "Ha, nice try- we'll make our stuff require a _PIII_ with the serialization turned on, and have our clients reference a database at microsoft.com to guard against anyone stealing our users' identities." "Oh yeah? We'll require the PIII too, and patent all variations of our method..."
This is a good direction to be moving in?
That doesn't make it okay. AOL is using the same tactics Microsoft likes to use, so we should oppose AOL using them as much as we oppose Microsoft using them, or else we just look hypocritical.
"Well it's okay when people do it against Microsoft, but not okay when they do it to other companies."
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You contradict yourself. First you say that if it was any company other than Microsoft, you'd oppose AOL's tactics, and then you go on to defend AOL's tactics. Either these "security claims" are valid, and AOL's tactics would be ok against any company, or else they are not valid, and AOL's tactics should not be tolerated against any company, including Microsoft.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
- TiK is GPLd, so anyone interested can continue development, distribution, etc.
- TiK still functions, I have it up right now.
That said, I am disturbed by TiK's absence, although the fact that the links are still there indicates to me the absence may be unintentional.Back to the subject at hand: *Microsoft* whining about *AOL* not following standards is surreal. Still, agreeing upon a common standard, regardless of who proposes it, would be a very good thing for instant messaging as a whole.
--
Someone posted a patch already. Check the thread.
--
?Standards are important,? said an unnammed Microsoft spokesman. ?It?s important that Instant Messaging be standardized, just like the world wide web is.?
--
http://www.aim.aol.com/tik/tik-0.74.tar. gz
--
AOL is trying to shut out others to protect it's turf. MS is crying about the same tactic it has used without mercy for years. From the comments I've seen, people are unsure of who's in the right here. The soultion:
Hate both of them! AOL is wrong (and possibly stupid) to try to cut off communications with others and spread FUD. Microsoft is wrong for complaining about the very tactics they use everywhere else.
AOL does have a right to say who can use their servers. If they want to block non-AOL connections, that's their business.
The fact that MS managed to modify their client to work around whatever AOL did indicates to me that AOL made changes to bar a particular client software rather than control who can use their server. That's a different matter entirly.
In spite of thinking that AOL was wrong to do that, I still don't feel sorry for MS. I just hope they standards war themselves to death soon so the rest of us can put together a real standard.
As one of the CNET articles on the subject began to say, it seems that companies dislike standards when they are on top and dominating the market, because standards make it easier for their competitors. But they love standards when they are the underdogs and want to force the major players to let them into the market. It's called human nature, and it doesn't matter whether it's AOL or Microsoft, or Sun or whoever.
Incidentally, Microsoft just happens to be especially shameless in doing this.
I always thought that AIM, Yahoo! chat and the other castoffs from ICQ were shoddy clones when compared to ICQ. ICQ has so much more on these guys, PLUS its userbase is humongous. I use it for inter/intraoffice communications because it works over the net, it's fast and (stop laughing) as open as a closed protocol can be, with people on the ICQ dev list breaking down V5 and V6 protocols.
I'd rather see open ICQ protocols than a standard based on AIM. UGH! Hopefully AOL doesn't have any plans on turning ICQ into AIM.
This time I'm afraid I have to side with them (don't get me wrong, they're still an Evil Empire, but this is simply too much). First, because standards are a good thing. Second, because AOL's modification of their own protocol for no other reason than breaking Microsoft's clients is no different from what Microsoft did with Windows to break DR-DOS (granted, AOL still allows connections from other clients, but for how long?) To bash Microsoft when it purposely breaks a competitor's program is one thing. But to not bash another company that also does it, even if the broken product is from Microsoft (which is by definition broken anyway), is hypocrisy.
Granted, Microsoft's motives in releasing this client are doubtless sinister. They want to control this market too, and will somehow manage to Embrace and Extend this protocol to do it (don't ask me how they'll do it without being obvious). But they're right to blow the whistle on AOL for this action.
But that's not what Microsoft did. Microsoft created a client that interacts with AOL servers to communicate with AIM clients. On the internet, your computer is your castle. If you own a computer on the internet, you are allowed to accept or reject any connection for any reason. It may well be illegal for Microsoft to continue to distribute a client that interacts with AOL servers against AOL's explicit wishes.
The AOL AIM client license agreement contains a clause permitting connections to AIM servers run by AOL. The MS client contains no such permission. Microsoft has no legal entitlement to distribute clients which interact with AOL servers.
It's worth pointing out that the free Linux AIM and ICQ clients may also one day be illegal to use, if AOL makes it known that connections from these clients are not welcome.
As for myself, I use IRC and Unix talk. Why rely on proprietary software using proprietary protocols connecting to proprietary machines under questionable legal foundations, when superior open solutions have long existed?
