AOL Seeks Release from IM Interoperability Order.

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110158,tk,dn040703X,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article...n040703X,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div>"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."<br /><br />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...

[dh]

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.

[ExtremeSIMS]

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.

[smittyofdhs]

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.

[Jonathon Watkins]

8O I was really looking forward to having genuine IM interoperability. Trillian is OKish, but it's still a half measure. :|

A:devilboy:L

[Janak Parekh]

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

[trachy]

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 (http://www.jabber.org), 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

[rssrfrssr]

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:

[rssrfrssr]

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.........

[danmanmayer]

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:

[trachy]

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.

Nice writeup. However, while they're not causing the problem, I think they're encouraging it by promoting their product as a tool that "consolidates the world of IM (http://www.trillian.cc/trillian/index.html)." If this is their goal, why haven't they integrated Jabber support in their client? Presumably it would take up far less of their time than trying to stay abreast of the quirks AOL, MSN, and Yahoo! deliberately insert into their clients.

IMHO, Cerulean's objective is to make a buck by capitalizing on chaos - and bravo to them for finding that niche. Too bad it comes at the cost of true interoperability.

- Drew

[adamz]

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.

No longer serves the public interest??? What the heck are they talking about? We're just sick of complaining to a brick wall.
AOL should adopt the standard being developed by the IETF: Session Initation Protocol. Microsoft is developing a server for SIP and their next IM clients will support it. Does Jabber do SIP?

[rssrfrssr]

Yeah, I agree, Trillian could help the current state of the IM situation by integrating Jabber. This would only win them more support, too, in my opinion, but who knows...

I still think that Jabber needs to be a bit more focused on it's user-friendliness rather than just hoping for widespread adoption, though. Maybe Jabber could write a plugin for Trillian (or maybe one exists? I haven't checked recently). Also, don't forget, Trillian is trying to make money off those closed systems, so I'd wager they don't care about open standards any more than most of their users do. Which may be why they don't want their users knowing about Jabber (because it's free!)...

But yeah, in the long run, I hope the Jabber overcomes. After all, email is ubiquitous and standardized, so should IM be.


Incidentally, if anyone is interested in this sort of thing, take a look at what Microsoft has done/is doing with DHTML/Javascript/web services and capitalizing on the browser market share domination they enjoy with Internet Explorer. Heck, if you want to voice concern about open standards, do so with this issue as well. If not, then IE/MS will have an even stronger foothold on the internet than they already have. Do you want every page on the web to read "Sorry, you don't have Internet Explorer, page can't be displayed"? Now THAT would suck.

Anyway, my 2c
:wink:

[Kirkaiya]

While I think that having interoperability is a laudable goal, I have to say:

I use AIM, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, and I have an ICQ client (don't use it much), and none of them interoperate, as far as I can tell.

This isn't just AOL - My MSN Messenger can't chat to Yahoo! people either, and vice-versa.

So - while I think it stinks that AOL hasn't opened up their network, I really have to ask: Have MSFT and Yahoo! opened up their IM networks? (If so, please explain how I can chat from my MSN to Yahoo accounts... )

Otherwise - i think it's only fair to ask all 3 of them to adopt something. I know that MSFT and Yahoo are members of that "open chat standards" task-force, or whatever, but i haven't seen much outa there..

[Chris Spera]

First and foremost, I dislike AOL as an ISP only because they cater to the computer illiterate, IMHO. They don't do much to educate... not that they should or need to; but I've just never found much use for them as an ISP.

They do, unfortunately have quite a large customer base. I HAD to start using AIM because most of the people I wanted to talk to dumped ICQ. It became too bloated and there's just too much SPAM on the ICQ network.

Because I have to use their software (if I don't, I may as well not do IM at all...), this order should NOT be lifted. The need for a standard existed when the order was put in place. That need has not disipated (sp?). If anything, its gotten more desparate because more people have computers than in the late 1990's when this thing was originally imposed.

All this is, IMHO, is AOL whining because they don't want to comply with the order...and I have a real problem with that. They make too much money not to be made to comply with the original agreement to their merger... and just WHEN did that all go down btw?? The merger's got a good deal of dust on it; and they're just NOW asking to be let out of this? My God!! If I were working for the DOJ, I would have been all over this LONG ago trying to enforce it.

Too many consumers would gain too much convenience and interoperability between ISP's for this NOT to be enforced. Get crackin' guys! Trillian is nice; but it has its own problems...

[adamz]

Have MSFT and Yahoo! opened up their IM networks? (If so, please explain how I can chat from my MSN to Yahoo accounts... )

Otherwise - i think it's only fair to ask all 3 of them to adopt something. I know that MSFT and Yahoo are members of that "open chat standards" task-force, or whatever, but i haven't seen much outa there..

MSFT has opened their IM networks. That's why Trillian, Pow Wow, Jabber, etc. have no problem connecting to MSN IM networks. Yahoo, hasn't chosen to support MSN messenger and neither has AOL. MSFT is going to support SIP in the next versions of Windows/MSN Messenger. If you remember, MSN Messenger 1.0 originally worked with AOL IM... but every couple hours, AOL would block MSN Messenger users and then MSFT would issue a patch that would circumvent the block. They soon gave up to avoid legal issues, but I guess Jabber and Trillian found a way around that which is not being blocked by AOL.

[AZMark]

wah wah wah

The free internet is over, get used to it.

