Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

How Google Could Overthrow AIM

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Aug 23, 2004 04:10 PM
from the defacto-standards dept.
An anonymous reader writes "There's an interesting article over at Apple-X.net that speculates on the possibility of an instant-messaging service offered by Google that would be based on the open Jabber protocol. If Jabber was supported by a major company like Google, it could dominate over proprietary services such as AIM or MSN."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hexghost (444585) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:12PM (#10049807) Homepage
    Interesting, but I don't see how Google would do it without a large amount of time. Trying to convince people like my little sister to give up her little world of AIM for something entirely new for no real benefit would be really difficult.
    • Re:Wha? (Score:5, Funny)

      by bs_testability (784693) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:17PM (#10049871)
      wouldn't she be excited to change once she hears that a bot will be monitoring the conversation in order to place context sensive ads in the margin?
    • Re:Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Scaba (183684) <.joe. .at. .joefrancia.com.> on Monday August 23 2004, @04:23PM (#10049961) Homepage

      I'm just guessing, but Google would probably offer the ability to connect to the other four major services through their client, ala Kopete|Gaim|Trillian. I think the Jabber protocol supports this. And if they use Qt, they could simultaneously release Linux, win32 and OSX clients. (I know they could use Gtk, but why torture us?)

      • Re:Wha? (Score:5, Funny)

        by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Monday August 23 2004, @05:39PM (#10050776)
        - It better have a 'G' in front of the name... instant street cred.
        I don't think that "Gim" is going to fly -- I failed it in high school, and don't want any more to do with it.
  • IM's (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Egonis (155154) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:13PM (#10049811)
    I used to be a hardcore ICQ User (still have it installed with a few contacts now)... but the mass public moved to MSN all of a sudden -- is this in part to the fact that Microsoft shoved it down our throats?

    ICQ can do offline messaging, which MSN can't without an annoying add-in installed.

    ICQ can do SMS, so can MSN now, but with another add-in... this is all previously achieved technology.

    I welcome the concept of Google making an Instant Messenger, please do! They'd probably do a better job at it without almost nightly downtimes of their servers.
    • Re:IM's (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LogicX (8327) * <[slashdot] [at] [logicx.us]> on Monday August 23 2004, @04:15PM (#10049847) Homepage Journal
      I'd like to go further and say that MSN is popular overseas and with lots of foreigners. Majority of americans I know use AIM; but everyone at school whos from India uses MSN like its their job.
    • by autopr0n (534291) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:20PM (#10049911) Homepage Journal
      While ICQ may have had some usefull features (feel free to dig through the 450 page manual), the interface was awfull. It got killed by AIM and MSN because they were simple to use.
    • Re:IM's (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pherthyl (445706) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:40PM (#10050177)
      Simple case of a crappy interface (icq) being trumped by a simple one (MSN). Love it or hate it, the MSN interface is very simple to use, everyone can figure it out. I use a clone of it for linux (aMsn) with a couple more features but still retaining that simple interface.
      I used ICQ for years but it always seemed clunky, and had a million features that were useless. ALso MSN was the first with a webcam feature that just worked behind firewalls, and little things like games that people liked to play.
      ICQ lost because they were perpetually in beta and even with years head start never managed to make a good client.
      • Re:IM's (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Dark Lord Seth (584963) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:27PM (#10050028) Journal

        Here in the Netherlands there was a move to MSN. It is so bad around here the acronym "IM" isn't even used. People just refer to it as MSNing instead of IMing. I think ICQ still hase a very VERY small market share, along with Yahoo messenger. I think dutch people would rather be found dead then found with AIM installed, though.

        Don't know why. I use MSN too, I like it's interface. Nice and clean with a little work, compared to either ICQ or Yahoo. Don't know about AIM, but I know 0 people who use AIM so I honestly couldn't care less. Granted, I mainly use MSN because most people I know use it and because it's available by default on every WinXP PC, not for the interface.