Finally, I cannot help but resist noting that Microsoft is one of the worst offenders in the area of open/closed communications standards. The closed Microsoft Office file formats are the most formidable protection for their profits and monopoly. For Microsoft to complain about AOL's closed communications protocols is the height of hypocrisy.
It must be the chocolate. Its a very powerful mood enhancer combined with the effects of sugar. Its so common and chocalate is legal. If M&M's were outlawed, only outlaws would have M&M's and it would be sold at a city street corner near you.
And why do the masses not use ytalk? Its the best!
There's always someone trying to simplify the rationale for critism of shody software manufacturers. Its natural to defend the underdog. There is nothing wrong with that, but please try to come up with some better logic than that! "Most people at Slashdot hate Microsoft because they are Microsoft." I have reasons for disliking Windows and use it at work. I could try to explain to you why Windows software causes manufacturing scrap and downtime to you, but I'm judging from your logical bias and am afraid you might have problems comprehending my plea. Its not a simple issue. Its a battle. Its hell. I use Windows (not a choice!) at work.
wow, that almost sounded like a flame. sorry, I don't know what got into me. please forgive. it must be the os i?m using.
I found this entertaining how they are battling themselves into the ground. My favorite quote was bashing Microsoft's regard for security and privacy:
AOL charged that MSN Messenger poses a security risk to its users because they are asked to type in their AOL username and password. "They're goading people to reveal their password just like hackers do,"the AOL spokeswoman said. "We always tell our customers to never give out their passwords. Microsoft is going against what we've tried to do."
Why don't we all just use IRC? Great instant messaging protocol. You can get rid of people, talk to as many or as few people as you want, etc. etc. etc.
We don't need no steenkin AOL or MS bull.
BTW: Did anyone every take a look at MS Comic Chat, MS's bastardized version of IRC?
Quite amusing at first, but it's really annoying after a while. Reminds me of Windows actually.
Damnit, now I'm a pundit! Watch it kids, or you'll end up like this too!
Am I really off base on this? Isn't this what happened with just about every market MS gets into late?
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
It'd be sweet to see a GPL'd cross platform solution come out of the Free Software community. AbiSource has it right - get your app available for Linux, Mac, BeOS, and Windows, and people just might start using it. I'd love to see the wind taken out of both AOL's and M$'s sails by a GPL'd IM client/server. And when they start putting ads on the proprietary clients (and of course they will - surprised it hasn't started yet...) a free GPL solution will look really attractive. I'd guess that the programming would be relatively trivial, but getting the mindshare would be a bit of work.
How much server horsepower would something like this take, though? I guess that's the problem w/ IM - you need a central server(s) to keep track of who's online?
On to another thought, how long 'til AOL shuts down all the Linux ICQ clients because they don't display advertisements?
We all have our OS preferences, but I think m3000 had a point. There are some people who hate MS because it's the big bad wolf, or because they think it's the "cool" thing to be anti-MS. I don't claim they're a majority. In fact, I suspect such people are a minority on Slashdot (where people usually just dislike the often crappy software and/or dubious business practices). But, there are always some irrational people out there (kinda like the ones who think Linux must suck because you don't have to buy it or go to WaReZ sites to get it :)
I'm scared of any standard that they come up with for instant messaging. We need a viable open source intant messaging protocol NOW. Unlike AIM or ICQ it should be decentralized. I've spent a little time thinking about this, but I'm not a heavy programmer.
...Linux!
Everyone should have an IM address like or the same as their email address. Some sort of IM server should become a standard service like popd or imapd. You punch in someones IM address and it goes to your IM server. Your IM server then finds their IM server by piggy backing off the MX record in DNS, it would be better to have a unique record type. Their IM server says "yes they are online" and patches your IM client to their IM client. When both parties are online, a client to client connection could be established, if the requested party is not online then their IM server could store the message until they got online (ala ICQ). This would be a decentralized comodityized method that could be implimented on any platform.
--
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
From what I understand all messages from AIM user to AIM user have to go through the AOL machines, why should they have to support all of MS's users too?
AIM should stay closed unless they open the server software and JoeISP can start their own AIM server and sell AIM banner space.
If I had a chat server like that, I wouldn't want MS to run their clients through it AND get the money from the banners. Someone has to maintain the machine and pay for the bandwidth. Let MS do that themself.
This isn't like E-mail where the bandwidth and servers are spread throughout the planet.
