
Microsoft to "publish code" to Instant Messenger 196
VFVTHUNTER writes "According to this article at cnet, MS, in an attempt to gain a share of AOL's Instant Messenger Service Market, announced today it is going to publish the protocol to its own messenger service. " It's important to note it's NOT the source code, just the protocol.
Re:Microsoft at its best (Score:1)
The ICQ protocol has some serious [security]issues (Score:1)
---
free instant messaging protocol (Score:1)
It's made a significant amount of progress and has a tremendous amount of support behind it, and works with AIM/ICQ/talk/IRC/etc transparently. Check it out and help get it done if you are interested
Jabber! (Score:1)
support simple/clean/fast clients, and has made significant progress already.
It's an open-source project so it could use any/all help and suggestions!
http://jabber.org/ (Score:1)
Re:RFC? RFC? Three RFCs. (Score:1)
I keep hearing the occasional IRC advocate saying how IRC is better than any messaging client - but from my experiences with IRC, it's not that great.
It takes forever to connect, if you can connect at all. Names aren't protected very well - even if someone registers their name, you can impersonate them for 60 seconds. Lag is sometimes measured in minutes. Sending spam messages to everyone online is common. Netsplits are abundant. And 99.9% of every server I've seen is pr0n/war3z.
The last time I used IRC was for the "Final Chat" with MST3K cast members. It was a mess. I now wholeheartedly avoid IRC.
--
Re:Bah. (Score:1)
And who needs their crappy code anyway? My RedHat system is unstable enough without Microsoft code in it...
AOL already has published the TOC protocol... (Score:1)
Uhm, AOL already published the TOC protocol that AIM uses. How do you think TiK and GAIM and all those unix instant messanger clients were made? I don't see why MS publishing their protocol which is proabley a whole 8 lines different (connecting to another non-AOL ad server?) would be such a big deal.
~Kevin
:)
OSS a M$ partner! (Score:1)
Then OSS can suffer like all those who shake Bill's smarmy claw. I'm sure someone will try, all the time thinking "History be damned, this time I'll fool Bill, he's not that good at screwing people over." I just hope that it's not somebody from the Linux ranks.
So, M$ publishes it's protocol. That just means that the trap has been set and this is a press release for the bait. The OSS world should just yawn.
-- James
Re:No way... (Score:1)
This conversation is missing the point (Score:1)
MS cannot "innovate" (by this I mean change "standards" to keep out competition) because they do not provide ANY servers to change the standards on. If the servers do not recognize new "inovations" then the clients cannot use them! Right now AOL is the only one out there who is providing ANY servers (both the AIM and ICQ servers), and they are doing so for FREE!! No advertisements, no banners, no NOTHING! They are doing this because they thing that having their name out there on a product that you use daily will entice you to sign up with them as an ISP (I also think that eventually they will start advertising..).
Now Microstoft is comming in and pirating their servers, using the same idea to advertise themselves, and giving AOL no credit, while still making AOL foot the bill for running the servers that make this all possible. In my mind this is dirty pool, and Microsoft is just using the standards buzzword as a smokescreen so that it can use its monopoly to crush its way into another sector of the internet. How long do you think it will be untill we see instant messaging as a "intigrated part of the operating system"?
Re:Why not use a secure protocol? Try Caliban. (Score:1)
Contact me via the above email if you want.
ZD: Malicious, or just stupid? (Score:1)
MS TO OPEN IM SOURCE
MS says it will publish the protocols for its instant messaging program.
http://www.zdnn.com/a/zdnn081899/2316354/
Of course, it's not the source released, it's just the protocols. But either ZD's reporters are too dumb to tell the difference, or are deliberately confusing the issue.
When in doubt, i *always* remind myself to never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. The advantage is that i hardly ever blame anyone for anything now. The disadvantage is i've come to think the average human is about as bright as a cabbage.
---
Re:WARNING! WARNING, Will Robinson! (Score:2)
No way... (Score:2)
I won't even read that protocol on mere principal. Besides if I were to make a client, 3 years from now it'd be non-fuctional as MS "featurizes" it and makes older versions unusable.