  • Go Google. (Score:5, Informative)

    by caluml (551744) <slashdotNO@SPAMspamgoeshere.calum.org> on Monday August 23 2004, @04:13PM (#10049817) Homepage
    "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
    Heh - same as always :)

    I'd love to see Google get in with Jabber. Joogle? I use Jabber. But everyone I try to get on there simply says: But all my friends are on MSN. Some people have never ever heard of Yahoo, AIM, or the old classic, ICQ. Go Google, I say. Oh, and don't be evil. Although I'll be using SSL and GPG over Jabber, as usual.
  • Wishful thinking (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sessamoid (165542) * on Monday August 23 2004, @04:14PM (#10049830)
    This isn't even a rumor. It's basically one guy saying he wishes Google would start a Jabber-based messaging service. How is this front page material?
  • Advertising? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by avalys (221114) * on Monday August 23 2004, @04:14PM (#10049838)
    I don't know if their ad-supported model would work in IM, though. I prefer my IM windows to be small and inconspicuous - I don't know if I'd like having text ads (of any size) cluttering up my display.
  • by Nomihn0 (739701) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:15PM (#10049841)
    Google's business is to make things easier to find and understand. How would an instant messaging program be applicable to this mission? The question is what spin Google could put on IMing to make it their own. Just like GMail added conversations and the Google search function, GMessage would need a catch.
    • by Hollins (83264) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:30PM (#10050060) Homepage
      Google's killer app seems to be converging to finding exactly the information one needs with the simplest interface possible. To accomplish this, they're getting in the business of storing and processing our information, and by (so far), not being evil, we trust them to do so.

      With gmail, we can search all old emails with the same simple interface as searching the web. Now, add IM transcripts (great for business), PIM information, etc. Maybe someday, they'll aggregate even more personal stuff, like bank statements, my car's service history, and so on.

      The end result? With the beautifully simple default google interface, I could ask:
      • Show me the conversation with my boss regarding TPS reports.
      • What did I spend on dining out last month?
      • When is the kids' pediatrician appointment?
      • How do I get there?


      Think of any piece of information you recently looked up or asked for, on computer or hardcopy. Imagine typing it into google and getting the answer.

      It could be really cool, and kinda creepy. MS and Yahoo are at a disadvantage to pull this off because: they're behind the curve on search engine technology (look at MS's recently yanked beta), they'll never take the leap of faith to give users an incredibly stripped, ad-free interface (I know yahoo offers one, but they deemphasize it), and not nearly as many people will trust them with this stuff as would trust google.

      IM makes a nice next step.
  • by cavebear42 (734821) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:17PM (#10049874)
    One engine to index them all
    one engine to find them,
    One engine to return them all
    and to the results bind them.
  • by Clockwurk (577966) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:17PM (#10049881) Homepage
    it always has and always will be "What are all my friends using".

    It also seems a bit silly for Google to be interested in IM. Google's services always revolve around searching (even gmail), something that isn't very useful for IM. They could perhaps make finding buddies or finding past conversations easier, but other than that, I fail to see where google could work their magic.
  • by Sanity (1431) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:19PM (#10049900) Homepage Journal
    What makes Google the right company to do this - is it only that they can get sufficient eyeballs?

    If so, there is nothing particularly interesting about this. Sure, any piece of software that gets a direct link from the Google front page is going to have a massive advantage over its competitors, and yes, were that to happen, it would be nice if that software happened to use an open protocol with lots of open source clients.

    The fact that he chose instant messaging as the application, and Google as the big powerful company with all the eyeballs is somewhat irrelevant, the same would be true of almost any application and almost any company with a massively popular website.

    Of course, if the big powerful company just happens to be Google, the darling of Slashdot editors, then it certainly won't hurt his advertising click-through revenue :-)

  • Searchable IMs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JTWYO (583112) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:19PM (#10049901)
    I'd really like this if it meant I could search my IMs the way Google allows the searching of GMail (as I understand it). With AOL instant messenger, which I use due to all my friends using it, there's no archive at all, so a good chunk of my daily correspondence is lost forever. If there was some privacy-friendly way that I could store all my IMs and search them for important links and discussions I've had, using Google's powerful tools, I would definitely jump ship and try to bring as many people with me as possible.
  • by Espectr0 (577637) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:20PM (#10049920) Journal
    Still, i would like it to happen. But if google wants to kill msn et all, jabber has to first support audio and video chat.

