AOL Opens Up the AIM Instant Messaging Network

AVIDJockey writes "In a pleasantly surprising move, AOL has changed its tune when it comes to third-party access to the company's chat network. America Online has recently launched a service called OpenAIM 2.0, which provides open, uninhibited access to services like Meebo, or all-in-one IM clients like Pidgin, allowing them to freely and easily use the AIM instant messaging network. 'At the moment, multi-platform IM desktop clients like Pidgin or Adium (the popular Mac client) generally rely on hacking and reverse engineering access to chat networks run by AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft and others. Not only is that bad for developers since it means more work, it also means that such clients often can't use all the features of a particular network.'"

And that's not all!

[Timex (11710)]

It might be my imagination, but GTalk (through the GMail interface) allows one to open an AIM connection. I wonder if it's related to this?

Re:

[emj (15659)]

Well atleast you can tie your gtalk account to AIM [google.com] so all your AIM contacts shows up there, I don't have any AIM contacts so I don't know if it works. But somtimes get errors telling me AIM isn't working, so I guess it should work..

Re:

[peragrin (659227)]

the only annoying part about aim integration into gmail other than having to have an account at both places, is that when I am using adium, and log into gmail I get an IM saying I am logged in twice.

Other than that it works very well. need to try out audio through it though.

Re:And that's not all!

[Dragonslicer (991472)]

It might be my imagination, but GTalk (through the GMail interface) allows one to open an AIM connection. I wonder if it's related to this?

I would guess that it's probably more related to AOL starting a Jabber server for AIM.

Re:

[mhall119 (1035984)]

After some more digging, it appears that you must implement "at least" 2 of the 5 "features". I put "features" in quotes because it includes displaying the AIM Start Page, installing the AIM Toolbar, or including AOL advertisements. So it's really more of a "You can use OpenAIM if you do something to make us money".

To be fair to AOL, your 2 features can just be showing Buddy Info and Buddy Icons, which presumably don't make them money, and most AIM clients would want to have anyway. Still, this whole requ

Adium

[Disoriented (202908)]

Good news. Adium sometimes wouldn't work with iChat when it came to file transfers. Fixing that alone might actually get me using Adium.

I wonder if this paves the way to Adium working with iChat audio and video conferencing?

Re:

[The Ancients (626689)]

Good news. Adium sometimes wouldn't work with iChat when it came to file transfers. Fixing that alone might actually get me using Adium.

I wonder if this paves the way to Adium working with iChat audio and video conferencing?

This would be great. I much prefer Adium's interface and functionality to iChat's, but I still have to switch to iChat now and then for video conferencing, which is a pain.

For Macs there is aMSN [cmq.qc.ca] for video chat for MSN, but no other 3rd party clients come to mind for video on any of the major proprietary chat protocols.

Re:

[setagllib (753300)]

Kopete is often overlooked because it's tightly integrated into KDE, but much less so than Windows Live Messenger is tied to Windows, so it deserves mention as a very complete MSN/WinLive client.

When will other companies agree ...

[PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258)]

This is good for business!

Companies think that lock-in is good for business. And sure, it IS when you're dealing with tangible goods. But when dealing with interoperability concerns with software ... well, if something is more useful, it will be more used! (in theory, anyways)

At least AOL finally figured this out. I'm waiting for microsoft and apple (for all their software) to get a clue ;)

Re:

[obeythefist (719316)]

It's not good for business. It's good for the user. But the AIM model relies on advertising revenue from the AIM client. If you encourage people to use something other than your spammy ad-ridden client, you get less ad clicks and less revenue.

Well...

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing I'll be modded down for saying this, but this seems more like they're trying to remain relevant by hopping on the "Open" bandwagon a little too late in the game. XMPP was the response to the closed nature of all of these IM networks, and not surprisingly, Google chose that very protocol for Google Talk. They even provided instructions on how to connect using clients _other_ than Google Talk.

AOL, on the other hand has always been quite hostile toward projects that made use of their network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madster). Why would anyone want to develop for them now, just because they've stuck "Open" on AIM hoping that OSS developers take care of their coding for them?

Re:

[bem (1977)]

Indeed, and I just spent this morning setting up an internal IM server for my employer, using the mysql database they use for their intranet server as the authentication (yay for one password) and it talks to googletalk just fine and dandy.

The hardest part was finding a package with the feature set I wanted (um, mysql authentication)

Now our employees can chat with each other in real time (double-secure... SSL connections and not going offsite) or with customers (still SSL, but have to trust their server).

