04-10-2003, 05:21 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
AOL Seeks Release from IM Interoperability Order.
"America Online may soon be able to launch advanced instant messaging services, such as streaming video, if U.S. regulators drop interoperability requirements imposed on the company as a condition of its 2001 merger with Time Warner. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission said on Friday that AOL Time Warner had applied to be released from the requirement that it make its AOL Instant Messenger service interoperable with other providers' services. IM interoperability was a condition of the 2001 merger of AOL and Time Warner. The company now contends that interoperability no longer serves the public interest and is not a necessity because there has been a material change in the circumstance."
Not that I needed any more reasons to dislike AOL, but this one really takes the cake. In order for IM to truly reach its potential, we need interoperability between clients. Tools like Trillian help to bridge that gap, but they're constantly fighting to keep up with the mainstream IM companies that don't want to cooperate. Can you imagine the chaos if companies like Microsoft and AOL were allowed to have their own versions of the HTTP protocol? 8O I'm all for free enterprise and letting the market pick the best solution, but a real IM protocol sure would bridge the gap among IM users around the world...
|
| |
|
|
|
04-10-2003, 05:36 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,639
|
|
Not that I dislike AOL, I just do not see any point in it existing.
For anyone wanting a dial-up ISP, MSN is probably better and EarthLink a lot better.
In the broadband market, the telco's, cable companies and satelite companies have it pretty well covered.
What's the point of streaming video when you have a 56k dial-up connection?
I agree that the IM protocol should be a standard that is developed by all the companies so that anyone can connect to anyone else. I rarely use IM at all but when I do it's with Trillian.
__________________
Cheers!
David
|
| |
|
|
|
04-10-2003, 06:12 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 124
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dh
What's the point of streaming video when you have a 56k dial-up connection?
I agree that the IM protocol should be a standard that is developed by all the companies so that anyone can connect to anyone else. I rarely use IM at all but when I do it's with Trillian.
|
OK, I have to pitch in, since I used to be of the same belief.
The new AOL for broadband is actually pretty cool - don't think of it as an ISP anymore. Think of it as HBO. You get CNN newscasts, ABC news live, music downloads, and more.
As far as IM - there's always Jabber. The IM patent is owned by AOL (really ICQ), and the infrastructure to support IM is not insignificant. The parallel would be for you to allow your neighbor to park in your garage all the time, and pay for his gas. Not exactly fair.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-10-2003, 06:33 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 399
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ExtremeSIMS
don't think of it as an ISP anymore. Think of it as HBO. You get CNN newscasts, ABC news live, music downloads, and more.
|
HBO? big deal... all those things you mentioned can be retrieved from the web the same exact way without the need for a company like AOL. What's so big about streaming video now? not like it's cutting edge anymore.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-10-2003, 06:44 PM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
8O I was really looking forward to having genuine IM interoperability. Trillian is OKish, but it's still a half measure. :|
A:devilboy:L
|
| |
|
|
|
04-10-2003, 06:45 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ExtremeSIMS
As far as IM - there's always Jabber. The IM patent is owned by AOL (really ICQ), and the infrastructure to support IM is not insignificant. The parallel would be for you to allow your neighbor to park in your garage all the time, and pay for his gas. Not exactly fair.
|
Not completely. Metaphorwise, how about your neighbor being able to talk over to you from his yard? It would be nice if we could do at least that. You could deploy a Jabber or IMPP infrastructure to do precisely this.
In any case, it's not like AOL has been pushing interoperabiliity anyway. No insult to you, ExtremeSIMS, but they have been proactively making it difficult for everyone else. :roll:
--janak
|
| |
|
|
|
04-10-2003, 06:50 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 361
|
|
Re: AOL Seeks Release from IM Interoperability Order.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
In order for IM to truly reach its potential, we need interoperability between clients. Tools like Trillian help to bridge that gap, but they're constantly fighting to keep up with the mainstream IM companies that don't want to cooperate.
|
As ExtremeSIMS points out, the bridge gapper is Jabber, and not band-aids like Trillian. I'm guilty of using Trillian too, but if we ever want to interoperability of IM clients the only answer is a universal protocol. Supporting Trillian does nothing but exacerbate the problem by fostering a demand for incompatible traditional protocols.
