AOL Won't Enable Instant Messaging Interoperability

chill writes "Wired is reporting 'America Online is scaling back efforts to make its popular instant messaging system work with rivals, saying the task has proven too difficult and expensive.' That's funny, they don't seem to have a problem blocking anyone who figures out how to interoperate. Legally, they are not supposed to offer "next gen" IM over Time Warner's cable lines until they can interoperate. We shall see."

Re:Why?

It was one of the conditions of the merger of AOL and TW. They were only allowed to merge if they met certain conditions (anti-monopoly measures), one of which was allowing interoperability with other IM clients.

Re:Why?

Actually that's not quite right.

They were permitted to merge, and the AIM server-to-server (noting that the FCC requires it to be server-to-server) interoperability was not an issue for the merge, EXCEPT that they were NOT allowed to provide realtime video messaging over their newly aquired cable modem networks UNTIL they had enabled that interoperability with either open published standards OR connections with three other IM networks.

They have recently stated that they are pursuing other approaches to the interoperability aside from server-to-server because there are 'key issues' with that approach. This goes against the FCC decision (assuming they provide the video messaging) if they use anything other than server-to-server AND they enable video messaging, and there may well be real valid reasons for the issues with server-to-server, although I can't see them.


Z.

Re:Why?

Yes, Microsoft have actually been very supportive of the Trillian software effort. (Which faintly boggles the mind.) Yahoo hasn't tried any antagonizing tactics that I've heard about (though their servers/protocol are badly-behaved enough that sometimes you don't NEED to block). Even ICQ, which is also owned by AOL, hasn't blocked Trillian.

The thing is, AIM and ICQ are by far the two biggest IM networks, and AIM is larger than ICQ by a fair amount (especially since ICQ has lost users to AIM and MSN as the client becomes more and more bloated). When AOL bought ICQ and already owned AIM, there were a lot of concerns about them getting a monopoly on instant messaging. Especially as AOL has spoken about merging ICQ and AIM into one network; they already are moving closer and closer together and using the same login servers.

When AOL and Time Warner wanted to merge, they were told to make their instant messaging network open to interoperability. AOL agreed to do this, and laid down a timeline of what they planned to do with AIM/ICQ. Among those things was 'real time video chat for broadband links'. So the FCC said 'great, fine, you have to have your servers interoperable before you hit that milestone.' AOL agreed, and then cheerily decided not to aim for that milestone.

Now, they've continued to claim that projects like Trillian 'put their users at risk' because unauthorized software connecting to the AIM networks could be hacking to steal user information. (If you can get AOL user information over the AIM protocol, I'd say they have some more serious problems than Trillian and EveryBuddy.) Or to 'spam' people (which is ironic, because ICQ - which they don't care about clients connecting to - has far more spam than I've ever seen on AIM).

So, yes...it's their servers, and their protocol. But on the other hand, they've deliberately snubbed the FCC decision, and their justifications for kicking third-party software off are fairly weak. (Ironically, I actually wouldn't object if they just came out and said 'well, we want to keep a monopoly on IM, and these are our servers'. Claiming that EveryBuddy, Jabber, Fire and Trillian are written by 'hackers' who want to compromise the AOL network to gain user information -- when they say the 'user information' being gained is by having this software trick the user into entering their password -- is just unethical spin-doctoring.)

Sniff :|

So the Gaim is over?

Even Microsoft don't do that

From the release notes for Trillian [trillian.cc] 0.73 (this is the app AOL are trying to block):

Microsoft was kind enough to alert us to a change in the MSN servers that would have negatively affected Trillian. Thanks, Microsoft!

AFAIK, Microsoft aren't even legally required to allow interoperability; are they doing the right thing, for once?

Re:Even Microsoft don't do that

They ALWAYS do the right thing when they do not control a market. They are at the embrace stage!

This is explained in the article...

...which says:

Kathy McKiernan, an AOL spokeswoman, said Wednesday that the company thought its resources were better devoted to "alternatives that are available to us now such as the hosted IM relationship with Apple."

Under that arrangement, Apple wrote the software and AOL will handle the message transmissions. AOL developed a way for users on iChat to claim usernames already taken on AOL.

You can bet that Apple paid through the nose for this interoperability. AOL is hoping that others will do the same, again quoth the article,

Instead, AOL will focus on letting companies offer their own instant messaging services if they contract with AOL to run them.

It's all about the benjamins.

I think the problem is control

I think the real problem here sounds like all the ways for this work come back to AOL either (1) giving up central control, (2) making fundamental changes to how accounts are handled (ie, by e-mail) and (3) AOL hosting the whole the thing on its servers.

AOL shouldn't have to host the thing; it should be some type of decentralised system. On the other hand to do that will require breaking most of thier additional clients.

Tough luck. Bummer.

A standard interface?

I realize that there are some functions performed differently on seperate chat programs, but what is really stopping them all from creating a standard interface for communicating? It seems like the main reason for limiting the audience is to lock people into your look and feel client, but what good does that really serve?

And, more importantly, how could we get these companies to actually adopt a standard? I realize there are probably some open source attempts, but unless a big company adopts them... I just don't see them taking off.

-josh

Re:A standard interface?

It's not "locking people to your look & feel client" It's "locking people to your look & feel client WITH ADVERTISING". Gotta make the money somehow.