Doesn't AOL own ICQ too? (Score:1)
If they pull out completely, then ICQ would go down with them too, right?
bad analogy time (Score:1)
Dan
Bah, what's it matter? (Score:1)
I wonder ... (Score:1)
Re:Open Source Equivelent? (Score:1)
the user count = the number of paying aol users + the number of aim only accounts.
ICQ (Score:1)
-fixe
It's not good, really... (Score:1)
Blindly supporting Microsoft in its attempt to co-opt AOL's user base is extremely shortsighted and does nothing to further the goals of the open source community.
We might win a small moral victory by showing that we can put aside prejudices and support our greatest foe, but we will lose the war when Microsoft has completed its decimation of AOL. Then they will go back to doing things their way and nobody will be left to stop them.
Look at Netscape. When they started adding stuff to HTML, Microsoft yelled and screamed that Netscape was bad for not following the standard. Now that MS is on top, they do whatever the hell they want with the standard because nobody can stop them. Let's not repeat history again for the sake of a minor boost to our image. Let's instead show that we are able to think rather than blindly follow our basic principles even when we see that they will lead us off a cliff. Following principles even when they lead to certain death just makes martyrs. That may inspire others, or it may not. I'm not sure martyrs will be enough to fight off Microsoft.
It's good, really (Score:1)
impersonation happens alot... for me anyway... (Score:1)
As it exists now, there is no authentication. Therefore, impersonation is trivial.
Yeah... I get a message or two every week that appear to be coming from someone on one of my lists that tell me to forward it to everyone else on my lists or my ICQ account will be deleted. Now I know that nobody on my list (only 4 people) sent me that message, so it's obviously faked.
great another IM protocol... (Score:1)
Bah (Score:1)
What is this shit? MS if all for standards, as long as THEY control it. The standard has changed. You must now upgrade to the latest version. Funny how i'm being taught that the way to design software is to keep it backwards compatible. You know, not changing the interface? I hope MS gets smashed to tiny little bits.
Re:AOL already has published the TOC protocol... (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft at its best (Score:1)
The Larger Problem (Score:1)
This is just Microsoft's ploy to take advantage of technology they don't control.
RFC? RFC? Three RFCs. (Score:1)
The added advantage is anyone could develop their own app, perl script, what-have-you, to use it as well.
-Bill
Wait a minute here... (Score:1)
Re:anti-microsoft myopia (Score:1)
What Mircosoft is doing is just to screw over AOL. They are no more intrested in IM being open standards then AOL are. Sure we get the protocols, but they will just change them once AOL have been taken out.
Re:Ability to send files & video/voice, share desk (Score:1)
Re:This is a GOOD thing! (Score:1)
AP, Silicon Valley - A new study released today finds that people who say they have lives are more likely to use VB. "I like to, like, drink and stuff and hit on chicks, dude" explains Biff S. "and I like and use VB". Others who don't identify themselves with the type of people who "have lives", say they hate VB. "I would rather play AD&D and read fantasy novels than use VB" declares the geeky, pimply-nosed, socially maladjusted Melvin W.
Experts in the field claim that VB is the clear winner in the battle for the "moron" mindshare. "They may not be bright, but they have a lot of money to spend on 'for Dummies' books," says Dr. Brill E. Yant, the author of the ground breaking study. "However, we have noticed a large disparity in the amount of 'life' people tend to think they have when contrasted with an actual 'amount of life metric' measurement taken in a separate study," continued Dr. Yant, "Cleary, a more detailed study correlating these two effects is in order."
Re:No way... (Score:1)
Re:ICQ (Score:1)
Justen
Re:Yep, They called it "Decomoditizing the protoco (Score:1)
They will control the server side of the whole deal and it only makes it more profitable for them is there are many different client tools available.
MS? AIM? Why? (Score:1)
Nobody's been able to give me an answer to that so I'm hoping someone here can.
Re:Bah (Score:1)
Meanwhile the IETF (or whichever committee it is exactly that's developing the open instant-message protocol) is left out in the cold. If anything, the IETF is who we should be worried about embracing this, not the open-source community. Once they've folded, Microsoft's messaging hegemony will be complete and they can accuse AOL of not following the open standard, and have some real ammo to support the assertion.
Something to keep in mind... (Score:1)
While I am happy to see the protocol documentation released, just because Microsoft is documenting the protocol as it exists now does not mean that they will continue to do so.
