Yahoo! Opens up Their Instant Messenger 127
prostoalex writes "Reuters is reporting on the new release of Yahoo! Messenger, which will allow third-party applications and plugins to run within the Messenger environment. From the article: 'Initial partners include 30 Boxes, a calendar-sharing site that competes with Google Calendar, commodities trading site Hedgestreet.com and Pando.com, which offers a service for sharing videos or other files via BitTorrent technology. More than 100 mini-programs will be available initially.' The application is currently available in beta. Relatedly, Microsoft is removing the beta warning label from Windows Live Messenger and promises better voice communications, landline calls and future integration with Yahoo! Messenger."
One thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One thing (Score:1)
signature goes here
Re:One thing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One thing (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:One thing (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One thing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One thing (Score:1)
Re:One thing (Score:2)
Also, Tapioca VoIP [sourceforge.net] apparently has some support for Gtalk and libjingle...
Re:One thing (Score:2)
Re:One thing (Score:5, Informative)
That piece of shame isn't updated so it has some OS problems. A caring end user posted a patch to versiontracker and everyone installed it. I mean the people who need it.
Patch: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx
Yahoo Messenger (the scandal, check comments there!) http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx
At least they have an OS X version (Score:2)
Of course all good OS X users use Adium or Fire as their cross IM network chat client.
Re:At least they have an OS X version (Score:3, Interesting)
ICQ 3.4 is both classic and os x version in single application package based on which OS you doubleclick it. It does send and resume files which Yahoo can't over 1 mb. In fact using Yahoo Mac messenger (!) to use any critical data is a huge risk since it
Re:At least they have an OS X version (Score:1)
the problem as i see it, that for open source project without financing it is almost impossible to get any attention. PR campaigns cost money. that links at top of the page cost gold.
i struggle with one of my pet projects, which allows to send large e-mail attachments (among other things) - for example, this is a static URL to one of the "public" files picasso.11 [gomyplace.com]. This is Open Source (GPL), zero financing. and you can help me and many
Re:At least they have an OS X version (Score:2)
There is completely open standards based "presence" protocol, Jabber and it will be standard for Internet II messaging (already selected) and people don't use it. It is not exactly the end users lack of knowledge, making that jabber.org which everyone suggests a naturally unstable CVS version server is just one of the reasons. A
Re:At least they have an OS X version (Score:2)
I prefer that the company's product doesn't give a sh*t about what platform I'm using. Just give me complete interface documentation (or better, use a standard protocol -- in this case, XMPP) and I'll be on my way, thank you.
Re:One thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup, and they don't even care about windows.
Yahoo messenger is extremely bloated (uses 30-50megs of ram), it crashes ALL the time on me (on multiple computers), and last of all, the protocol itself (YMSG) is horribly designed, no logic used whatsoever when they created it.
Re:One thing (Score:1)
Re:One thing (Score:1)
Re:One thing (Score:2)
Frankly, they ought to just take that abomination out back and put it out of its misery, and take the salaries of whatever developers were working on it (probably none, but you never know) and send it as a donation to the Adium project, since I expect most people using Yahoo Messenger on the Mac are doing it through that. (Or if they're not, they should be.)
OT: Shouldn't the title of this ar
Re:One thing (Score:2)
Re:One thing (Score:2)
Re:One thing (Score:2, Informative)
goMyPlace will do the same on any platform and this is open source (GPL) and "No adware, no spyware ... no, really" you can check the source code, which arrives in the installation package
Re:One thing (Score:1)
Re:One thing (Score:1)
the link i posted is actually link to the cached file
Re:One thing (Score:1)
Re:One thing (Score:2)
Re:One thing (Score:1)
check this article http://p2pnet.net/story/9 [p2pnet.net]
Re:One thing (Score:1)
No, they won't. (Score:2)
Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I don't find that comment funny, but I'm curious why AOL adopting a 3rd party addon model is seen as a security hazard (I'd wager a decent chunk of /. feels that way - could be wrong) whereas Firefox is considered a secure browser.
Then again, it is AOL.
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's difficult to imagine a web browser plugin that could harass millions of other web browser users as easily as an instant messenger client plugin could harass millions of other instant messenger users.