Re:Why not

It exists - Jabber [jabber.org].

What I fail to understand is . . .

. . . exactly why those of us who are clinging to the AIM servers because "that's where all my friends are" aren't working a little harder to get them to a platform that allows (or at least isn't actively trying to break) other clients, for example Jabber, MSN (even if it is run by the evil empire), or even IRC.

We (I included) rail against the lockout of alternative clients, and yet continue to depend upon the network that's breaking them.

I say let's get a little Metcalfe's law going, and as Bill Gates says Microsoft does, start "eating our own dog food."

Re:What I fail to understand is . . .

...exactly why those of us who are clinging to the AIM servers because "that's where all my friends are" aren't working a little harder to get them to a platform that allows (or at least isn't actively trying to break) other clients, for example Jabber, MSN (even if it is run by the evil empire), or even IRC.

Because it's much easier said than done, that's why. It would be one thing for me to get my mom to switch over to Jabber or MSN if she had never used IM before. But, now that she has a contact list of 25 people? I hardly stand a chance. It's pretty much the same for anyone I know. While I'm sure most people would agree that switching to a more open IM system would be a good idea, most people would also choose having more people available to them over a more "open" solution. Thus, the only hope is to get every single person using AIM to switch at once. Or, something even more radical and amazing, making AIM interoperable with other IM services.

True interoperability

True interoperability means having servers for rival systems directly communicate with one another.

It's funny how in the telephone network, the only way to survive is to be completely interoperable, but with instant messaging they're all afraid because it "means having servers for rival systems directly communicate". OMG!

If you really want interoperability, then support Jabber. [jabber.org]

How to piss off your programmers...

...tell the world that you think a trivial task that others have already done is too difficult for your own employees to do.

Can't completely blaim AOL

They have the vast majority of the users and are invested in the infrastructure, it shouldn't be a surprise that they are dragging their feet. They have a LOT to lose. And it's something to lose to MS.

Nobody needs to be reminded of the rival AOL vs. MSN, IE vs. Netscape, yadda yadda.

AOL probably just wants to prevent their butts from being undercut by MS. The last thing they want to do is invest tons of resources into something and have MS change the ball game on them. Without some sort of standards/agreement they're vulernable and MS knows it.

AOLs got bigger problems...they should let IM go..

AOL is a dinosaur and their days are numbered. Every person that asks me to hookup their broadband connection, eventually arrives at the conclusion that their connection is always on (no dial up), a web browser can be something other than AOL's terribly cluttered software (Netscape, Opera, IE..etc.), and that their IM software is freely downloadable!

Inevitably, the broadband customer figures out they don't need to give AOL $10.00/mo just to host their AOL spam.

Mark my words, as the dial-up market shrinks, so will AOLs market share. AOL should just open up IM, before someone else does it for them.

-ted

As an AIM user, I like this

Okay, I'm all for other clients being able to instant message around to one another. I like competition. And I love free software (as in speech).

But I like AIM as it is. Well, rather I like it as it was--before there were alternatives that were allowed to get onto AOL's network. I used to be able to find new buddies easily enough, and when I got a message from someone new it typically was genuine.

But now, some f*tards as using the AIM system to send out spam-like messages. Is it coming from the rival clients? I don't know. But the one way to identify these bots running is that their profile always states "No Information Provided". This is the type of thing that really puts a strain on AOL's servers, and I can't quite blame them for not wanting to declare a lifetime of open season on their servers.

Sure, it would be nice if there was a completely interoperable messaging system. But to get this, we might force ourselfs to deal with getting slammed several times a minute by bots running around messaging everyone they can find. I'm just so tired of that, I am more willing to give up the competition. AIM's clients (even the java one) aren't really that bad. They work and do their jobs pretty good. Maybe this is one case where the majority of people would rather have a very closed, controlled community. Better ask mom and gramdpa about this before we go stating that this is completely a bad thing.

Mind Share is the real issue.

I used to use ICQ, and ICQ was good, but then came AIM, and well. most people I knew were on AIM. So thats the way I had to go it wasn't fair of me to ask my non technical friends to use my system, and then have to deal with more than one client. AOL is the 800-pound Gorilla of IM these days. Non-interoperation is also a business matter for them. Their control of the client is important to them because of that little window on the top of the client...they get advertising dollars for that little window. How can they insure in an inter-operational cleint that window is appearing? Suppose that they allowed inter operation large scale, and someone had a client (ignoring for the moment the ones that do exist already) that has a slicker interface and is more fuctional than theirs. We all move to that client, using their network, but not displaying the ads they are getting paid to display...? Its a business problem folks. They might be a big company, but someone has to pay them in some way to operate their FREE service. Perhaps if the alterate interfaces would be willing to make sure they display those add windows properly..? But still what assurances would they really have that this is actually happening?

Re:Its their Servers

Because they intend to offer "advanced" IM over the cable network they now own, and many are skeptical that they will adhere to the regulation that they must open their IM to competitors before they do so. People in the U.S. are understandably tired of megacorporations finding loopholes, making empty promises, and otherwise screwing over the very people that fill their coffers.

Re:Its their Servers

Humm seems like it pretty much is...

Think of AOL as AT&T...what if they didn't interoperate with MCI...or Britsh Telecomm