Imagine a world in which individual phone services refused to let their customers talk with anyone outside the network. That pretty much describes the current IM landscape.
|
The spam issue Yahoo seized upon is a red herring.
|
The spam issue Yahoo seized upon is a red herring. Fact is this is just the latest example of a big instant-messaging provider seeking to wall off its client from outsiders--be they third-party integrators like Trillian or other IM rivals.
For instance, when Microsoft launched MSN Messenger in 1999, people could chat with America Online's instant-messenger users. That didn't last long. AOL, which promptly freaked out, erected a barrier that the two companies fought over for months. In the end, Microsoft relented, describing its decision to give up as being in the best interest of customer security.
How refreshing to know that big computer vendors are keen to put their customers' interests so front and center. But whatever the spin, there's no disguising the fact that we're bearing witness to a stark example of private corporate interests trumping the larger consumer interest in opening up the chat airwaves. Yahoo's not the only one deserving a public spanking. Microsoft has also shut out Trillian, saying the company would have to strike an access agreement if it wanted to gain access to MSN users. And AOL's no better.
If you're like me, you have friends and family who use a multiplicity of IM platforms. I use Yahoo Messenger because that's the IM environment we use, for the most part, at CNET News.com, which has a newsroom that spans several geographies and time zones. But I also use Trillian for the other features it offers in the way of user convenience. The software pulls in multiple IM clients under a single interface, and that lets me chat with everyone from my nephew David in New York to a software executive I know in Tel Aviv. So far, that's something you can't get with Yahoo, Microsoft or AOL--in large part because they are so hidebound about exercising control.
I suppose the folks who run Trillian can be accused of bad manners.
I suppose that the folks who run Trillian can be accused of bad manners. They made a mistake by not first securing prior arrangements with the Big Three before launching their service. Whether Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL would have ever given their consent is open to question, but the way in which the governing IM powers have (mis)handled the Trillian controversy has only alienated users.
Years ago, the technology world came up with an ungainly term that really says it all: "interoperability." Instant messaging has become hugely popular in the last five years. Now it's a question of breaking down old barriers. The Big Three each have their particular agendas, but helping to smooth things for the rest of us is surely in their enlightened self-interest.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
after yahoo shut out trillian the first time, i came to the conclusion that the three big im sources were not going to be a viable use of instant messaging. i turned to setting up my own irc server at home and put a web interface on it so that you didn't have to use a client to get access. software speaking, it's a no cost solution.
realistically, if i were a company and had to decide on an intracompany instant messaging solution, jabber would be the best solution. set up my own servers, hand out clients, keep it all on the in-house net. THAT'S a secure network. i know of a few companies that do that. and you know what? my trillian pro supports that too. very nice.
the only thing about shutting out in the manner that aol, yahoo, and microsoft have is the bad taste they leave in the public's mouth. i don't feel the security plus yahoo proclaims. i feel resentment toward, dare i say, a cliquish mentality. we've got a long way to go.
Very nice article and I cannot agree more with your comments. I think the potential "bad manners" of Trillian most likely is a result of what I can only imagine to be a rather frustrating situation for companies such as themselves.
I've been a very loyal MSN user, with them being the predominent network here in the UK. But recently I have been developing a travel bot and signed up for the other IM networks as well, and like yourself, really found Trillian very useful - to the degree that I've purchased their Pro edition.
My surprise at the lack of co-operation between the IM networks was rather great since the start of this project. Even more so was my surprise at the lack of direction about value-added content on the IM networks. I think the various IM networks are fantastically positioned to be a rather good conveyor of personalised content. After all, they know who you are, when you're online and how often you talk.
It's clear that MS is on a drive to get users to pay for the + and premium editions of the MSN bundle. At present, apart from mail storage space, they have little to incentivise a user to take the paid for edition rather than the free one, apart fromm *some* content (Encarta etc). My personal view is that they will be in a far better position if they offer more content and interoperability with the other networks.
Though I'm empathatic with their position and the protection of their users, something must give and the attitude from Yahoo as demonstrated with their latest move against Trillian is indeed quite a few steps backwards.
Perhaps they should ask their users what they want, instead of deciding for themselves.
Riaan
London
travelmessenger.co.uk - talk to travel