If

Re:Well...

[shorti9 (307602)]

FWIW, Aimster never had any problems with AOL*. We've had many more problems with libfaim/libpurple, which are the open source implementations of OSCAR. In particular, AOL has engaged an authentication arms race, repeatedly making it harder to legally log in to AIM. The newest technique (https submission) looked like it was pretty much the death knell for independent OSCAR implementations. It's really difficult to RE, and allowed them freedom to use bigger, more trademarkable shared secrets. (Copyright has exceptions for compatibility purposes; trademark, not so much)

AOL has always had at least a partial open network, in the form of TOC. Surprisingly, they have kept it open for all these years, despite the early pessimism of many people (myself chief among them). This latest opening is an interesting move, and probably hints at new market realities in IM. It's good to see the space changing, especially in a continuing push towards openness.

Sadly, it means that all my contract work for reverse engineering OSCAR (etc) just dried up =)

* Aimster didn't actually use AOL for anything; they just had a data extracting proxy that sat between the user and the IM network, so they could show presence info in their custom UI. I actually worked there for a short while, and extended that proxy to support ICQ, amongst other things. (It was a terribly-run company, which is why I quit after only a few months. If they _had_ used AIM for the file transfers, as I was suggesting, they likely wouldn't have had nearly the legal trouble they did. And, any case against them would also amount to an equal case against AOL, which makes for an interesting set of motivations...)

Re:Well...

[nine-times (778537)]

I don't know if it's too late. AIM still has TONS of users. It's not clear to me how AOL intends to make money from AIM if people are using other clients without embedded ads, but I guess I don't really care either.

Huh?

[TubeSteak (669689)]

I thought the money was in advertising, not in the network.
If they explicitly open up the network to 3rd party clients, what happens to their ad revenue?

Re:Huh?

[elzurawka (671029)]

"AOL is going even further, offering such services the option to run AOL-served advertisements as part of a revenue sharing plan. So far, AOL hasn't given too many details on the advertising tie-in, but more details will be released next month." RTA So, pidgin can now add ad's to the bottom, and share the profits with AOL.

Re:Huh?

[TubeSteak (669689)]

I did RTFA, but I'm not limiting my imagination to a bunch of companies tying their networks together to make more money. And unless something changed, Pidgin is GPL... meaning anyone can grab the source and cut out the code that loads advertisements.

Now that the network is completely open, protocols and all, the only reason anyone would use an ad-laden client is from inertia & familiarity, not because those clients are 'better'.

Re:

[Hatta (162192)]

If all their customers move to an open network(jabber, gtalk) because of the freedom and convenience it provides, what happens to their ad revenue?

Re:

[burndive (855848)]

All of us, who know what we're doing can use Pidgin, and everyone else will download the official client, which will show them ads.

Re:

[geminidomino (614729)]

I've found some problems in pidgin... namely, messages like to disappear into the ether(net?) with no indication whatsoever...

It can make for interesting conversations.

Sounds like

[renegadesx (977007)]

They are desperate to not lose any more market share to Yahoo, MSN and Google Talk (among others). Hopefully this will keep pressure on the others to open up their networks (except MSN of course) and embrace the fact that having many clients is too much hassle for people and all-in-ones make more sense

As a Pidgin user I welcome this move.

Re:

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

They are desperate to not lose any more market share to Yahoo, MSN and Google Talk (among others).

Gotta be honest here, I didn't know Google Talk had any "market share". I really don't see it widly used.

Restrictions

[Schraegstrichpunkt (931443)]

From the FAQ [aol.com]:

Are there any restrictions on what I can build?

We tried to make the Open AIM Program as restriction-free and flexible as possible. But in order to help protect our network and users, certain rules apply.

• We ask that you incorporate two value-added features of the AIM service into your application. The full list that you can pick from is listed in our Additional Feature Requirements webpage.
• Although we have removed many restrictions on usage and development, we still do not permit developers to build Open AIM applications that are interoperable with other IM networks. (Multi-headed applications are now allowed). Please refer to the Developers License Agreement for additional details.

Required features

[Schraegstrichpunkt (931443)]

Can GPL-compatible software (or really any kind of open-source software) be written, given these restrictions?