AOL developed the biggest user community the internet has ever seen. They worked hard and spent millions doing it. (we all hate the CD's but they worked on many people and weren't free to AOL)

Then some little guy ( I know you all love cheering for the little guy, but he didn't spend the millions did he?) comes along and taps in to AOL and says "Hey all look at the thousands of people you can chat with using our product!!!"

Everyone would love interoperability but AOL is a business, and it's in their best interest to protect the products and services that it has developed over the years.

[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.

It costs - this is all-in-one. Sorta like going to a theme park, you can ride all the rides for one fixed price. Watching CNN, ABC, listening to pre-release music, and all the other features are bundled, instead of paying each provider. Keep in mind that more web sites will start charging for content soon. The old ad models do not work, and quality of content is expensive.

As far as IM - if you have never worked on large scale systems, you would not understand the scope of investment involved. Microsoft is really no more interested in opening their systems than Yahoo! and AOL. (When's the last time you got a hold of Windows XP source code?) It's a business decision to become the dominant force in IM.

Jabber works, but it's very nature is its limitation. Monolithic central points are the best bet for something like this, as there is some control. Think of what a mess IRC is. :)

In the end, it's about choice. The original intention of the judgement was to keep AOL from dominating the IM space. Never mind that Microsoft has MSN Messenger sold with every PDA, Cell Phone, and Windows machine now. It's clear that the market can and does support many competing IM products. It is the end user who can make a choice to use one IM product or another. It's a mess, but it's capitalism at its best.

[Jonathon Watkins]

It's a mess, but it's capitalism at its best.

Is this a good time to talk about the mobile phone network in Europe and America? One is regulated, GSM, everyone can talk to each other & send SMSs etc and one is a free-for-all, with many standards, problems with interoperability. I know which I prefer.

IM protocols should be like TCP/IP, HML etc. You should choose your IM product by the features it supports, not the language it talks. Let them all talk to each other & then we can decide the one we want.

Remember the network effect. A network grows exponentially in usefulness as the number of member grows linearly. We need more people IMing each other and who knows what goods & services will emerge.

[Janak Parekh]

Everyone would love interoperability but AOL is a business, and it's in their best interest to protect the products and services that it has developed over the years.
You can apply that analogy to any monopoly. However, once you reach a certain size, you're bound by rules and restrictions. It's the way business works in this country... otherwise, you'd have no phone carrier choice, and phone bills 5 times the current cost.

Is this a good time to talk about the mobile phone network in Europe and America? One is regulated, GSM, everyone can talk to each other & send SMSs etc and one is a free-for-all, with many standards, problems with interoperability. I know which I prefer.
The CDMA-GSM situation in the US is not a free-for-all, compared to the IM market. It is relatively well-regulated, you can roam between similar networks, and intercarrier SMS works. I do agree that having uniform GSM has a lot of nice features, like world roaming and SIMs; but let's not compare apples to oranges here. (And, btw, I have a GSM phone - the PPCPE - right now.) Oh, and, GSM is moving to CDMA too.... ;)

--janak

[mrecuay]

Im a college student, and everyone I would ever want to IM uses AIM. I cant even name a SINGLE person I've gotten IM info from that uses anything else. Really. So why would I want to change?

If AOL has some really cool video or whatever technology they want to push out the door, I say drop that open protocol bull. Microsoft really wants to get in the door with their messenger stuff. So much that I get all these annoying passport and messenger things popping up until I go on Google to figure out how to get rid of them. Open protocol? Microsoft? Yeah I believe em too.

Anyways... I don't like AOL or anything, I scoff as much as the other guy at the whole AOL phenomenon. But in terms of AIM, its hard to argue. Everyone I know uses it. Its free. Its simple. And theres nothing wrong with it as far as I've seen.

[Abba Zabba]

[/quote]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.[/quote]

Actually the new service (which is what it is) provided by AOL TW is based off their dial-up connection. It is touted to be as broaband type of service but it no way compares to broadband. I think AOL needs a new gimmick in order to earn my dollars. :roll:

[ExtremeSIMS]

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.[/quote]

Actually the new service (which is what it is) provided by AOL TW is based off their dial-up connection. It is touted to be as broaband type of service but it no way compares to broadband. I think AOL needs a new gimmick in order to earn my dollars. :roll:[/quote]

Incorrect. Totally incorrect. It's "AOL for Broadband" - nothing to do with dial-up.

[Janak Parekh]

Im a college student, and everyone I would ever want to IM uses AIM. I cant even name a SINGLE person I've gotten IM info from that uses anything else. Really. So why would I want to change?
You're not representative of the entire human populace... ;) Moreover, if AOL is the only messaging tool left, what incentive would they have to keep it free? That's the potential danger longterm. AOL's response to that scenario is to assert (and somewhat correctly) that it is not the only successful messaging infrastructure, citing MSN and Yahoo. Having said that, it's really a loss for customers. Give it time; when you're running three different IM clients on your computer, you might think differently. :)

--janak

[adamz]

I can't stand AIM. All the advertisement junk, and the way the windows pop-up in front of everything else? Sheesh. I've since moved to a hacked down version since I do know alot of people on AIM, but I always ask first if they use MSN messenger since that is so much more... user friendly.

http://www.jabber.org/
Hmmm, sounds like the Jabber stuff might be in agreement or compatible with the SIP stuff. I wonder if, since MS is going to support SIP, that will allow MS Messenger to log into Jabber servers?! Yeah, probably not, huh?