Time and time and time again, they have released documentation for a standard, only to latter add functionality that they do not document. Their undocumented extensions to their published SMB/CIFS standards are one good example of this.
My point is this: don't rely on the Microsoft protocol if you don't want to get the rug yanked out from under your feet later. You might be able to keep up by reverse-engineering, as Samba has, or live with the small subset of functionality that was documented, but do you really want to have to do either?
If you do use this protocol at all, use it only as a "bridge" for compatibility with MS clients. Don't make it your primary protocol. That way, if they make undocumented changes later, they end up cutting off their users from the world at large, rather than cutting off your users from Microsoft's world.
---
PC world vs. Internet. Pt II (Score:1)
In the PC world "specifications" and protocols have been owned by companies since the inception.
On the Internet, RFC's mandate protocols and code evolution determines how things will work.
These two methods are completely at odds with each other. The reason we have an open Internet today is because these standards have been open and easily accessible.
We shouldn't just accept open protocols, we should demand them.
Re:This conversation is missing the point (Score:1)
Re:The ICQ protocol has some serious [security]iss (Score:1)
I was in contact with Arik or Sefi Vardi for a bit way back when Mirabilis was not bought by AOL. They had no intention on listening to user input to fix bugs, unfortunately, only their own buglists.
I still think, however that the base ICQ protocol is far better than anything brought forward by anyone else. We'd just need to throw authentication at it (verify that a packet is coming from the UIN at the IP specified) to get rid of the hardest-to-kill exploits. THe others are easy to rid yourself of: turn off Web Presence, turn off show IP (yes I know it's a client thing), turn off the mini webserver. Trash the SMTP part of the ICQ client and bring it back to plain IM/chat/smallfile transfer.
Re:ICQ (Score:1)
Based on those specs you can even write your own if you desire so
Re:ICQ (Score:1)
Actually... Aol Instant Messanger 2.5.1366 [and a lot before] all support File Transfers, and Group Chatting... just not with AOLers... Just AIM users.
Stan "Myconid" Brinkerhoff
Re:ICQ (Score:1)
Vey clever - you register with the server using UDP, get all the IP's of people you care about and connect directly with them without using the server.
Re:Bah. (Score:1)
Give me open protocols and open file formats before open source any day!
I don't mind open source, but I don't ever expect it of other people or companies... the choice is theirs both legally and morally. However, proprietary protocols and file formats are unforgivable.
From a personal viewpoint, I much prefer a well written protocol spec over trying to decypher someone else's spaghetti code. I release my progs as open source simply because I have nothing to gain by keeping them closed, not because I believe that the source is inherently all that useful by itself.
-- Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Security through obscurity is lame. (Score:1)
ICQ has not released any "official" protocol, which was probably originally out of fear that security flaws might be discovered and third party clients would be made. All network communication could be seen without reverse-engineering, and third party clients did come out (along with security "flaws", i.e. lack of security).
Obviously, ICQ was not designed with the user's security in mind. Remember the password buffer overflow on the server? At least they fixed that within a day.. Quite simply, a secure client and insecure server is outrageously stupid if you don't restrict access to your official clients only.
...and that's my $.02
-K
Toilet paper (Score:1)
Toilet paper dispenser advertising "Get Rich Quick!!!!!".
Now we're completely off topic, but has anybody actually tried this? Printing advertisements on toilet paper and then selling it at a lower cost, subsidised by the advertisers? I don't see any real harm in it, and it would be very satisfying to wipe your rear with the ads you didn't like.
Too bad I'm an engineer, not an entrepreneur. :-)
Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Re:ICQ (Score:1)
Re:RFC? RFC? Three RFCs. (Score:1)
IRC is not necessarily evil. I recently set up a local (behind the firewall), isolated (not attached to any "network") IRC server for use with my group at work. It functions very nicely, and users have their choice of clients. This does not mean that IRC is the right instant messaging choice for every situation, but at least proves that it can a workable alternative to ntalk.
No messaging service of any sort is immune to spam, porn, and warez abuses. Web forums, Email, Usenet, IRC, Muds, and even BBS's are just as prone to abuse as the newer instant messagers. Thank heavens for moderation on Slashdot! (Actually, thank Rob!)
-- Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Two sets of servers - not one (Score:1)
MSIM is designed to work with both, using the MSIM servers to communicate with MSIM users and TOC and the Oscar servers for communication with AIM users.
I'm intrigued by your statement that AOL doesn't use their services for advertising. You're obviously using very old versions of the AIM client - as this has been streaming adverts for the last year or so... My partner runs a content channel at AOL UK, and I use AIM to keep in touch with her, and it's a pig having to ignore the advertising...
You also don't seemto have been tracking MS's IM strategy very well. MSIM has been rumoured for a long time as part of either the Platinum or Tahoe releases of Exchange, where it's being suggested as a basis for internal communications in a business setting. By pre-seeding a client before general use of the server, MS are building their market (look at how it integrates with Outlook and NetMeeting).
S.
Re:The Larger Problem - Wakeup call (Score:1)
Re:AOL already has published the TOC protocol... (Score:1)
I thought AIM used OSCAR (which MS reverse-engineered). TOC is just a translator protocol to OSCAR. If MS would've used TOC, I don't see how AOL would have a problem, but apparently, it didn't work that way. . .
EVERY news story I've seen has failed to make this distinction. Perhaps they're not wanting to confuse anyone?
AOL has published TOC, but not OSCAR. Two protocols. Simple enough. GAIM and those other Unix clients use TOC, afaik. MSN Messenger does not.
--
WHICH PROTOCOL? There are two (Score:1)
Do we get both, or just one? How about hotmail?
Do we get the server backend?
Keeping the pressure on MS until it completely puts its code where its marketing is, is still needed. You scream open, you had better mean open.
Open Source Equivelent? (Score:1)
We have an OS, now it looks like we need an IM'er, and a browser. These are the things people want on their desktop. World Domination won't happen without 'em. The public at large is sick to death of this crap. They need an option.
BTW: AIM's user base number (and Real's) are total crap. Every new copy of Netscape comes with it, download the 'Scrape and you're a "registered user".
Re:This conversation is missing the point (Score:1)
Re:ICQ (Score:1)
Clieny for ICQ + AIM + talk (Score:1)
of course not for sure, but still...)
Re:No way... (Score:1)
Open the protocol and get geeks using it widely
Gain control over the majority of the servers
Over a small period of time, "increase" functionality while reducing compatibility among the open source protocol.
They've done it before, its nothing new. Just look at windows filesharing... Under the linux kernel|filesystems you'll see "Win 95 bug work-around" where winblows machines will respond (somewhat randomly) on a non-standard port. This "bug" was added by microsoft to eliminate non-MS OSes from communicating properly. What happens as a result is the user thinking "damn linux can't do shit with this filesharing" and they get NT to do the job.
Re:An RFC is being created (Score:1)
Re:MS? AIM? Why? (Score:1)
It's the same as with Mp3.
Public Protocol == Easier to crack servers? (Score:1)
Seems to me that if MicroSoft makes the protocol public, that makes it easier for crackers to hack the server. After all, for MicroSoft or AOL to make money on the Instant Messaging market, they have to control the servers and force feed advertisements to users. With the protocol public, clients which reject the adverts can be written which use MicroSoft's server (costing them money), or a public non-advert server can be put up which is compatible with all the MicroSoft clients.
Re:Why not use a secure protocol? Try Caliban. (Score:1)
look.. why can't you get an account? i've noticed you coming in and immediately saying this in every discussion, and then every time someone brings up Jabber you bash them. If that's your opinion that's ok, but it would be nice if you'd do this from an account. frequently posting the same thing as "anonymous coward" is really just kind of, well, lame..
if it turns out that the four "anonymous coward" posts i'm basing this on just happen to be from four different people with the exact same writing style, well, my apologies..
Re:Another Reason that OSS isn't nescessary (Score:1)
I agree with the basic idea of the previous post, assuming the following interpretation:
It's not that there's anything wrong with open source. It has all the listed benefits, and the philosophy is certainly appealing. However, aside from the philosophy, the benefits tend to be pragmatic matters. It's one development model with it's pros and cons, but it's not necessarily the only model that amyone should ever use.
