The Business of Instant Messaging 400
willll writes "The Washington Post is running a story about how AOL plans to make money from Instant Messaging, one of the few successes in recent times for AOL. This article includes plans for corporate versions of AIM as well as discussion on some of the state on instant messaging."
What about the others? (Score:5, Informative)
I have successfully implemented IM at a number of large organisations here in Australia.
Microsoft decided ages ago to start charging for the service with the release of Titanium (Exchange 2003), so it's hardly news that IM can be profitable.
Good to hear other vendors are getting involved, but until AOL pull their act together in terms of marketing and security, no corporate IT department in it's right mind would deploy their stuff.
Re:What about the others? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no requirement to justify why it has to be installed, no limitations on whom you can talk to, no costs in managing it (if the user can't manage it they can't use it), no licenses to purchase. The same account works at home and at work.
Sure, IT depts love the opportunity to manage it - but this is much more about budget increases and power/control than it is about improving the bottom line.
Re:What about the others? (Score:2, Informative)
> its been around before this...
Thanks for remembering us!
http://www.lotus.com/products/lotussametime.nsf
We use it at IBM offices around the world and we have "a few" employees.
Re:What about the others? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isnt it funny (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean sending text from peer to peer is pretty much the "hello world" of TCP/IP 101.
Sure the clients are a little more advanced, but the base concept is the same.
Re:Isnt it funny (Score:5, Insightful)
IM is exciting because you can tell who to contact, and whether they are hearing.
Re:Isnt it funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Isnt it funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Like most techies, you've forgotten that not all innovation is technical. AOL used simple technology to create a service that appealed to millions of people. IRC is probably technically more sophisticated than AIM, but it's remained in a niche. Why is that?
Re:Isnt it funny (Score:5, Informative)
Right (Score:5, Funny)
Think of the possibilities!
Re:Right (Score:3, Insightful)
You can even set up web cams so the other person can see you
Re:Right (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Isnt it funny (Score:5, Interesting)
In those situations, IM is really helpful - while taking a call, a tech can run a thought past another staff member, can see if anybody else can reproduce a simple fault, all without interrupting the user.
For those of us in tech support who remember that the user experience is important, little improvements like this can make the difference.
Re:Isnt it funny (Score:5, Interesting)
Its a great tool *especially* in an IT environment.
But rather than IM I prefer to setup internal IRC. The reason? Bots.
Your bot can learn the things that are common to your IT information environment.
Whats really nice is say you have an agreed upon standard for IT nomenclature etc...
You can the hop on IRC (which not to mention works wonders when your IT staff are geographically dispersed) and type in: PDC01-SITE1 (if that was the name of your PDC for example) and the bot can reply with info -like IP etc..
Or it can make fun of it for you....
The other really valuable thing about it is having IRC for allowing development groups to be able to hop on and ask offline questions (questions that dont require stopping in at an office - or hitting some IT person up in the hallway)....
and yet ANOTHER key feature of all this is - LOGGING.
You can log all your conversations for use in compiling great FAQs - and you can use the bot to this end as well....
Other than this specific use - I never use IRC... but you IM quite a bit for friends.
but IRC for IT - IM for users to user communication.
I would encourage both in any organization, so long as users are aware that all communications are logged on the corporate IM of choice. Whether you setup a policy regarding AIMing and IMing with ppl outside the co is up to you.
Jabber has bots (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally use one that checks my presence and sends me messages if mail shows up in my inbox and I'm in one of the availability modes I've defined as meaning I'd like to hear biff bark.
Re:Isnt it funny (Score:5, Interesting)
My company, an IT solution provider, uses IM for the majority of inter-office communications. When you're working on a project with a 50 man team scattered between 3 continents (US, Europe and India (well... Asia. Whatever)), then IM is the only practical solution.
Emails are ok, but you never get proper discourse. Phones are crap because they are expensive and, unless you record them, unlogged. IM is perfect. No need to be too polite, you can ignore it if you're doing something else, or answer immediately and get a quick understanding of the real problem, and make sure your answer is understood (or vice versa).
I've worked with a number of clients in recent years, and more and more of them - even the non-tech-focussed companies - are coming around to the idea that IM is an efficient means of communication. As far as I'm concerned it's an *essential* tool for distributed teams. We couldn't have done half the work we do now without it.
Of course, having said all that, Jabber r00lz.
Re:Isnt it funny (Score:2, Interesting)
If i'm prepared to pay, or have ads shoved down my throat, in order to gain access to a large userbase (all of whom have been sucked in by the same concept,) then it's gonzo marketing at its best.
Ultimately, though, there does have to be some infrastructure present for this sort of application to work. The model is more 'napster' than 'gnutella.'
I find it ironic, though, that Steve Case and his minions are getting rich off 'hello, a/s/l sweetheart' messages and other such shit.