Oh,. and the last word. Go figure no one is using their chat client. No one seems to use their play software unless they cram it down the collective public throat. (What happened to ComicChat again?) You better belive this new MSchatboy will be avalable on the desktops of Win 2000. One year later it will be the most popular chat client with the BORG collective. Every Windows magazine will give it 4 stars and rate it a "must get". (No one wants to loose that MS advertising dollar)
My studio - www.graylands.ca
Also, geeknews.net has been keeping up pretty well on this.
Here's a news.com article, too:
Another interesting thing is that MS released a "fixed" build, which AOL then broke again. Round and round we go.
>But AOL is all over the place
>> You just answered your own
>> question. AOL is everywhere, not as a single
>> entity.
>>
>> Good or bad, irrelevent.
it's relevant to it's stock holders, I guess. and to people like me who would really like Microsoft to loose this perticular battle. having many diferant products that hardly interact, IMHO is a recipy for disasture.
--------------------------------
As much as I hate saying this, I think AOL alwredy lost the war. I don't know if microsoft will end up dominating the massaging arena, but it seems like the likely scenario.
A year ago I though exactly the oposite of this. buying Mirabilis (ICQ) was probably the smartest thing AOL did, but I feal they missed the boat compleatly with ICQ. ICQ over the past year became Bloatware full of unnecacery features. Yet the most annoying glitch of the ICQ systems STILL hasn't been dealt with (it's security and privacy, obviously. The is NO help from ICQ when you account gets hijacked by some Script Kiddy (I know, I had my 102541 account hacked, and yes, that really WAS my number, I asked ICQ for support in retreaving my account and they opted to do nothing. It took a local reporter who wrote a story about this to make then delete my own account.. well thats better then nothing, I guess.
But even wierder still is the fact the AOL has left AIM and ICQ together side by side, and opted NOT TO put the two together. I really don't understand why one company should have two versions of the same type of aplication, really stupid. It looks like with them buying mp3spy, they will have three programs that have somewhat similar functions, whats that all about?!
AOL also didn't integrate ICQ into netscape (they stayed with AIM for that). why?!
Yahoo, for example, are smart. every function they get through aquisition is integrated into the main database so one user can control all of them (stocks, geocities, games, ets). AOL decided it would leave everything as it is, and are confusing thier own costemers. If they don't change this, they will loose the battle. Amazon also do this pretty well. But AOL is all over the place. I simply do not understand what they are doing over there.
--------------------------------
We (the slashdotter's) should not root for AOL just because they are giving M$ a taste of their own medicine. I thought that we were above that sort of thing. Why do we hate M$? because they are evil. They use and manipulate the markets and their consumers. They produce shoddy software... But do we cheer when they are losing a battle? Yes if the battle is being fought correctly. We can't justify the means just because the end (M$ loses) is good. AOL is clearly in the wrong here because they are inhibiting the open source/standard approach to software. They needn't worry about losing users if their's is a supperior product. And if it's not the best one then an open standard will pave the way for others to write software and servers that can do a better job. The end result is better software for the consumer. Now, isn't that what we all really are after?
My sig has a broken link in it.
They'll take the standard and botch it up so it is no longer standards-compliant most likely.
:)
talk has been around a long time.
1) The most significant group will bash Microsoft because, well, they're Microsoft.
2) A vocal minority will try and bring some sanity to the discussion by arguing that AOL's tactics hint of an attempt to become a very Microsoft-ish company.
Who wins is anyone's guess.
-- jar
MSNM looks harmless now, it's just a way to get more people communicating and interacting, right? WRONG. This will be like Internet Explorer - at first it was just a joke, but then version three came out and everybody stopped laughing.
MSN Messenger (what a unique name) has started out like a joke, but before long it will come with every version of Windows and offer features far beyond what AIM has. Oops, you can't see what I'm doing because you're still using AIM. Better get the cool new one that lets you do more stuff! Heck, MSNM already lets its own users communicate with AIMers, but not vice-versa. How long before it totally makes AIM unnecessary?
AOL is justified to do what they're doing, AIM isn't a standard. If it was a standard, Ms could do like they did with the W3C and pollute the standards to favor their products. AOL has let Yahoo! get away with cloning AIM because the Y! one has the same features as AIM and works well with it. MSNM is just a plot to pull people away from AOL. More power to them for blocking it!
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
It was really rude for AOL to cut Micorsoft off like that. Almost as rude as... as... as changing SMB to break Samba! What kind of company would do such a vile thing!
Also, one wonders how much reverse engineering the poaching required on the part of Micorsoft, ever the stalwart defender of Intellectual Property rights.
Finally, one is struck by this quote from the Wired coverage:
MSN Messenger is the company's first entry into an already popular category of messaging services.
