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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.