You wrote succinctly, but your words are based on nothing but conjecture, speculation, and your own brand of FUD.
Microsoft would "innovate" and build the client into Windows as part of the operating system.
Please come back with specifics on how this "innovation" will take place. Will they "build the client into... the operating system" as a standalone executable? Or, would it make sense for them to develop an API (imapi?) that any Win32 developer can use to develop either a watered-down or more full-featured client? How will this happen?
Examine the work Redmond has done in building a component based browser. Has Netscape/AOL developed a similar component architecture for their browser yet? This should give us some real indication of what the mindset is at 1 Microsoft Way.
"In the fullness of time... " --Kidding, right? How much time is "In the fullness of time"? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year? More than 1 year?
Weaving the browser war into this argument doesn't cut it. Netscape BLEW IT by releasing increasingly error ridden and incompatible versions of their browser, while Microsoft has done admirable work to continuously IMPROVE Internet Explorer. Netscape was "driven out" because of their own INCOMPETENCE. Microsoft didn't do it to them, they did it to THEMSELVES. And then off they go, crying to the Federal Govt.: "Oooo! DOJ! We're not smart enough to compete against Microsoft and their array of talented managers and developers. Please help us by distracting them, fining them, or breaking them up, please?" Netscape was/is absolutely PATHETIC about this.
Microsoft would be free to "enhance" the product making it incompatible with non-Windows systems
The fact is, they are doing just the opposite (at least with Internet Explorer). Like to see proof? OK, then go Here.
What makes more sense? MS develops Instant Messaging technology for MSN users (and anyone else who wants to download their client), and ALSO tries to make their software compatible with a competing architecture, only to have the door slammed shut by AOL -repeatedly. Who's loses here? Consumers. You and me. Thanks, AOL. Thanks a lot.
AOL is certainly aware of this possibility and that is why they (rightly) will not go to an open standard.
Hoo boy.. So the solution is to keep their technology closed? Sew it up, lock the doors, gun 'em down! No one gets in!! AOL is certainly free to pursue this within the limits of the law, and may continue to refuse access to their network if they like. But the truth about networks is this: the more people who have access to a network, the more valuable it becomes. By putting up a fence, AOL is deliberately diluting the value of 'net and are making themselves appear MONOPOLISTIC in deed. Tell me: do you think that will raise an eyebrow or two in D.C.??? It will be interesting to witness how all this gets played out come Y2K...
I just recieved the newest beta version of Millenium here at work, (4.90.2419 for those out there that are keeping count) and something very interesting installed itself by default. You got it: MSN instant messanger.
Well so what? I think that's great news. One less application that I have to download and install after upgrading the O/S. Thank you Microsoft, for making this LESS DIFFICULT for me!
Now, let me pose this question: If it comes with the computer, why download another application?
Well, maybe because I don't care for that particular app, and I plan to use another one. If they also decide to give Microsoft Money as part of the package, but I use Quicken, I can always Uninstall Money. Having it there is in no way injurious to me.
Seems to me that, standards or no standards (or anti-trust lawsuit or otherwise), MS is back to it's old, dirty tricks. Think: Internet Explorer.
Old dirty tricks?? Is that supposed to imply some nefarious activity?? Get off it. Lots of applications install lots of cool features that you may never use. Some people consider that a benefit. When I was an AOL subscriber a few years back, I installed their (proprietary) software, and there were many features buried in their GUI that I didn't appreciate at the time. Later, I was delighted to find them there (Instant Msg'ing included).
Let's reframe this: Is it OK for Intuit to build an interface to the Checkfree system as part of Quicken? That helps to extend the functionality of their product. Is that considered an old dirty trick as well??
I recall watching a version of Netscape Communicator install the AIM client on my PC that, -again- enhanced/extended the functionality of the Communicator product.
Are you suggesting that it is NOT OK for Microsoft to install MSN Messenger for me, which will let me connect to other MSN users, thereby extending the functionality of their product? And at no expense to me?! Gee, let me think about this: easy to use operating system, extra FREE software included with it, and I DON'T HAVE TO PAY to access their instant messenging service? Whoa... This can't be real... Tank! I need an exit! Fast!!
Hold on just a second there. With the Microsoft client, you aren't using an MSN id to gain access to the AOL network are you? It's been my understanding that you had to have an AOL IM userid in the place first, no?
Point is, as a user with a valid AOL IM id, what difference does it make which client I use: AT&T, MS or AOL? If I'm talented enough to develop my own client --maybe I only want to exercise a very small feature set-- and I play according to all the other rules AOL has set forth, why shouldn't I be able to use whichever damn client I want??
This time, Microsoft and AT&T are the companies offering me choice, not AOL. Given that AOL is a dominant player (notice that I did not use the "m" word) they have a bigger responsibility to the Internet community at large, and SHOULD let the so-called "non-AOL" users into their IM network. The point made about SMTP being peer*peer vs. IM being client-server is a bunch of technical horseshit lamely being used to help defend AOL's not-invented-here attitude.
If I go to http://www.aol.com, AOL doesn't give a shit if the browser is Netscape or Internet Explorer or a spider. If I download something off of their site, I'm reaching into their network and pulling content out.
Why must they discriminate against users who want to send information in?
Have we forgotten the roots of the Internet? This technical marvel is really all about being connected and having the ability to share information easily between systems that have a common denominator: the IP stack.
Maybe AOL does have the right to seal their doors off to those of us with our own tastes and preferences. But maybe they ought behave more magnanimously, and let everybody in --because they can.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey slow down there, PrimeEnd.