The pros and cons of OSS vs. other models are really not relevant here -- what really matters for purposes of freedom, competition, etc., is open protocols. If you write an OSS client and I write a proprietary one, and they both use a standard protocol, then people can decide which one to use based on factors that are really nobody else's business but theirs. According to the OSS arguments, yours will probably, but not necessarily, be technically superior. If so, people who appreciate such things would use yours. Or, if mine is superior despite being non-open, they could use it. Others might choose mine for any number of other reasons, such as finding my user interface more appealing. Even if mine is superior, those who oppose proprietary software for philosophical reasons would use yours. The point is, choices exist and everybody's happy. Open-source is not relevant, except to those who care about it, or as a means to achieve the real goal of high quality.
The key is that we both used the same protocol. If not for that, our programs would not be able to interoperate, and people would have to either deal with both or only be able to work with other people who chose the same one (and those who refuse to use mine for philosophical reasons would be completely unable to interoperate with those who chose mine for whatever reason). Assuming both became at least moderately popular, the scene would turn ugly as people evangelize the one that they prefer and fight over which one "everybody" should use. Ideally, I suppose, mine would "lose", leaving everyone using the OSS version. However, I think it's much more reasonable, and perfectly satisfactory, to simply have me use the same standard protocol, since that would eliminate all the unpleasantness. Maybe my version offers some particular features that some people want, and are willing to pay for. They could use it, but nobody else would be forced to do so simply in order to be able to work with them. My version would be adding value for these people but not making any trouble for anyone.
Like I said, I find the OSS/free software philosophy attractive, but I don't think it's absolutely essential that all software follow it. However, it is absolutely essential that all communication protocols, file formats, and APIs be fully open standards. We can't have some software vendor making, say, a word processor or a spreadsheet program that uses a proprietary file format making it impossible for users to use a competing product because of incompatibilities.
David Gould
Be careful with your terminology.. (Score:1)
Re:Why should we need the code? (Score:1)
Maybe I'm just on crack.
It sounded/sounds cool.
Someone do it! I'm not comprehending enough yet, else I'd do it myself.
Okay, this comment ends now.
Unless I have a sig that I forgot about, but I think I got rid of it.
a modest proposal (Score:1)
AOL isn't complianing about use of the protocol, it's use of the servers. Microsoft is trying to say, look, we're open and AOL isn't, by the fact they're publishing a 'open' protocol which is almost as versatile as UNIX 'Talk'.
Meanwhile AOL has a completely open protocol (TOC) which they have published a completed open-source implementation of (TIK).
The point is, if microsoft wants total openness, and they're expecting AIM to open their servers, why not we make use of the servers Microsoft's put up for their messenger? i mean, they didn't invite us-- they just posted the protocol-- but i guess they're kinda _implying_ they want us to abuse their servers, the way they assumed that AOL wanted microsoft to abuse OSCAR when they posted TOC.
So, let's do whatever we can with/to the MSM servers. And i don't mean use them for messanging; that would be pointless. I mean just do whatever the hell we feel like. Route things through it. Send large files to friends. Or just heavily pingflood it at random or something, i dunno. If a pingflood is nothign more than "unauthorized use of a computer network", it's no less ethical than what MS is already doing to AOL, and i doubt they could really complain about it.
I have no clue how the MSN servers are set up, or even if they exist. Nor do i care; i use AIM, and i don't use it because i like it, i use it because i have friends on AOL. i have no use for another instant messenging protocol, particularly not one such as MSM which is devoid of any redeeming features. Hell, i have little use for _a_ instant messenging protocol. i have IRC. if i had my way, we'd all have accounts on dynip and just use DCC to talk to each other (it even has file transfers!). Or ICQ, it's pretty nice.
But there's probably some way you could send packets of any type with a MSMessenger-like wrapping that would allow you to use the MSMessenger server for other things. I'm just saying, let's look. There may even be ways to shell through it, or run SETI@home. Either way we should certainly _check_.
Comments, anyone?
Re:Why should we need the code? (Score:1)
Re:ICQ (Score:2)
Only if "registered users" counts as a running tab of their userbase. After doing a sequential scan of their database one weekend, I found that quite a bit of their UIN's are either canceled accounts, or null space where they presumably "bumped" the user number up to reach a certain goal. ICQ is a fad. I don't see it growing beyond that category any time soon.
and did ICQ not pioneer the IM concept?