Open AIM Additional Feature Requirements

Welcome to Open AIM! If you intend to develop and distribute an AIM Custom Client (including mobile versions) or Web AIM Developer Application, you must pick 2 of the 5 options listed below and incorporate them into your Developer Applications. These options include

• Advertising
• Buddy Info
• Expressions and Buddy Icons
• AIM Start Page
• AIM Toolbar

Just to be clear, these requirements don't apply to Plugins, Bots or the use of the Presence Indicators. Please note that if your application exceeds 100,000 peak simultaneous users, you must implement Advertising as described below as one of your two options.

Not sure what will work best for your application? Don't worry. You can always change your selections to suit your needs as you grow.

This is starting to look as if now that everyone knows the OSCAR protocol anyway, AOL is trying to make a power grab under the guise of openness...

Re:

[Constantine XVI (880691)]

Well, considering libpurple (Pidgin, Adium, and Meebo) has a user base somewhere around a fuckton, they'd have to put the ads in if they wanted to used the "blessed" protocol

Re:Required features

[mmcuh (1088773)]

Can GPL-compatible software (or really any kind of open-source software) be written, given these restrictions?

No.

Re:Required features

[gparent (1242548)]

This is really not useful at all, then. Any decent application will have 100,000 users at a time, so this means we're getting advertising in Pidgin if they decide to implement it (I hope not). Self-Compile with stripped advertising, anyone?

Re:Required features

[Surye (580125)]

Although we have removed many restrictions on usage and development, we still do not permit developers to build Open AIM applications that are interoperable with other IM networks. (Multi-headed applications are now allowed). Please refer to the Developers License Agreement for additional details.

Pidgin could not implement this if they wanted to.

Re:Required features

[jay-be-em (664602)]

Ugh. That reminds me. The other day at work I installed aol's aim client because a chat room had been set up to communicate while we went through some procedures (I usually just use gmail for chat). Suddenly Firefox's home page had been changed to aol.com, I had a hideous toolbar and some crappy chat bots added in my gmail chat list. Christ. Fuck this company.

Re:

[tomhudson (43916)]

1. have it "display" the ads as 0px by 0px, black on black background
2. randomly have the whole horde select one ad for ALL the clients to "click" on
3. ad server DDoS'ed, melts down, "open-sores terr'rists" blamed

Profit? What profit? Didn't you see the bit about "online ads revenue was inflated"?

Re:

[moosesocks (264553)]

Because of Jabber's decentralized nature, it's not hard to imagine E-Mail providers bundling IM services with their e-mail packages.

Heck, a handful of them already do just that (Google being the biggest and most obvious such provider)

It's not as if IM traffic is particularly bandwidth-intensive. It's one of the most lightweight protocols in use on the internet today.

Re:

[tomhudson (43916)]

Why not have clients that can mesh with each other in a lily-pad? Not everything has to be client-server.

The only thing 2 computers need to talk to each other is the ip address and the port. Give that to them, and you can then drop out of the conversation. Its not like you need to relay the contents of the messages as well.

Firewall

[tepples (727027)]

The only thing 2 computers need to talk to each other is the ip address and the port. Give that to them

Often, neither computer has an incoming port. In a home, office, or university environment, computers might be behind a firewall, a NAT box with no ports forwarded, or both.

Re:

[MaizeMan (1076255)]

Jeez. I was actually hopeful there for a sec. Thanks for pointing out this release is less (far less) than it appears.

Re:

[bkaul01 (619795)]

I wonder how they define "multi-headed applications"

In any case, third-party developers such as Cerulean Studios (Trillian) already apparently know the OSCAR protocol well enough to have incorporated additional functionality such as SecureIM (encrypted messages) that aren't included in standard AIM clients. This seems more geared towards encabling people to develop small-time add-ons or perhaps bloated adware clients than to actually increasing the quality of mainstream clients.

Re:

[bitspotter (455598)]

From the FAQ:
http://dev.aol.com/aim/faqs [aol.com]

* Although we have removed many restrictions on usage and development, we still do not permit developers to build Open AIM applications that are interoperable with other IM networks. (Multi-headed applications are now allowed). Please refer to the Developers License Agreement for additional details.

From the main page:
http://dev.aol.com/aim [aol.com]

Development of AIM-Enabled, Multi-IM Protocol Clients
* AOL now allows multiheaded clients to access the AIM network

OK, so I'm confused. What's the difference between a permitted "multi-headed client" and a prohibited "multi-headed application"?

They can't even seem to get their own promotional copy down right.