    They are too busy with their current projects. Gmail has been in beta for almost half a year and it still isn't final. And still as a beta project, they made yahoo and msn catch up to provide more space.

    I wonder how google IM would shape up aim, yahoo, msn and icq.
  • by 0x0d0a (568518) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:23PM (#10049966) Journal
    All I care about is whether or not I get end-to-end encryption.

    The reason Jabber is so great is because of its encryption support. I can load up gabber and use SSL (and end-to-end GPG encryption within *that*).

    If Google gives me end-to-end encryption, Google will win me and everyone I can convince over. Everything else is irrelevant. The current state of IM security is abysmal.

    That means that there will be a single party that can monitor who communicates with who (not ideal, but not that far from the existing cell phone situation), but not the *content*.
  • by Knight2K (102749) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:39PM (#10050160) Homepage
    1. Pick a popular Internet technology
    2. Attach Google's name to it.
    3. Profit!!!

    Here are a few:

    If Google made a MMORPG it would rule the earth!

    If Google made a Linux distribution with Spotlight-like search, it would rule the earth!

    If Google let me host all my MP3's it would rule the earth!

    Seriously though, it might be interesting to have all of my IM history searchable, but I mostly use it for one-off conversations about things of limited importance.

    Besides, as general benevolent as Google seems to be, do we really want to route sensitive messages through a central place? Especially with the recent Slashdot articles about VOIP being required to support wire taps. [slashdot.org] Do we want adwords showing up keyed off of our IM conversations? How could we secure such a system?
  • by iamsure (66666) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:41PM (#10050194) Homepage
    Many posters are asking why Google, what would they add, etc..

    What little vision!

    First and foremost, searching archives of IM's sucks on almost every windows client there is. GAIM, Miranda, Trillian, AIM, MSN-IM, etc etc. Thats a niche waiting for them - they are the kings of search.

    Second, for Google to be universal, they need contact management soon. They need to know WHO someone is. Orkut is a step there. Gmail's contact manager *sucks*.

    Combine the two, AND an instant messenger that interoperates between all the networks ALA GAIM, and you suddenly have a complete profile, 6+ potential screennames, possibly a website, their gmail address, and voila - you have a strong awareness of who the user is.

    NOW use THAT to improve search results - google for pages that Linus Torvalds wrote. Now google knows what his IM names are, what his webpage is, what his gmail address is, and can specify ALL of those pages containing those items as "better hits" than just any webpage. It can even do it transparently (hidden) for better security.

    Taking it a step further, you now have the makings of a web-based contact management system - email, IM, blogs, profiles, images, all from their various packages.

    Sounds visionary to me!
  • Some problems... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by samrolken (246301) <(samrolken) (at) (gmail.com)> on Monday August 23 2004, @05:18PM (#10050566)
    Yet, a context-sensitive text ad, just like those in Gmail, might prove to be both more valuable to advertisers and less obnoxious to users.
    If people were freaking out about context-sensitive text ads in their email, just imagine the reaction to the plan to "scan" IM messages for advertising.
  • by Wise Dragon (71071) on Monday August 23 2004, @06:54PM (#10051406) Homepage
    Standard-based IM is all well and good for us, the technical elite. We don't want to run multiple IM clients to communicate with all of our friends. It's a nuisance, frankly. Have any of you used Yahoo Instant Messenger lately? They have a lot of new features that make it fun to use. IMvironments are cute little chat applets that allow for different, fun, styles of communication. So also does the ever expanding list of emoticons, translated to icons of course. Audibles are fun to play with, in a cartoonish way. Where is jabber? Still doing IRC-style communication in a window. Plain-jane, ho-hum, boring, boring, boring. Suitable for business, and I use it for that. I don't have the other instant messengers because nobody I care about uses them. No doubt there is a similar bells and whistles arms race going on on them. But where are the bells and whistles in jabber? My wife complains that I can't load an imvironment in GAIM.