In the business world it's also kind of stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally were I running a business this is about the last thing in the world I would bother spending any money on. That's just me though. Maybe there is some great benefit to this that I don't see. Someone make me a case for why I would need to spend some money on something like this. I'm curious here. Doubtlessly there's got to be something I'm missing.
Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to have missed the point. The technologies you mentioned are great when you don't know whether or not the person is there. However, it's difficult to have a conversation over e-mail or voice mail, and that's where IM shines. IM is not about leaving a message for somebody, but engaging them in conversation when you can't speak to them in person. Yes, you could use the telephone, but you don't know for sure if they're there or not, and that also involves interrupting whatever you happen to be doing at the moment. IM let's you know when somebody is available, and you can ping back and forth without having to walk across the building or stop your work to pick up the phone.
A good example of IM technology being used in a "business" would be my college job as a computer lab sitter. During each shift, there were sitters at all of the different labs on campus, and we were all in contact through an internal IRC server. It made it very easy to keep in touch with other sitters, and even managers. We could ask questions of the other sitters when we didn't know the answer, and doing it over IRC was a lot less disruptive than telling the user, "Hold on while I call over to another lab." One advantage this system has over IM is that for a small group, we were all in the same channel (chat room, conference, party line, whatever you want to call it), so if one sitter was away from his desk, any of the others could still see the question and help out.
Re:In the business world it's also kind of stupid (Score:3, Informative)
Chat is taken very seriously [reuters.com] in the financial services industry.
Re:Isnt it funny (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, the real killer apps are simple, addictive, and easily integrate into our current technological life. Tetris did this, (though, admittedly, it was not simple). It does not often happen with non-game applications.
But consider how different the IM you use now is from the one you used 8 years ago. There have been no changes to the essential nature of the app, just additional fru-fru alterations (rich text, away messages).
Thus, the real world-sweeping apps (not viruses) are compact, have one or few purposes, and often fill a hole that was there but unknown. Reminds me vaguely of the free long-distance cell phone revolution.
Eh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Are people willing to pay for instant messaging?
Josh
Re:Eh... (Score:2, Informative)
They're not aiming (sorry for the pun) this at people, they're trying to sell it to companies. Companies would probably be willing to pay for features such as chat history if a substantial amount of business communication is done over IM.
Re:Eh... (Score:2)
And with Bots - a lot more intelligent....
does trillian IRC?
Re:Eh... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not talking about Trillian Pro here.
I'm talking about a professionally written program that supports both UNIX and Win32 (using QT, perhaps), doesn't crash every few hours (WTF is up with all the crappy IM clients that crash more than Win 3.1?), implements REAL features, has technical support (for those luser friends of mine who can't figure out how to install AIM, even when I talk them through it), and doesn't use ads or spyware.
Here are the features I want:
I've come to the conclusion that I must write this software myself. Nobody else is going to implement a portable, spyware and ad free IM client that doesn't constantly crash.
If someone beats me to it, I guess I'll pony up my cash. But I'm sort of hoping to get a free ride on my own protocol specification.
And please don't suggest Trillian Pro. Thank you.
Re:Eh... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's modular, looks nice (well, the default skin is a bit gaudy, but there are perfectly normal skins available), doesn't crash, doesn't use loads of memory, makes an effort to support encryption (although it doesn't sign your logs), keeps the logs in a straight text file (stupid ICQ database! ugh!), keeps all its settings in its own
What's there not to like?
Re:Eh... (Score:3, Interesting)
The second problem is that Trillian Pro only adopts other protocols, crashing or not working when the protocol changes. That's not their fault. But I don't want to have to constantly upgrade Trillian whenever someone else changes their protocol specification. I'd like for them to implement an open protocol in addition to the legacy protocols. Once the open protocol acheives critical mass, the legacy protocols can be abandoned.
My third problem is that Trillian went from being a hobbyist effort to a commercial product. It shows. Instead of a dialogue popping up saying, "I'm sorry, but the AIM protocol has been changed. This requires an update to the AIM module. Click here to update this module now.", I get a crash. "Huh," I say to myself. "I'll just start it up again, and see if it happens again." Yep. It silently crashes. So, I decide to go to www.trillian.cc and download a newer version. That fixed it. But what if I was a computer illiterate person who had no idea what was wrong? This is not professionally written software.
My last problem is that Trillian isn't a real company -- who do you call for technical support? Who do you contact for site licenses, and how much do they cost? Do they sell corporate versions that are customizable?
Like I said, Trillian isn't really what I'm looking for. It sounds like it, at first, but then you realize it's just another hobbyist Win32 program that's trying to become commercial. I don't want that. I want something that has been designed from the start to be user friendly, easy to use, and cuddles the user. I don't need this, but my friends do. They can't handle it when a Win32 program crashes back to the desktop.
But you do make some good points.
Re:Eh... (Score:5, Informative)
Cryptography support.
Servers currently support SSL, and future versions will allow end-to-end encryption of the conversation itself.