You want to see someone spit nails about Trillian? Check out the forums on Jabber.
- Drew
|
| |
|
|
|
04-10-2003, 07:33 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17
|
|
Quote:
|
The IM patent is owned by AOL (really ICQ)
|
Um, well, if you consider this a true patent then I'm sure things that 'may be considered to infringe upon it' like irc or massively multiplayer online games, for example, are next to come under fire... :roll: Or, as Jason mentioned, maybe HTTP itself will be next lol...
I'm not a lawyer but from what I've read about it, this patent is both vague and largely unenforceable. Filed by Miribilis back in '96 it is nothing to lose sleep over.
Check out
http://www.jabber.org/im-patents/interpretation.php
"...It is possible that the Patent Examiner missed something he should have considered. Software is notoriously under-documented in traditional sources like the patent databases. For example, what other types of networked computer systems employed real time presence detection and/or non-address-specific user identification?..."
http://www.jabber.org/im-patents/patent-6499344.html (the actual patent in all it's vagueness)
and
http://e-businessadvisor.com/doc/11622
"...Analysts with Ferris Research, an e-mail and communications market analysis firm, downplay the patent's significance. "This patent will not withstand a legal challenge, because other systems had IM, presence, and availability capabilities before ICQ was developed (known as 'prior art' in patent-speak)," says Michael Sampson in a Ferris Insight Bulletin. He points out that MIT developed its Zephyr IM, presence, and availability system in the mid-80s, 10 years before ICQ's patent application.
"This patent changes nothing. AOL won't play hardball with it, because the patent is not legally enforceable," he concludes..."
AOL sucks.
:wink:
|
| |
|
|
|
04-10-2003, 07:51 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17
|
|
Quote:
As ExtremeSIMS points out, the bridge gapper is Jabber, and not band-aids like Trillian. I'm guilty of using Trillian too, but if we ever want to interoperability of IM clients the only answer is a universal protocol. Supporting Trillian does nothing but exacerbate the problem by fostering a demand for incompatible traditional protocols.
You want to see someone spit nails about Trillian? Check out the forums on Jabber.
|
While I agree with this, it's a lot like arguing apples and oranges. I mean, if most people are using those proprietary networks, then it is not Trillian who is causing the problem. Trillian is providing a service that people, in the current IM market, need, want and use. Fact is: their (my, our) friends are on proprietary networks. Solution: Make Jabber so stupid-ass easy that my dad and mom can install it without any problems, make it work flawlessly, and make them use it. This is the challenge of Jabber. Anyone can create an open spec and say 'This is right! Use it! It is open source! Open protocol!' etc etc But if you can't get people to use it then what good is it really?
People don't always use things because they are 'better' (look at VHS vs Beta), or because it is the right thing to do to support open standards (I'd wager a guess and say over 90% of IM users don't know what the heck 'open standards' even are). They use them because of a few simple reasons:
-price
-ease of use
-simplicity
-what other people are using
This is especially the case on the internet, where software and everything moves so fast and is so competitive.
Yes, the bridge is Jabber, but I have been waiting for this thing to mature for years now. I have used it half a dozen times only to go back to MSN or Yahoo or Trillian. Why? So I can chat with my friends.........
|
| |
|
|
|
04-10-2003, 08:02 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 193
|
|
AOL GRRR
I am sick off all the problems AOL is causing. Soon a bunch of websites are only going to be available to AOL users or subscribers to the magazines. I can't chat with all the people i know without being on like 3 different chat systems. Do they really want to make the world wide web into old prodigy again. All the services are AOL specific. Yes the avg person doesn't care that is why AOL needs to be forced to make interpolating or this crap will never end. Think if the ipv6 protocal was AOL owned. This has got to end... They aren't making money of AIM anyway they give it away free and the ads haven't been doing well. They obviously never intended to interpolate just merge and then fight for what they want. :twisted:
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