    There's something to be said for changing the protocol and client at your whim to add fun and interesting modes of communication.
  • by mmatloob (728476) on Monday August 23 2004, @09:30PM (#10052496)
    A GIM (Google Instant Messenger) session
    Chat Session Google Ads

    A> Hello. Buy greeting cards!

    B> How much of Have us do your
    your homework homework for $5!!!
    Have you done?

    ...
    • Re:Don't think so (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rowdent (203919) <chradcliffeNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday August 23 2004, @04:14PM (#10049833) Homepage
      Well, considering how many people dropped Hotmail like a bad habit as soon as gmail came out, I think that there's a good change a Google IM program might have the same effect.
      • Pricewatch.com and pricegrabber.com are still beating froogle.google.com by a large margin.
      • Re:Don't think so (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rallion (711805) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:38PM (#10050151) Journal
        I'll just pretend GMail is actually out for this post.

        It's not the same thing at all. E-mail is all interoperable. Different mail services are like different IM clients, not like different IM networks. Being one of the few users of an email provider has a certain appeal to most people. However, with an IM service, it's useless unless other people are using it too.
      • Re:Don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)

        by EvanED (569694) <evaned&gmail,com> on Monday August 23 2004, @04:40PM (#10050171)
        "Well, considering how many people dropped Hotmail like a bad habit as soon as gmail came out, I think that there's a good change a Google IM program might have the same effect."

        On the other hand, dropping Hotmail just involves telling everyone your new email address. Not necessarily a trivial task, but they can still talk to you.

        If people are to change to another IM protocol, it will very possibly have to be able to talk to AIM at least to start. Otherwise it'll be difficult to get the critical mass of people to transfer.

        In short:
        Change of email is a personal decision; you don't need to force others to change with you.
        Change of IM is the opposite; for the most part, for other people to talk to you, they need to change too.
    • Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by turnstyle (588788) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:16PM (#10049860) Homepage
      I think the question of Google IM will hinge on the success of GMail, and especially the placement of Google Ads in GMail.

      If it works in GMail, expect to see GIM.

    • Re:why? (Score:5, Funny)

      by ad0gg (594412) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:17PM (#10049877)
      Yes there is. Better Emoticons!
    • Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GoMMiX (748510) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:23PM (#10049971)
      Because there is a major advantage to switching to an open IM protocol.

      For one, you can write your own client to work with the service(s). Secondly, the service(s) are not dependant on a specific client so the IM network as a whole is substantially more secure.

      I love jabber. Checkout Coccinella [fyristorg.com].

      There are multitudes of other clients available, widely, for just about any platform you can think of.

      Just like other open source projects, open source IM protocol(s) bring 'choice' back into the users hands. Sure, you can download Trillian or whatever and get on multiple IM services - but it's messy and the proprietary protocols (particularly Yahoo) are constantly being changed to prevent other messenger apps from working on their networks.

      Just love it. Man, hope Google does do this. *Laughs* Like I needed another reason to love Google. :)
      • Re:why? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by nodwick (716348) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:34PM (#10050100)
        Because there is a major advantage to switching to an open IM protocol. For one, you can write your own client to work with the service(s).
        Are you serious? How many people do you know who are running IM clients they've written themselves? This isn't going to be the selling point to get people to ditch their old networks. IM networks aren't like operating systems: it's not enough that YOU switch to your favorite open source alternative, if you want to have anyone to talk to you'd better convince all your friends to switch too.

        Another post talked about the "good old days" before IM fragmentation when everyone just used ICQ. In my view, the golden opportunity for everyone else to get market share was when Mirabilis failed to update ICQ so that it would work through corporate firewalls. Before long, all the kids who were crazy about IM in college graduated, found out they couldn't run ICQ through their company's corporate firewall, and moved en mass to other networks like Yahoo that had workarounds. By the time ICQ caught up, it was too late, people had already switched.

        If Google is going to get their IM network to take off, it's going to take something about existing IM networks that can similarly simultaneously annoy you and all your friends into switching. I'm not sure what it's going to be, but it'll probably have to be something stronger than the lure of having everyone code their own client.