Stability.
There are many different jabber clients. Some are more stable than others. Right now, I use Psi, which hasn't crashed on me once.
It should look nice and have a cool GUI.
Again, lots of different clients. I think Psi's GUI is nice. It certainly isn't as crufty as ICQ. But YMMV on this one.
It should be IM client, and nothing else.
Again, lots of clients to choose from. I don't know what kinds of features they may offer, but I'm sure there's bound to be one suited to you.
Portability.
Psi is written against QT and runs on Windows and linux. Not sure about other platforms, but I know there are Java clients out there that should run on nearly anything.
Zero tolerance policy on SPAM.
This would be up to the individual jabber server. The only thing I really got spam with is ICQ, though, which is why I don't use it. I don't get AIM spam since I stopped accepting messages from people not on my buddy list.
Support for modules.
This I'm not completely sure about. I know the SSL stuff for Psi is a drop in module. You just put the DLL (or .so if using linux) in the program's directory, and when you start back up, you have SSL available.
An open protocol specification.
The jabber protocol is completely open and 100% free. Anyone who wants is able to not only write their own client, but also their own server. Anyone can download the reference server code and run their own, too. It's very nice.
A real revenue model, not based on ads or spyware.
How about just free?
A shiny retail box.
Can't help ya there.
Jabber [jabber.org] apparently stacks up pretty well. :)
Trillain. (Score:2)
IMO the BEST chat prog for Windoze. Oh, and the "normal" version is FREE.
Re:Eh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and AOL does NOT want you doing that, because they want you to use their client, with their ad banners. There are two AIM protocols, TOC (text-based, documented, limited functionality) and OSCAR (binary, undocumented, reverse-engineered). AOL says using TOC is fine, but you're not supposed to use OSCAR. TOC doesn't let you do things like change your password. Last I heard AOL was exploiting a buffer overflow in their own client to make it return a particular hashed value back to the server, and if the server didn't get the correct response it would kick you offline - so, it was impossible for 3rd-party apps to use OSCAR. Obviously Gaim uses OSCAR now, so they must have backed off.
Cryptography support.
Can't encrypt messages if you want to chat with anyone who doesn't use your software. AIM for Mac OS X encrypts log files. Not sure how you'd sign log files in a useful way, since I only ever want to copy & paste an excerpt, not the whole log - but copy & paste is enough to satisfy anyone I talk to that the conversation really took place.
Stability.
See above - one reason they crash so much is because they're always trying to stay one step ahead of AOL, which is always trying to get rid of them. And I was told once that the Gaim code is a tangled mess of spaghetti, but that was a long time ago.
It should be IM client, and nothing else. Do one thing, and do it well.
Some of the features they add are actually useful, but nobody knew just how useful they'd be until they were implemented. Personally a stock ticker is a retarded thing to put in an IM client, but things like webcam & voice chat support are cool ideas.
Portability.
I agree here - why is this so hard? If only Apple had released Cocoa (YellowBox) for win32 and *nix, and everybody started using that. Or if only Qt was free on win32. Or whatever.
Zero tolerance policy on SPAM.
It amazes me that AOL hasn't caught onto this, after so many years of abuse.
Support for modules.
Might be hard to develop generic module support if you have no idea what kinds of modules might be created. Which feature enhancements need what functionality? Some Apache modules make you patch the source to install them, because if it were strictly a module the functionality wouldn't be available.
Why are AOL/ICQ, Yahoo, MSN, etc so scared of competition?
Banner ads.
Even better yet, make it an official RFC.
Nobody took it seriously when they tried. [aol.com]
A real revenue model, not based on ads or spyware.
How many people will pay money for an IM client, when there are so many free ones available? How much would they be willing to pay? Are these two numbers multiplied together anywhere near the cost of operating the service, let alone developing it?
I've come to the conclusion that I must write this software myself. Nobody else is going to implement a portable, spyware and ad free IM client that doesn't constantly crash.
Please do! I'd like to see what you can come up with. Make sure you release a Mac OS X version - you did mention portability.
Re:Eh... (Score:4, Informative)
Absolutely. We run the little-known (and unsupported) ICQ Groupware server to provide IM capabilities for our office of 60 people. Unfortunately, we're starting to push it past its capabilities, and we'd be willing to pay for a good IM server.
I've looked briefly into Jabber, but none of the documentation seems very mature, jabberd doesn't appear to provide some of the user management features we want and makes only vague references to other jabber servers that might provide different features. As much as I'd love using an open source solution for the job, I can't justify spending my (expensive) time trying to track down how to get Jabber to do what we want when we can just buy an out-of-the-box solution for cheaper.
Taxes (Score:4, Funny)
Won't help them. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Its core subscriber base is shrinking, its users are being swamped with junk e-mail,...."