What was that bit about The Road Ahead, Bill? Missed the boat again, didja?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The whole MSN messenger idea disgusts me to be honest. It's just another case where Microsoft makes their own version of an already successful application, and somehow eventually forces everyone to use it. They want the ICQ/AIM user base, and they'll get it eventually. Don't be suprised if this MSG messenger or whatever comes with Windows 2000 and sooner or later all Windows users have to use it. Why can't they allow anyone to have anything that's popular? This is not innovating. AOL knows this, and they're probably worried that the same thing will happen to AIM/ICQ that happened to Netscape, so I don't blame them for their response.
Advantages:
Can someone explain why ntalk is sufficient or, if there is some little niggling reason, why we couldn't just add to ntalk rather than re-inventing the wheel?
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
#DEFINE PLAYING_DEVILS_ADOVCATE"
:-)
/* constructed */ opinion. So now, I ask you, the readers of Rob's creation, can you honestly say MS is the evil one this time?
#include "and_no_not_the_movie_although_it_was_excellent.h
/*
Alright slashdotters, I'm going to go against 99% of you and say "I'm with Microsoft on this one." Why? Just because discussion is good.
*/
First, AOL scares me. Like previous posts have said, they cater to newbies. But they also cater to a worse off group. The uniformed. AOL puts thousands of people on the net a day who have no idea what nettiquite is. People have no idea what a computer is and how it works, and AOL lets them jump onto this mysterious void called "The Internet" and do stuff. Meanwhile, AOL indoctrinates them. People start thinking the Internet is a big happy fun loving place, where you click on the pretty buttons type in stuff, and *BOOM* you get a happy reply. AOL users are forced to use a half-baked software product because that's what AOL tells them is out there. Replace "AOL" with "Microsoft" in the previous sentance, and you see an argument stated many times on Slashdot.
Yes, that's right:
AOL:Internet::MS:Operating Systems
"Ok," you say, "AOL is as bad as MS...so why do you say that you're going with MS??"
I'm looking at the track record of the two companies. AOL seems pretty consistant. Deliver junky service and mess up billing. Microsoft, on the other had, has proven to deliver sucky products. But they've heard the cries of the people, and they are (very slowly) responding. Their web browser keeps on improving. Win2k crashes less than NT which crashes less than 95/98. Microsoft products are improving, which means, they are starting to listen to what people are saying. They're starting to take steps in the right direction. Whenever I've heard of people complaining to AOL in the hopes of change, AOL has been less than hospitable.
Another item: MS is working with other people to establish standards for internet communication. They at least made the effort to include AOL's populace in their work...and AOL stuck their packet sniffing nose up in the air at them. MS at least made the effort to work with others.
So, by a nose, MS edges out AOL in my
/* My real opinion? I'm touched that you asked...
Both companies suck, and I can't believe they're both squabbling over small stuff.
I have some advice for each company tho:
MS: Kill marketing. Beat them with the Office97 paperclip if you need to. They're forcing you to realase software when its not done. Elminate them, and NT has a chance of becoming respected among the *nix community.
Sun/AOL/Netscape: Sun, I'm sorry you got stuck with those two. Drop them ASAP.
*/
--------------------------
OK, so as I understand this, what happened is that MS basically wrote their own Instant Messenger, that communicates with AOL's IM. Well, so what? Currently, I run LICQ under RH5.2. LICQ isn't supported by Mirabilis, and they don't provide any help to the developers. The developers figured out the protocol, and wrote another copy. Since this seems like what MS is doing, I have zero problem with it. If they figured it out, and are using it, then more power to them.
Ok, so *now* they want standards that work... how about writing a browser that reads a standard called HTML properly?
:)
Boy, you must have a taste for irony... surely everybody here is adult enough to just admit that IE is a hell of a lot closer to W3C compliance than Netscape is? They both suck, but IE sucks less.
Even AOL/Netscape must think that Communicator is crap, otherwise why would they have trashed the Communicator code base for Gecko?
or how about one called JavaScript?
(a) JavaScript is not a standard. (Since when does Netscape set standards? Their "standards" are the primary reason half of the world's web pages don't work in all of the available browsers.)
(b) IE runs JavaScript just fine - at about twice the speed of Communicator.
And how about some APIs that work the way they are documented to?
Huh? You mean the argument's changed from "the APIs aren't documented"? Gee... the argument's evolving... a moving target!
Sorry, I must have eaten something bad a lunch, 'cause I'm sure in an argumentative mood. Didn't mean to take it out on you. Apologies
Cheers
Alastair
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
...but with Hobbes usurping Calvin's authority.