No. America Online did in the form of a Buddy List in mid-1985. AOL was called Quantum Computer Services back then, and their online service was called QuantumLink. You'd get a list of logged-on friends at the top of your screen when you were in their "People Connection" area. I remember alpha-testing the chat areas on my Commodore 64 with my dad when I was 6 years old. :-)
why do none of the other messengers use the ICQ protocol?
Because it's a clusterfudge. Honestly, I wouldn't build on top of that protocol if my life depended on it. ICQ just folded shoddy user authentication and an IRC notify list into a proprietary platform with pretty graphics, that's all. Nothing innovative there.
Re:RFC? RFC? Three RFCs. (Score:1)
Re:bad analogy time (Score:1)
Re:Open Source Equivelent? (Score:1)
Real World: Redmond (Score:1)
Right about then, you'll be able to jump into your Microsoft Explorer and drive down to MicrosoftMarket and buy some Microsoft Beans for your morning coffee. But dont dare call it Java...
merge kicq/kxicq/gaim/microsoft im? (Score:1)
Re:It's good, really (Score:1)
Yep, that's the important thing. Now that MS has finally "allowed" what they have been trying to bully AOL into doing, I say it's time to extend our clients to talk to MSN clients. In fact, AOL should do it to now that MS is allowing it. I'd love to have a checkbox that says "I've got friends on MSN". Then see what MS does. If they are really serious about open standards, they'd accept that, after all, now MSN users can chat with AOL users. However, what do you think are the chances that MS would block clients from all "non-partnering" services?
We'll have to see
-Brent
http://users.twistedpair.net/bmetzler/aim/ - Keep up with the Instant Messaging fiasco
Give me the MS Extensions, not just the protocol (Score:1)
"Oh, but we don't have any
Yeah, right.
Re:Ability to send files & video/voice, share desk (Score:1)
If you are a network administrator, then presumably you maintain a computer network so that others can do work. Why do you think that you have the right to limit their usage.
The simple answer: Because I run the damn network. The not so simple answer, let me quote you: ... so that others can do work. ICQ != work. I have worked for various companies, one of which did not condone the use of the Internet for anything but looking up company related information. On the other end of the spectrum I worked for an ISP that allowed you to basically 'play' as long as it didn't interfere with your work. Meaning that sitting on ICQ is good, but better make sure you're 'n/a'.
Other than that, if you want IT personnel to do something for you, it might help to ask them nicely, and not flat out demand it and possibly threatening to go to their managers if they don't do it. The reason they are in IT and you are not is because they know a lot more about it than you do, so personally I'd say it's you who should come down off the high horse.
I'm not insulting you here, but being a network admin/sysadmin myself I see this attitude a lot, and it gets very irritating after a while. Here you are doing your best to keep a network going so that people can work, and you don't want people to install ICQ with the possible risk of spreading a virus all over the network, or maybe causing it to not function properly.
As a note, read this [techwebuk.com] to get an idea of what might happen if you piss off your friendly neighbourhood sysadmin ;)
Re:ICQ (Score:1)
so i guess it was a waste of money for AOL to buy it though huh?
Re:Ability to send files & video/voice, share desk (Score:1)
MS's protocols (Score:1)
AOL needs to reply (Score:1)
Open source with request to acknowledge the use of an AOL code derivative (in any product which uses it). This would make AOL advertisement in the MS application if they use the code. This is better than having MS reverse ingeneering the protocol and giving no credit to aol in their messager.
the question is: who does this benefit more? (Score:1)
2) people that create messenger client alternatives -- either for sale or OSS
3) MS, who can draw you in to using the protocol, then change it on a whim & not release the new protocol specs, and you're stuck with a basically non-functional client or server. (then again, think of samba. that's a big reason why linux has the market share it does have. MS messed with SMB just like AOL messed with their protocol, but samba just continues going, better than ever.)
Bah. (Score:1)
code (Score:1)
Re:ICQ (Score:1)
Sometimes all I want is instant email. In a chat setting like AIM or Y! pager or whatever, you are always there. It's easier to talk to 5 ppl at once when there aren't 5 seperate boxes on your screen. Not to mention the fact that I can use the entire program from a teeny little box in a corner of my screen; the others use up way too much screen real estate.