Re:Restrictions

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

It seems poorly worded, but I think they do not want to allow bridging. For example, Microsoft could create a server-side bridge to AIM and put a box in the next version of MSNM for people to enter their AIM IDs. They would then see AIM users as MSN users, stop using the AIM client, and forget about the AOL brand. Currently, AIM is bridged with GTalk, and I presume AOL get a fair amount of money from Google because of it. I suspect that AOL have realised that IM standardisation is inevitable and that they can make more money selling their customers to other IM networks in the short-term, before they become just another IM provider in the same way that they are an email and web hosting provider.

Allowing people to connect to the network using other clients helps this strategy, since it means more people will actively use the network and they can charge higher fees for the bridges to GTalk, MSN, Y!IM and so on. Allowing people to build bridges with this would completely destroy their new business model.

Re:

[somersault (912633)]

It says multi headed applications 'are now allowed', not 'are not allowed'. I think that means that you can use a client that can operate over multiple networks, but only if it can only use one at a time.

Too late; they've added one too many AIM bot

[greed (112493)]

Last night I fired up Adium and there was a new AIM bots entry with another one of their stupid bots.

So I don't care if the network is open. They have no provision for getting rid of these damn things permanently. I even tried logging on to the web dashboard thing and looking there. So forget 'em.

I only have an AIM account because of something I had on Netscape.com way back when for I forget why; it just never got deleted. I don't know anyone who only has AIM, so we'll all cope just fine without th

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

I've never gotten a message from their own AIM bots, and in Kopete, as in every single other IM client I've used, it's possible to simply collapse groups (and forget about them).

So what, exactly, is the problem? (Or is there something I'm missing?)

Open, uninhibited access?

[keytoe (91531)]

From the Wired blog post:

AOL's recently launched OpenAIM 2.0 provides open, uninhibited access

From the Open AIM page:

you must pick 2 of the 5 options listed below and incorporate them into your Developer Applications. These options include

• Advertising
• Buddy Info
• Expressions and Buddy Icons
• AIM Start Page
• AIM Toolbar

Just to be clear, these requirements don't apply to Plugins, Bots or the use of the Presence Indicators. Please note that if your application exceeds 100,000 peak simultaneous users, you must implement Advertising as described below as one of your two options.

I think I have a different definition of 'open, uninhibited access' than Wired.

Re:Still around?

[phoenixwade (997892)]

AOL still has a butt load of clueless subscribers, and AIM is the only IM they know anything about....

Re:

[koh (124962)]

Now you understand why they're doing this, young padawan.

Re:

[satoshi1 (794000)]

Well, for one, who uses a Microsoft service? Yahoo? Blah. And as for ICQ, everyone left that for AIM. Which doesn't matter now because AOL owns ICQ anyway.

Re:

[thePowerOfGrayskull (905905)]

Very true. Sorry, I really didn't know what offline messaging was. =\

Damn, man, this is slashdot! Where is your geekly pride! You must bluster, throw up a few straw men, and eventually close with a scathing comment about how I wouldn't know what to do with a girl if I could find one!

Re:

[Omestes (471991)]

I noticed that most of my European (mostly British) college friends used MSN, while most of the kids from the States used AIM, minus some of the younger kids who used Yahoo. The brits told me that no one they knew back home used AIM much, while at the same time I knew maybe 3 people in the States who used MSN. I think it is largely regional.

Thank god for AdiumX, made life so much better. It's one of those programs I miss dearly now that I'm using Windows, along with the various Omni products, and Quicksi

Re:

[vertinox (846076)]

where's the business plan? AOL is still a company. They gotta make money somehow...

After reports showed that online ads revenue was inflated (have you seen Google's stock price lately) it might not behoove AOL to worry about ad revenue as much as their name recognition.

Re:

[Iphtashu Fitz (263795)]

They can't force a client to display ads. They can request it, and a client can even pretend to do so, but there's no way they can force a third party to display ads they don't want to.

Re:Revenue sharing plans for displaying ads, etc

[philipgar (595691)]

Uh, I'm pretty sure they can force you to stop distribution of your application if you link against their library and aren't following their restrictions. It would be violating the license, and is just as bad as someone linking GPL code into their proprietary applications.

Phil

Re:

[Azh Nazg (826118)]

Sure, they've documented the voice protocol used; said protocol is called Jingle, and specs are available from the XMPP Council, as XEP-0166. In fact, Google submitted Jingle as a standard fairly soon after GTalk came out. Not their fault that not many clients bothered to use libjingle (a library implementing Jingle, under the BSD license, written by Google).