I know one of the reasons family members of mine left was because of the spam. Its insane the crap that gets through to an AOL account. With young members of the family using the accounts it was intollerable. Instead of trying to make money in ways, how about fixing some of the issues with the service and maybe the userbase won't fall. Before long you may start getting new users again. *sigh*
Re:Won't help them. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, not only has the spam finally gotten to him but two other main problems.
First is that AOL is oversubscribed in my area so about every thirty or so minutes it drops the connection. He then has to wait a period of time with busy signals. This has cost him recently some very good ebay bids. He collects basketball cards and has missed two cards he had been searching for about 3 years because AOL kicked him before the end of the bidding (one with 1 minute left). If they are not doing this intentionaly it happens to all the AOL subscribers I know here.
Second is just stability in general. He ran windows 98 - typically he blue screened about twice a month or so. Since upgrading to the latest version of AOL he has blue screened about 3-5 times a week - only when AOL is running.
He has had DSL for about 3 weeks now - it took less than 3 days for him to feel comfortable with using individual clients instead of AOL's bundle, almost never crashes, and has little problem with spam. Not to mention the speed increase from a 56k to DSL
He is now pushing his friends to switch to either cable or DSL. They are as fed up as he is with AOL but they do not know any one that can give them good advice - they do now (I didn't count as they felt that I could not tell them what was easy and what was not - something my uncle thought also).
I firmly beleive that AOL is going to suffer from this more and more.
Pagers? (Score:4, Funny)
tcd004
Re:Pagers? (Score:2)
Keep it simple (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems like we could be seeing another piece of IM software drifting down the ICQ "bloatware" path. IMHO, as far as IM is concerned, especially when the aim is to expand into the corporate arena, the less features the better.
IM in business? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:IM in business? (Score:2)
It's like flushing your time down the toilet.
You're right--it's for 13-year-old girls, or FBI agents pretending to be 13-year-old girls [zdnet.co.uk]
Re:IM in business? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this would be a great tool for large (think multi-national) companies - it would allow them to bring all of their resources together and I believe it would allow teamwork on a higher level. Of course, this could probably be accomplished with e-mail as well, but IM - as the article said - has that "presence" and spontanaety that really works for good collaboration.
One last note - I haven't used Netmeeting or similar things yet, but I think it would be a good bet that the way for this type of collaboration software to really get its foot in the door or corporate America is through IM.
Now all that is left is to get a large acceptance of a nice, open protocol for IM - that is at least the one way it should be more like e-mail!
-Montag
Re:IM in business? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IM in business? (Score:2)
Walking across the office to get to communicate with a person.
Looking up a phone number, then dialing, to communicate with a person.
Opening an IM window to communicate with a person.
now mind you, I'm not measuring the time it takes to type out a question or hold a conversation. Just getting to them is faster than ever.
Mind you, you also have the value of not having to tear yourself completely away from your work. Phones can do this, but it's possible to dial without taking your attn from the screen. Walking over? Forget it. Total context switch.
I've had to scold coworkers who work 10 feet away to not use IM.. that is.. unless I really hate them.
Re:IM in business? (Score:2, Informative)
Our IT staff (read: me) threw fits about it when I first started seeing so much traffic to AOL's servers and discovered all kinds of people had been installing it. Turns out the owner and the president both have it on their personal machines and just gave everybody the go-ahead to install it, quite against my recomendations.
As much as I still despise it, I am stunned at how many people actually legitimately use it.
If it weren't being used for legit uses to communicate outside our LAN, then I could get Jabber in the door, but I can't rely on AOL not to screw with the protocols in the future. So it's either risk that, which would naturally be my fault, or endure the ad-supported AIM, security risks and all (exploitation of which would also be my fault). Grr...sorry, I'm beginning to vent...
All I really meant to say is that it really, truly is gaining popularity in legitimate business. AIM isn't just for breakfast anymore...
But they still need... (Score:4, Funny)
Tech Peon: Sorry boss, I didn't get the IM informing me I've been laid off due to the tech downturn.
CEODude: But I sent it via AIM to you.
Tech Peon: Ah...putting all our faith into AIM streamlining operations, are we?
Paying for AOL Instant Messanger? (Score:4, Interesting)
IM on windows networks? (Score:2)
Set up like AOL IM, it would be SO SO SO useful in a business environment. It would cut down on so much pointless email and voicemail.
well (Score:2)
ObJabberPlug (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ObJabberPlug (Score:2)
13 comments and a slashdotting (Score:2)
MSN Money Article [msnbc.com]
Boston Globe Article [boston.com]
BizReport Article [bizreport.com]
On an offtopic note, the new strong bad email is also slashdotted. Anybody got a link for me?