...though I always turn off all the sounds. I wish the sounds were themeable...
Put a pie here, and watch the kids eat it. (Score:2)
They figure: "This whole thing with AOL back and forth is getting really old. There's gotta be something we can do."
Then, one of those guys who REALLY doesn't like working for Microsoft (but does so for the money/experience) approches the executives and says: "Let's release the Source Code!"
The executives ponder it, and eventually come out with: "No....but we can release the Protocol specifications!" thinking that they can get the public to write MS compatible versions of an Instant Messenger (They don't have a choice. It's the Microsoft specs that are public. AOL pulled theirs, remember?) Once the Microsoft(compatible) Instant Messenger is on every computer on the Planet, AOL is forced to do 1 of 2 things.
1) Give up on Instant Messenger completely, eliminating them from the market. This gives Microsoft a good foothold in the IM market, with little competition. (Now we go after ICQ HAHAH!)
NOTE: ICQ is owned by AOL, so they're not totally out.
2) AOL can pull it's Instant Messenger software behind the America Online wall, and make it a "Member Exclusive" service you can't get with any other Provider, (Just like Web access and Chat!)
Either way, guess who won? Guess who Cheated? If you're smart, you'll get the same answer.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:No way... (Score:1)
I hate AOL, Microsoft... but: (Score:1)
and AOL is making horrible mistakes. I am
afraid for the sake of Netscape.. most
Mozilla developers work for netscape, even
with the Open Source movement.
Things could become very bad in the future.
Re:No way... (Score:1)
If the protocol is bad and filled with bugs, then we will say "typical Microsoft".
If it is reliable and clever, we will say "Hah! It must have been outsourced.."
Re:Microsoft at its best (Score:1)
Sujal
Re:Microsoft at its best (Score:1)
>of it all. In other words, both sides are taking
>a huge PR hit on this. I'd be interested in
>knowing how much revenue AOL generates from AIM.
>If it were like millions of dollars in
>advertising, then I could understand. But I've
>run AIM from my PC's before, and all the
>advertising was for AOL. I've seen little other
>advertising, but I haven't used it in the past
>month. *shrug*
As for the AOL ads in AIM, it sounds like cheap advertising to all those people that are not yet AOL users.
I hadn't thought about it, but it would appear to be similar to the portal thing. You want as many people as possible to visit, or in the case of IM use, your service so that you can flash the ads.
In the case of third party ads its money in your pocket. In the ads for your own 'additional' services it is a 'cheap' way to get exposure.
As for PR since when did either of these companies really care about bad PR. If they did they wouldn't do so many 'stupid internet tricks'. Most people that use AOL or MSN have probably not even heard about this little flak and I am sure very few none connected people have. Also of those that have many couldn't care less, they will just go on using what they use. Just like I use ICQ because that is what the people I want to chat with use, even though there are other methods I would prefer.
John
Is this the embrace and subvert? (Score:1)
And giving out the protocol? Big deal, AOL did that and then went and changed it. Who's promising MS won't do the same?
I think they should make the standard similar to HTML... no wait they subverted that too.
Why don't we create an Open Source Messenger? (Score:1)
Check out this at http://osm.freehosting.net
It's the Open Source Messenger home page!
CNET: fixed the headline (Score:2)
It now reads: Microsoft's next messaging move: publishing protocol
Interesting, I guess it's easy to get it right when there are thousands of netizens doing your homework for you.
Re:Ability to send files & video/voice, share desk (Score:1)
Commodotizing markets is a good thing (Score:1)
Message to all: chill. Enjoy. It doesn't matter who is doing this, in the long run we are the winners.
Re:MS? AIM? Why? (Score:1)
-ElJefe
Re:Open Source Equivelent? (Score:2)
Will this cause licensing problems for people releasing their own version of clients/servers using the protocol under alternative licenses? (e.g. BSD, proprietary, etc.)
Re:WARNING! WARNING, Will Robinson! (Score:2)
It's a simple tactic - sell worthless information for vast sums of money to increase the difference between your products and your competitors. Result - your competitors buy themselves into bankrupcy, you win at little/no effort.