        • Re:why? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Monday August 23 2004, @05:45PM (#10050839) Homepage Journal
          How many people do you know who are running IM clients they've written themselves?

          I do. Or more correctly, the company I work for runs the IM client that I wrote. Why? Because we wanted to add web accessibility to our IM system, and it was nearly trivial to throw that onto our Zope server. What's the going rate for integrating MSN or Yahoo! onto a pre-existing Unix web server these days?

          Yeah, I realize that this is a very atypical situation, but just because you don't know someone who's written their own client doesn't mean that noone has. There are a lot of niches where Jabber scales down brilliantly, but where the old, closed systems don't seem to scale down at all.

            • Re:why? (Score:5, Funny)

              by black mariah (654971) on Monday August 23 2004, @11:22PM (#10053094)
              I'm sorry to inform you that your argument makes too much sense. Please hand over your Slashdot membership card and vacate the premises.

              Thank you,
              Management
      • Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rallion (711805) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:34PM (#10050104) Journal
        The single most important deature in an IM service, by far, is user base. How many people care if a service is open protocol or not? Not enough to make it popular enough to appeal to anybody else, that's how many.
    • Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AKAImBatman (238306) <akaimbatman.gmail@com> on Monday August 23 2004, @04:26PM (#10050009) Homepage Journal
      I think that using a Web Interface like Google does with GMail, would give them a distinct advantage. For one, you'd never have to worry about software upgrades or installation. For another, just about any content can be pushed to you. In fact, I really can't think of a single down side to using a webapp for instant messaging.

      The only possible issue is that the logs and message transmissions would have to go through Google's servers. Personally, I don't mind that. At least I'd know that ALL settings and history are saved between machines instead of the classic issue of SOMETHING being lost when I jump from machine to machine. Not to mention that it would be the ultimate in cross-platform compatibility.
    • Re:ICQ (Score:5, Funny)

      by ejaw5 (570071) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:19PM (#10049902)
      Hey, this what's your ICQ#?

      57007188888

      How about yours?

      16085588888

    • Re:ICQ (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Scoria (264473) <slashmail@NospAM.initialized.org> on Monday August 23 2004, @04:20PM (#10049912) Homepage
      Any version beyond "ICQ98" was extremely bloated, and those who weren't offended by the bloat were offended by the presence of AOL, who had acquired ICQ and was attempting to deprecate it in favor of AIM. Many of us can also recall the blatant security vulnerabilities inherent to the ICQ protocol, including "ICQ identity theft," which was somewhat commonplace around 1999.
    • Re:ICQ (Score:5, Funny)

      by Malc (1751) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:32PM (#10050083)
      ICQ? Listen here kiddo, I'm still upset by these upstart juniors using ntalk and ytalk!
      • Re:ICQ (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FLEB (312391) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:40PM (#10050176) Homepage Journal
        There's that, plus the fact that ICQ was the first wide-scale IM client. Unfortunately, it died a death of bloat. The fact that it had a hundred memory-gobbling, lag inducing, epileptically flashing "features" was probably a larger nail in its coffin than the inconvenience of ICQ numbers.

        I was a fan of ICQ up until v2000. It had a lot more useful features, and a History mechanism that couldn't be beat. Then, they dropped the good logging mechanism and started adding a whole bunch of useless "search bar" type of garbage that just slowed the program up.

        Luckily, that's when Trillian started to hit the scene. The funny thing is, I have Trillian Pro, and it's loaded up with plugins like an RSS reader and all kinds of search crap... but it's less intrusive and more integrated, and I find it to be a benefit.

        Hopefully now, if Google IM takes off, Trillian will start supporting Jabber natively (instead of via a plugin).
      • Re:ICQ (Score:5, Funny)

        by Malc (1751) on Monday August 23 2004, @04:42PM (#10050214)
        "When the early adopters started gloating about their low low ICQ #'s it got on some people's nerves"

        It's okay you don't need to post anonymously, I really won't look down my nose at you and your high /. UID. I promise. Honestly. >-)