;)
Microsoft likes to play Calvinball [Ed. note: Calvinball is a game where Calvin makes up all the rules as the game is played and you can never use the same rule twice.] but only when MS gets to be Calvin. I guess they, like Calvin, don't like their own tactics used against them.
I can hear the cry already: "But you critized MS for using those tactics. To be consistent you must critize AOL for using them against MS."
Sorry, but as an Old School disciplinarian I must wait for the "eye for an eye" standard to be satisfied before I complain about others using MS's tactics against them.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Honestly, I think IRC is not now and likely will never be suited to take over this niche of the online communication market. IRC is well populated, but by tech-friendly people.
I use ICQ to communicate with my less-computer-savvy friends, some of whom had trouble downloading and installing ICQ on Win9x systems. I can just imagine the chaos ensuing when they connect to an IRC server for the first time from mIrc.
Aol's AIM is, well, obviously for the same crowd as ICQ. It is, after all, newbie-hunger that most characterizes AOL. Tell your standard AIM user to connect to #ohsoeasy on efnet and, well, see what the response is. Sure IRC can do basically everything that ICQ/AIM can, (perhaps auto-login stuff excluded, though I'm sure there are scripts...) but good ole 'mail' (or better yet telnet mail) can be used quite adequately to send mail. That doesn't change the fact that my uncle will still and for the forseeable future use Outlook.
That, and to be perfectly honest, I find ICQ easier for simple messaging than the somewhat cumbersome IRC.
Check out http://www.jabber.org
Every time MS senses a competitve edge they go against industry standards. Take COM for instance. MS knows that once they can get into a market they can bundle that product to the OS and effectivly stamp out competition. Soon we'll get MSNmesenger on our new computers when we buy them. It make sense for MS to create a standard. Once a standard has been integrated into windows MS can change it and the rest of the industry is forced to comply. If, 3 years later, MS desides to change to a proprietary standard they can. That way only MS clients will work on anyones server.
It's like MS Java. Someone had a great idea and MS decides to steal it. Once they have a market share they can eliminate all competition. Even if they have to take a loss to do it. This is a clear example of MS's attitude that every computer in the world should be running *only* MS software.
After the dust settles from the collision of the juggernauts, I think MS will come out on top.
Though they may use the same bundling tactics that made IE so popular, their use of automatic updating virtually insures their victory. When the update was available for MSNM after the AIM protocol fiasco, a screen popped up in MNSM that allowed me to download the fixed version. This is the same idea as their Windows Update Notification program. With WUN, bundling, and promoting MSNM on MSN, getting MSNM to desktops is a small problem.
This makes MSNM extremely more versatile. Hypothetically, if AIM were compatible with MSNM, all umpteen million users would need to manually go to the web site on their own initiative and download the new version. AOL clearly was sideswiped by not including this feature, even though automatic update features are very convenient and popular (RealPlayer, WinAMP, Windows 98, virus scanners, etc).
Of course, some people may dislike windows for the constant updates it "needs", but it is my understanding that Linux users download patches and whatnot quite frequently also.
Also, I agree that MS's forte might not be innovating, but they are excellent integrators, and that is very important in making a product with a low learning curve.
And that's capitalism,
Aaron
www.ktheory.com
As an aside, it occured to me - by free association, I suppose - that MSNM looks so much like MNM - (how most people say M&M) - that I started getting hungry. Then my association got worse: US Military standard equipment includes a single pack of m&ms. Its been standard practice since at least Viet Nam in the USM to give the fatally wounded m&ms as their last taste of life. So now we have AOL AIMing at M&Ms.
:)
:) )
Why doesn't everyone just use ytalk?
(ok, ok, so this really doesn't help the discussion. sorry.
OFTC: By the community, for the community
As a note, I installed Microsoft's IM toy and really liked it. It's relateively light, quick, has a nice simple interface. Coming from a company that is constantly criticized for creating bloatware (feature and size, and fairly so!), I think this is a pleasant response to ICQ. No, it's not original... PAL and AIM are fairly similar, but it does improve where AOL and Excite have been stuborn too. And, realistically, we whine that Microsoft is ripping off ideas, but it's no different than what our beloved Yahoo's been doing for the last year (including a very similar product to this, actually). Personally, my only beef with Microsoft's messenger client is the fact that it REQUIRES a hotmail account. When I saw that connected wtih the AIM servers, I was quite happy... I thought that was a big win for Microsoft (to be clear, I have my problems with MS, but I am certainly no friend of AOL.). From the consumer / user perspective, what I want is one nice light client that connects to ICQ, AOL, Microsoft, etc. I know this doesn't necessarilly make business sense for proprietary monopolies, but if they want to call for standards, personally I can put aside the motive so long as it meets my needs and desires as a consumer.