How about IM in IDEs? (Score:5, Interesting)
The usage scenario would go something like this: I'm working Foo.java and have a question about some line of code. I right click on the line of code and a popup menu appears. I select Discuss, and then a side menu appears that lists my coworkers. The IDE uses "cvs annotate" (if I'm using CVS) to see who last modified the line of code I mouse'd over, and highlights their user id in my "Discuss" menu. I click the author (or anyone else for that matter), and my IDE sends an instant message to the other user indicating that I would like to collaborate on Foo.java. The remote user accepts the collaboration invitation and my version of the code appears in their editor window. At that point we can both edit the file at the same time, ask questions about code, or maybe even share a mouse? (Might be nice to be able to point to some code, ask a question, and have the remote user not only read what you are typing, but SEE what you are referring to).
Anyhow, it's a pipe dream, but man that would be cool.
Re:How about IM in IDEs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about IM in IDEs? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm working an Foo.java and have a question about a line of code. I use cvs annotate to determine that Bob last modified it. I turn my head to the left and say "Bob, I need help with Foo.java," which sends him a message that instantly conveys that I would like to collaborate on Foo.java. Bob accepts the collaboration and walks 4 feet over to my cube. He can see my version of the code right on my screen. At this point we can both edit the file, ask questions about the code, and even share the mouse. (Bob not only reads what I type, but SEES what I am referring to).
It's a pipe dream, but man it would be cool if programmers had social skills.
Every day I see engineers go to great lengths to avoid a simple 'hello' to each other in the hallway. They send email to people who are close enough to hear it being typed. I used to be that way but am slowly pulling out of it.
Re:How about IM in IDEs? (Score:2)
When you need a one word answer to a question sometimes email is better then getting up and walking. Especially ifwhat you are working on gets in your way of
Re:How about IM in IDEs? (Score:2)
Oh, how nice. All your developers work together.
In many companies, developers might be spread out among multiple sites which makes such "simple" communication rather meaningless. If you've ever tried to debug SQL code over the phone with someone, you'll know that the parent of your post has a good idea going.
Re:How about IM in IDEs? (Score:4, Interesting)
Similar with programmers. If you have a roomful of programmers, they can be the most social animals in the world (I say "could"). But when it's time to work, they sit quietly for hours on end, doing their work. A second of interruption can cause minutes of lost time. Several interruptions during the day and those minutes add up to an hour, or more.
Instead, you have a small applet/icon on your panel/taskbar that changes color when you have an incoming message. So you can take 30-45 seconds or so to finish your idea so you don't lose it right on the spot.
There's nothing more startling than a roomful of people, quietly typing away, not much noise, etc., and all of a sudden somebody says, "Hey Bob! What did you think you were doing on line 435 of someprojectmarshal.c?". Everybody loses their train of thought automatically, because they sense a disruption.
Even if you're used to people shouting across the room or talking to a person 4 feet away from them, it can still be disruptive. You subconsciously pick up pieces of the sentences until your brain gets interested in that and you completely lose focus on your work.
I don't care if it's 4 inches, 4 feet, or 4 yards. Any special sounds (special ie: talking, not special ie: keypress, tapping, breathing, etc.) can disrupt your work more than you might think, because it's directed, focused, and rarely ambient.
And these same people who can sit quietly and work can go out that same evening and throw back a few beers, hit on some chicks, etc, etc. Some are geeks, some aren't. But most people would like relative silence when they work.
(Just trying to debunk your cool if programmers had social skills, though I doubt it'll work).
And turn off those "UH OH!"'s in ICQ. They somewhat defeat the purpose of silent messaging.
Re:How about IM in IDEs? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is perhaps even a higher percentage in the case of code, or even pseudocode. This is partly because talking about "{ i+=p/w*x; print("@poit"); i^=2;}" is inconvenient, but also because it avoids confusions by forcing people to put things clearly before "opening their mouths".
Re:How about IM in IDEs? (Score:5, Interesting)
and then I remember that Bob has taken his laptop and is working in Geneva this week. I've no idea what his phone number is there, but wherever he is logged in his IM address is the same. So I drop him an IM containing the line of code I'm curious about, since reading out code over the phone is an imappropriate use of the medium. Bob's actually on the phone, but rather than interrupt him, he notices that he has an IM waiting. 5 minutes later, he's off the phone, he types and line of code back, and we're done.
Re:How about IM in IDEs? (Score:2, Funny)
heh
Jabber people have thought about this (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0058.h
There're tons of other interesting JEPs as well:
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jeplist.php
Check 'em out!
Sounds good, but will it work? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that it is this simplicity that is part of what makes AIM so popular. The average AIM user, which never seemed to be very bright to me, could probably really appreciate the straightforward approach AIM takes to instant messaging. ICQ, which is almost the exact opposite, might repulse those same users, but since AOL owns both, then all is good! They are making use of the best of both worlds, it seems.
However, I currently use Yahoo as my primary messenger, and I have no intention of switching. As far as I'm concerned, Yahoo has found a happy medium, and provides, in my opinion, a much more effecient and useful system than the aforementioned clients.
What AOL should be afraid of is users migrating away from them if they get too pushy on the dollar, though since they claim not to be charging money for existing services, they ought to be secure in this area.