Re:Yay! (Score:1)
Sure, in theory - but I think there may have been security vulnerabilities in OSS before. Also, I don't think people examine the source code for every Firefox extension they install - I sure don't.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, a browser uses a "pull" method to get data: User requests data, gets response. May visit a site with malicious extension and the site may try to trick them into installing it, once visited, but no visit - no risk. IM uses "push-pull", with the "push" part more dangerous - the IM is listening and reacts to incoming requests from outside, the malicious code can contact everyone on contact list and send itself to vulnerable clients, no action on side of the user may be required. A browser vulnerablity will infect users visiting given site using vulnerable browser. A IM vulnerablity will infect all on-line users of the IM.
Of course these are just qualitative differences - IM idea is simply more dangerous than browser one, but both can be vulnerable. And there's a matter of user base. Users of AOL are most likely to install a program a friend from their contact list suggests them to install.
I know what will happen... (Score:2, Funny)
I will get people complaining that because I use GAIM I can't install their fancy new plugins.
Then they will vanish from the internet. Forever.
AOL Triton?? (Score:2, Interesting)
And of course it will be
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I do - young people. Based on your ID, I'd guess you don't fit into that demographic (but I could be wrong).
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:4, Funny)
Get off my yard!
*marks himself DEPRECATED and schedules date for port removal*
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:2)
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:2)
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:2)
i'd like them all to alliterate! ignoble, ignorant, insensitive, insipid, intelligent, iberian, whatever!
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's mostly attributed to the lack of computer literate individuals that these applications are targetted to; They want to bring something old but too complicated to use to them, and pass it off as something fresh.
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:1)
This is in addition to, not instead of, existing methods.
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've actually video chatted with one person while IMing a second and downloading something. And I'm not exactly a spring chicken anymore.
It's an easy usage pattern to fall into. You have a camera plugged in, someone wants to chat from a 'net cafe overseas (which frequently have IM cameras). You have a friend who is making fliers for an event,
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:1)
Zarwinski (Score:2)
The PHB's in charge of the various companies' IM divisions don't just want to be an IM service, deep down they'd really like to figure out some way to accomplish everything you want to do on your computer with regards to communications. Really, I think they see themselves not as a special-purpose tool, but as a portal; th
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:2)
I'll take the last bit. IM file transfers are notoriously unreliable and on Y!IM, IIRC, they're limited to 10 MB. The Pando plugin let's you send files (or folders of files) up to 1GB, takes advantage of bittorrent, and is better at getting around firewalls than traditional p2p IM file transfers.
(Full disclosure: I work for Pando Networks but n
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:1)
Re:AOL Triton?? (Score:1)
She has something that works for her and she's happy. So what's your problem?
Too bad... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
Re:Too bad... (Score:1)
*Check*
Hmm. Guess I'll go looking into the Gaim fork. Thanks for the heads up
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gaim-vv/ [sourceforge.net]
Re:Too bad... (Score:1)
There is a version 1.0.4 that is current, but I found it had some degraded functionality so I've regressed back
Y!M Newest Feature (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Y!M Newest Feature (Score:1)
for example, this pando thing for delivering large e-mail attachments. goMyPlace does this simpler, for example this link picasso.11 [208.109.20.145]
and goMyPlace is GPLed both server (reversed proxy server) and client side
Integration with Yahoo! Maps? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Integration with Yahoo! Maps? (Score:3, Funny)
Just what the world needs - a tool that makes it even easier for perverts to stalk 14-year old girls!
Re:Integration with Yahoo! Maps? (Score:2)
WildTangent anybody? (Score:2, Informative)
Fascinating... (Score:1)
Re:Fascinating... (Score:1)
http://www.pando.com [pando.com]
dimes
Re:Fascinating... (Score:1)
Re:Fascinating... (Score:1)
...and sending feedback to me. any comments/remarks are appreciated
Stability, Security, and Efficiency (Score:1)
(The current version has a buggy network library that crashes when you switch back and forth between networks, something I do frequently as I switch between my client's VPNs)
The good news is that this will finally make it possible for someone to write a decent tightly integrated encryption module.
Boggles my mind that all of the major IM clients are still sending plaintext across the network. I'd love to be able to use IM at cl
And NOW Ads! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And NOW Ads! (Score:1)
Re:And NOW Ads! (Score:2)
Firefox icon on sample desktop for Y!M (Score:1)
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/msg/7/scr/
Yahoo Messenger opening (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yahoo Messenger opening (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yahoo Messenger opening (Score:2)
Re:Yahoo Messenger opening (Score:1)
Damn! (Score:2, Insightful)
This doesn't even deserve to involve the word 'open'. But it can use the word 'API'
Great! (Score:2)
Two things... (Score:2, Informative)
First, where's the alleged link to the Reuters article referenced in the post? Never mind, 15 seconds of Google News helped.