You wrote succinctly, but your words are based on nothing but conjecture, speculation, and your own brand of FUD.
Microsoft would "innovate" and build the client into Windows as part of the operating system.
Please come back with specifics on how this "innovation" will take place. Will they "build the client into ... the operating system" as a standalone executable? Or, would it make sense for them to develop an API (imapi?) that any Win32 developer can use to develop either a watered-down or more full-featured client? How will this happen?
Examine the work Redmond has done in building a component based browser. Has Netscape/AOL developed a similar component architecture for their browser yet? This should give us some real indication of what the mindset is at 1 Microsoft Way.
"In the fullness of time... "
--Kidding, right? How much time is "In the fullness of time"? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year? More than 1 year?
Weaving the browser war into this argument doesn't cut it. Netscape BLEW IT by releasing increasingly error ridden and incompatible versions of their browser, while Microsoft has done admirable work to continuously IMPROVE Internet Explorer. Netscape was "driven out" because of their own INCOMPETENCE. Microsoft didn't do it to them, they did it to THEMSELVES. And then off they go, crying to the Federal Govt.: "Oooo! DOJ! We're not smart enough to compete against Microsoft and their array of talented managers and developers. Please help us by distracting them, fining them, or breaking them up, please?" Netscape was/is absolutely PATHETIC about this.
Microsoft would be free to "enhance" the product making it incompatible with non-Windows systems
The fact is, they are doing just the opposite (at least with Internet Explorer). Like to see proof? OK, then go Here.
What makes more sense? MS develops Instant Messaging technology for MSN users (and anyone else who wants to download their client), and ALSO tries to make their software compatible with a competing architecture, only to have the door slammed shut by AOL -repeatedly. Who's loses here? Consumers. You and me. Thanks, AOL. Thanks a lot.
AOL is certainly aware of this possibility and that is why they (rightly) will not go to an open standard.
Hoo boy.. So the solution is to keep their technology closed? Sew it up, lock the doors, gun 'em down! No one gets in!! AOL is certainly free to pursue this within the limits of the law, and may continue to refuse access to their network if they like. But the truth about networks is this: the more people who have access to a network, the more valuable it becomes. By putting up a fence, AOL is deliberately diluting the value of 'net and are making themselves appear MONOPOLISTIC in deed. Tell me: do you think that will raise an eyebrow or two in D.C.??? It will be interesting to witness how all this gets played out come Y2K...
I just recieved the newest beta version of Millenium here at work, (4.90.2419 for those out there that are keeping count) and something very interesting installed itself by default. You got it: MSN instant messanger.
Well so what? I think that's great news. One less application that I have to download and install after upgrading the O/S. Thank you Microsoft, for making this LESS DIFFICULT for me!
Now, let me pose this question: If it comes with the computer, why download another application?
Well, maybe because I don't care for that particular app, and I plan to use another one. If they also decide to give Microsoft Money as part of the package, but I use Quicken, I can always Uninstall Money. Having it there is in no way injurious to me.
Seems to me that, standards or no standards (or anti-trust lawsuit or otherwise), MS is back to it's old, dirty tricks. Think: Internet Explorer.
Old dirty tricks?? Is that supposed to imply some nefarious activity?? Get off it. Lots of applications install lots of cool features that you may never use. Some people consider that a benefit. When I was an AOL subscriber a few years back, I installed their (proprietary) software, and there were many features buried in their GUI that I didn't appreciate at the time. Later, I was delighted to find them there (Instant Msg'ing included).
Let's reframe this: Is it OK for Intuit to build an interface to the Checkfree system as part of Quicken? That helps to extend the functionality of their product. Is that considered an old dirty trick as well??
I recall watching a version of Netscape Communicator install the AIM client on my PC that, -again- enhanced/extended the functionality of the Communicator product.
Are you suggesting that it is NOT OK for Microsoft to install MSN Messenger for me, which will let me connect to other MSN users, thereby extending the functionality of their product? And at no expense to me?! Gee, let me think about this: easy to use operating system, extra FREE software included with it, and I DON'T HAVE TO PAY to access their instant messenging service? Whoa... This can't be real... Tank! I need an exit! Fast!!
Hold on just a second there. With the Microsoft client, you aren't using an MSN id to gain access to the AOL network are you? It's been my understanding that you had to have an AOL IM userid in the place first, no?
Point is, as a user with a valid AOL IM id, what difference does it make which client I use: AT&T, MS or AOL? If I'm talented enough to develop my own client --maybe I only want to exercise a very small feature set-- and I play according to all the other rules AOL has set forth, why shouldn't I be able to use whichever damn client I want??
This time, Microsoft and AT&T are the companies offering me choice, not AOL. Given that AOL is a dominant player (notice that I did not use the "m" word) they have a bigger responsibility to the Internet community at large, and SHOULD let the so-called "non-AOL" users into their IM network. The point made about SMTP being peer*peer vs. IM being client-server is a bunch of technical horseshit lamely being used to help defend AOL's not-invented-here attitude.
If I go to http://www.aol.com, AOL doesn't give a shit if the browser is Netscape or Internet Explorer or a spider. If I download something off of their site, I'm reaching into their network and pulling content out.
Why must they discriminate against users who want to send information in?
Have we forgotten the roots of the Internet? This technical marvel is really all about being connected and having the ability to share information easily between systems that have a common denominator: the IP stack.
Maybe AOL does have the right to seal their doors off to those of us with our own tastes and preferences. But maybe they ought behave more magnanimously, and let everybody in --because they can.