Though I'm not a personal supporter of AOL, I do think that they definitely do have a good opportunity for growth, and believe that any innovations they make might help to benefit everyone.
Definite niche (Score:5, Interesting)
If I call someone else in the company, the PBX system (or whatever else is in use) can be set up to log the call. Email is very easily tracked and logged.
AIM conversations, however, use a third-party for most of the communication. Logging is not great in most clients.
The article mentions an enterprise solution developed by IBM to help with that, and I think that there is a market for AOL to get into. Provide a plug-and-play either hardware or software solution that allows internal AIM traffic to remain encrypted on the internal network (internal Buddy Lists and so on) and completely logged. There would also have to be a way for the system to work with other AIM users not on the internal network.
The nice thing about a solution like that would be that the logging and traffic could be completely internal, and the company could place restrictions on outside traffic (no file transfers from the outside, for example).
Microsoft Real-time Communications Server (Score:2)
Microsoft is trying to play in this arena, too. Their new Real-time Communications Server ("Greenwich") just entered beta. It will include security, logging and "follow-me" functionality. Apparently Reuters has already deployed the beta to over 250,000 users already, for customers such as Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch.
"Microsoft Preps RTC Server Beta" [wininformant.com]
How to make IM an integrual part of my work day... (Score:5, Interesting)
I found that customers who demand my time more is a great thing, makes customer service all the easier, but let's face it, INSTANT MESSAGING is just that. Instant.
When you say hello to someone, you don't expect them to take 10 min to say hello back.
When you leave a voicemail, you expect a reply in one business day unless you mark it urgent. With email you expect a response back what? Half day?
I equate an IM an IMMEDIDATE priority even if I'm busy with something else.
Personally, I have seen customers only let down by me not able to keep up with IM customers fast enough.
Great idea, but in the end, the purchasing agents, CEO's with decision making ability and the standards committee's don't have time for me, let alone IM me.
Any other account managers successfully integrate this into their 100-200 customer/month workday?
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering.
Re:How to make IM an integrual part of my work day (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably a bad idea out of the gate. IM's primary business use is allowing for more efficient internal communications. I'd never give a customer my IM name as a contact, as I couldn't possibly guarantee I'd be right in front of my computer to respond.
This is where E-Mail is a far better solution. Best tool for the job and all.
Re:How to make IM an integrual part of my work day (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm not typing for more than 30 seconds, it shows AWAY, which is right.
And I've been reading good articles in business magazines which shows how IM is actually better than email, in that you can SEE when someone is there, then send them an email.
Knowing when a customer is there is certainly quite helpful, and in return, they know when you're there.
I still like the idea personally.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The next nail in the coffin for AOL (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you:
a) Provide as good an IM tool as you can, which allows you to talk to anyone else on the internet, or
b) 'Capitalize on your community' by providing an inward looking tool which is only any good when talking to other AOL users?
An easy one to answer that. Now a test. Look through that article, and count the number of times that interoperability with MS/Yahoo is mentioned. Count the number of mentions for open standards for interoperability. Count the number of potential exciting innovations there (IM to mobiles? News headlines over IM? IM as pushed alerts for updated webpages?).
Does anyone want to predict how badly AOL will muck this up?
What Profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
As to all the folks whining on about how awful IM is in the workplace, I couldn't disagree more. A couple years back our sales force started using IM to message eachother, as it was the only way to communicate while on the phone. This spread to other areas of the company, and has grown in importance to how we do business.
For example, say a salesman has a customer on the phone and needs detailed inventory data that only the purchasing folks have. Rather than putting that customer on hold, an IM over to the right person and the call never has to go on hold to get an answer.
Like any other Internet technology, there's a fair amount of non-business related communication going on. This doesn't even begin to outweigh the benefits IM has had at my company. YMMV.
Re:What Profit? (Score:3, Informative)
Significantly, this enterprise package will include features that the free consumer version of IM lacks: ensuring that messages are transmitted over secure networks, with the capability to save messages for future reference, for example.
That was on the second page of the article.
key sentence.... (Score:3, Funny)
phew, alright then. i stopped reading there as that is all i was concerned with. glad they put it close to the beginning, heh. i thought for sure they were about to make ICQ or one of their competetors the NEW number 1 instant messaging program. glad to hear i won't be having to inform my friends of a new screenname on another service.
as soon as AOL starts charging for instant messenger, I (and probably the rest of the world) will move on.
advertisement banner (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like they are making a good bit selling that add space. Like most other free things making money through advertisement sells like television, radio, and web sites.
I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there that are willing to pay to have that kind of exposure. Especially if they can reach "40 percent of all Americans from age of 14 to 24."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No Spam! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Shein wants to legalize spam and allow ISP to charge for it, a position that I completely oppose. Shein's proposal will result in more spam and flood our in-boxes with even more junk. Meanwhile, users are grabing any technology that is less spam friendly (and not acrane and difficult to use).