Anyway, the article is a bit short on details, but the promises don't sound too, er, promising. What's it, really? Now people can write Javascriptlets and new plugins for messenger?
Yawwwwn.
Call me back when they open-source the client, release specs for the protocol, and accept input from the larger developer community. Until then, I'll be sticking with the people [jabber.org] who have been d
Upcoming messenger integration (Score:2, Interesting)
After a second of holding your mouse still, a little yellow square will appear that says:
Could this be the first sign that the client at hand already has the MSN Protocol connection modules integrated? Wonder why they're not activated at all yet, as this is the only
Re:Upcoming messenger integration (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Upcoming messenger integration (Score:1)
Re:Upcoming messenger integration (Score:1)
Who cares? (Score:1)
Use Trillian. http://trillian.cc/ [trillian.cc] =)
Really, I'm surprised Y! Messenger's not dead already. I think I have maybe one contact that uses Yahoo's messenger. Just about everyone I know uses MSN. Even ICQ's less ubiquitous than it was six years ago.
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Informative)
Really, I'm surprised Y! Messenger's not dead already. I think I have maybe one contact that uses Yahoo's messenger. Just about everyone I know uses MSN. Even ICQ's less ubiquitous than it was six years ago.
Yahoo still has about 20% of the market. ICQ is less ubiquitous because it is now owned by AOL, who integrated it with AIM. The problem with IM, in general, is everyone is looking for the big win and wants their little walled garden to take over so they can make money as the gatekeeper of all IM commu
Much More Interesting... (Score:1)
Where is the interoperability...?
"opens up"? (Score:2)
Jabber transport? (Score:2)
I mean, I'd love to see Yahoo put up their own Jabber gateway, but I'm more realistic than that.
Re:Jabber transport? (Score:2)
Why aren't you working to eliminate Yahoo contacts by helping them migrate to Jabber? I've been free of the obsolete 4 networks for over a year now. It is possible.
Re:Jabber transport? (Score:2)
I prefer to interoperate rather than proselytize.
Re:Jabber transport? (Score:2)
standardize instant messenging (Score:1)
However, when will it be that instant messenging gets a standard protocol (or regains it, i.e. IRC)? When I want to email someone, I know their address and I can e
Re:standardize instant messenging (Score:5, Informative)
Do companies make money from their proprietary instant messengers? Is it just ad revenue?
Both. Some companies sell "pro" IM clients and a number get ad revenue from the download page or from ads embedded in the client. The real money, of course, is in dominating the entire space so you can begin charging for access or tying to other features. No one has managed that and hopefully Google will get them to give up on it.
However, when will it be that instant messenging gets a standard protocol (or regains it, i.e. IRC)? When I want to email someone, I know their address and I can email them, I don't have to think about which program they are using to read/write their email. When I want to call someone on the phone, I dial their phone number to reach them anywhere in the world.
Additionally a standard protocols allows an individual or company to run their own server for security and stability reasons. Luckily, such a protocol exists. It is called Jabber and is an approved, open standard. Google has implemented it for their GTalk IM system and Apple has implemented it in their iChat program. I think GAIM supports it as does Trillian (pro only?). The difficulty is, since the existing protocols and social networks are closed, people can't easily migrate away without the ability to interchange. Hopefully, Google will take over enough of the market that other companies will see the value in being able to intercommunicate and we will all get that standard protocol and a defacto standard as well. You can already send messages via the Jabber protocol to anyone who has a Gmail account and the IM client is built into the Webmail interface to it. It works the same as e-mail for addressing, (username@gmail.com or username@somedomain.foo).
Maybe google will have one.
They already do. Also, Jabber is widely deployed in enterprise businesses for secure, internal messaging.
Re:standardize instant messenging (Score:2)
You don't know a statistically relevant sample, I promise
IF the API is open, we could just add GAIM (Score:1)
IM 2.0? (Score:2)
Heh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heh... (Score:2)
I was discussing something like this with a friend not long ago. Yahoo was already one of the less popular clients last year and lately, with Google having entered the XMPP network, there are probably more users using XMPP than using Yahoo (Google haven't opened figures as far as I know, but when they introduced the avatar features into their client, they mentioned on the blog that a million users had already set their avatars, so we know it's a great deal bigger than that.)
In other words, at this point i
Another One.... (Score:1)
Jabber ! (Score:2)
How is this better than Jabber again? (Score:3, Interesting)
yahoo should fix their infrastructure (Score:2)