What I don't understand... (Score:2, Insightful)
Making money off IM everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
What's missing is... (Score:2)
I mean, which management would resist an oppertunity to improve communication dymanics of their staff but without reducing productivity by playing with UI (they came from hell I tell you!) uselessness?!
That's it... I'm patenting this idea and selling it to AOL!
Sad (Score:2)
So a couple of ideas to the new CEO:
Corporate AIM? (Score:3)
Those that would embrace it see nothing wrong with using the central servers. That is what enables it to work. If the servers go down, *everyone* knows and understands. Reliability is important, but accountability is more important. If it is obvious to people that it isn't the company's fault, it isn't so bad for the company as it would be if they perceived that the company is too incompetent to maintain their mail server, or else not realize the server is down and assume an important communication goes through that didn't. If companies *really* wanted IM on that level, Jabber would see more widespread deployment.
On the other hand, a great number of companies don't take IM seriously. The market perception, especially by those in suits, is that IM is seen as a toy technology, for personal use only. At the previous two companies I worked at, any kind of IM client was banned by company policy, it was seen as too much of a distraction. Didn't stop people. The network administrator was forced to 'block' traffic. He then proceeded to block it only to the point where the suits could test and think it was effectively blocked, yet provided people circumvention tips when asked. This is a boneheaded strategy, it is another viable communication form. Even now, when dealing with companies with a problematic mail server who need to communicate with me and I ask if they have an IM service and they seem to find it funny to even think of using IM in such a way. The attitude reflects 'this is a place of business, why would we be on an IM service while working, that is preposterous!'. Phones are for 'instant communication', email is for electronic correspondence, and many suits see that as that, with no middleground to fill.
Personally, I think IM services are a great thing for business and personal use. It is a great way to communicate without being obtrusive into work. While doing IM, I can do other things while waiting for responses. If on the phone, it is really hard to do anything else but focus on the phone. I've always been fond of Jabber, and wish that it would catch on. I know better though. Suits that have stereotyped IM as a toy are going to be a really hard sell on this I think.
Where is Jabber? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know it could really help out in the organisation that I work at as we have offices right across the country and its bloody expensive to get all the execs together for a meeting. If Jabber had Video/Audio support it would be just what the doctor ordered.
If I wasn't already building something else, I might even take it on myself.
Re:Where is Jabber? (Score:3, Interesting)
Officially AIM and YIM shouldn't be used, but people do, anyway. I never did until I found out all my counterparts in HQ are on AIM, so I grudgingly installed AIM and now I can IM them anytime (it was always hard to catch them on the phone). Very handy, but it bugs me that our messages fly across the internet instead of just the point-point T1 from my building to their theirs.
Feasible: Yes; Probrable: No. (Score:3, Insightful)
My two cents is that most businesses are more ready to take a Microsoft answer in the all-in-one suite or find a open solution if their staff has the time. Besides, AOL IMer is nowhere near business app status.
And to those that don't think IMs have a place in business or that people just trade smiley faces all day, you haven't seen how many meetings are avoided by simple online real-time at-your-own-computer-and-chair chat.
Why should AOL make money with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a historical accident that, instead, we have this kludgy, centralized, closed infrastructure that's owned by AOL and a few other players. If AOL goes away and takes their "free service" with them, all the better, as far as I'm concerned. But we'll probably have to listen to this kind of whining over and over again.
Sheesh, it's easy to make money with AIM! (Score:5, Funny)
The ultimate instant messaging (Score:3, Funny)
$ write user
No mention of Trillian? (Score:3, Informative)
Secure IMing, conversation logging, and support for almost all the major features each IM environment has to offer.
Get it here. [trillian.cc]
And yes, the pro version is worth the $25 spent!
IM games ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it could be done effectively with jabber server extensions, possibly with a custom transport. If you look at a program like jogger [jabber.org], it shows how something like this could possibly be done.
I could set up game.mydomain.com on my jabber server, and people would choose a handle (handle@game.mydomain.com), and create an account for it on my jabber server. They could then IM each other at these game addresses, and the commands would be parsed by the transport, and handled by a centralised server & db, then routed to the destination, with any result data (and replied to, if needed). This could also be done through an AIM transport, allowing normal AIM users to play, using unmodified AIM clients (they'd have to sign up for an account through a web site, somewhere).
So, to give an example, I am slightlymadman@game.slightlymad.net. I have a friend called ben@game.slightlymad.net. Using my standard jabber account (slightlymadman@slightlymad.net), I IM ben@game.slightlymad.net with the command "rock". This is recorded in the server, then the text "you have been challenged, reply with 'rock', 'paper', or 'scissors'" is sent to ben@slightlymad.net, from slightlymadman@game.slightlymad.net. He replies (to my game address) with "paper", which is processed, then the message "Paper covers rock, ben wins!" is sent to both of our normal addresses.
This should be simple to implement, but I haven't had the time to do it, on my own. Anyone who would like to collaborate on a project like this, please email me. I also have a few other ideas for more complex games, once a simple implementation is worked out.
Re:Not feasible (Score:5, Interesting)
More suggestive is the "serious" use of IM happening on trading desks. Logged, secure, time critical IM. These are the folks who do not screw around. At least not at work. (;
Re:Not feasible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not feasible (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Anybody who enables IM for the masses, is going to regret it
2. Anybody who allows IM traffic into and out of their organisation, is going to regret it
That said though...
3. Anybody who uses IM for internal communication only can benefit from it
4. IM (internal) can encourage and facilitate interaction between staff who normally never talk (believe me, I've seen it here)
5. IM can be implemented in less than ONE day (again, I did it here in a matter of hours, including client rollout).
Bottom line? (because it all comes down to money):
A few hours of a techs time gave us an in-house communication tool that sees more use than our phones (for short questions between techs). With two helpdesk locations, it has seen a dramatic rise in interaction between the two sites, and a noticable boost in morale.
With the morale issue, I attribute it to a reduced feeling of "being alone". The 1st level support team now "speak" to the 2nd level team regularly via IM - a big improvement in my opinion.
(personally, I'd happily sacrifice a full working day if it yielded just a few conversations between techs who never speak. Or if it saw a few helpdesk calls each week solved faster).
Re:Not feasible (Score:5, Insightful)
Another technology that you probably fear is P2P sharing. This is another useful tool that I believe will start to make an impact on the business world. Locutus [locut.us] is what I have set up for them, and they are able to share documents/media that have had to have been requested while still making sure priveleges and security are a priority.
Perhaps you didn't like the computer -- imagine the gaming that would go on...
Re:Not feasible (Score:4, Informative)
Are you for real? That's quite a "doomsayer" prediction.
A corporate IM solution will have the option to limit who you can connect to (ie, no one outside the company). Those whose productivity comes to a halt, will be the same people that spends all day chatting with co-workers over other means: telephone, water cooler, whatever.
Re:Not feasible (Score:2, Interesting)
At my last job they deployed an IM client over the entire company and it proved to be a huge benefit. In fact, the general counsel issued guidelines on when the text of an IM conversation needed to be saved.
The benefits of IM, as I see it are:
Re:Trillian Pro (Score:3, Informative)
Here's what I like about it that's better than the free version:
One minor downside is that the menus in Trillian Pro don't really work with the X-Mouse feature from TweakUI. But I'd rather live without X-Mouse than Trillian Pro, oddly enough.
All in all, $25 well spent. Considering that I actively use all four major IM networks and IRC, Trillian saves me from wasting a lot of RAM, cluttering up my system tray, seeing ads in IM clients, etc. The only single-network IM client I ever use now is Yahoo, and that's only when I want to do voice chat or see someone's webcam. I never use mIRC anymore.
Note that I'm not affiliated with Cerulean in any way, I'm just a satisfied customer.
Re:jabber? (Score:4, Informative)
FEX:
I admin at an
At home I've taken to doing the same thing. I run a local Jabber server with a full transport setup and just connect to myself with my client. It's a bit backwards, but pays off in desk space and effeciency in the end.
Re:More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day (Score:2, Interesting)
You are assuming that it is a bunch of teeny-bopper 14-year-olds using the program. Well, believe me, it isn't.
I have had many deep, meaningful conversations with my intelligent friends on it, and they did not contain merely "lol"s and "sups". AIM is widely used by those of college-age, I assure you, and is as popular as cell-phone communication by many (more popular by me as I can't afford a fancy cell phone plan)
And AIM is a good way to talk to people that are long distance FREE, like my parents from college. What other non-IM technology such as this is available that is CHEAPER than FREE? And also teachable to a mother who does not understand computers all that well?
AIM is very convenient to use b/c many of my friends use DSL/Cable/dorm ethernet connections and we can stay on forever and are very reachable through these connections. If we're home, we're probably on AIM. Very convenient for homework questions, conversations about your day, listening to a friend who's mother just died, I mean WHATever you need to talk about. It is not what you people seem to think it is. It has totally taken off with my generation (I'm 18) and is a large part of our culture.
In conclusion, IMs are very productive, cheap, efficient, and easy-to-use forms of communication. If you have a lot of friends and family using it, it is way better than the telephone, and is certainly not non-sensical if used in the ways that my friends and I use it.
Re:More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day (Score:3, Funny)
Getting a little defensive, are we?
That said, I use IM to fight with my dad, and I'm just under the 30 mark. :)
Re:More than 1.1 billion IMs are sent every day (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Jabber, the linux of IMing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What open source IMs exist? (Score:3, Informative)
Very secure. Some clients support GPG cryptography. It's even compatible with AIM, ICQ, and YIM.