Google Talk Available Early

smash writes "Google's new IM service is already live. All you need is a Jabber-compatible Instant Messaging client (such as Apple's iChat, or gaim), and a GMail address." This should answer, at least in part, all of the speculation that has been flying around the net over the last couple of days. Update: Many users have been eager to let us know that Google Talk in indeed live.

Not a full fledged messaging program

[electrosoccertux]

So this isn't exactly google chat, the AIM killer. Don't see any reason to bother with this.

ugh, throw it on the heap...

[rlthomps-1]

... with all the other IM servies I have to sign in on at once to be in contact with everyone. MSN, AIM, misc jabber servers... and on and on. I wonder what google thinks they're going to add to chat services?

Re:Meh

[mattyohe]

All it is is proof that google has a public jabber server.. One can assume they will be releasing a client anyday now... Let them at least... ANNOUNCE the product before you judge it.

Re:ugh, throw it on the heap...

[OpenGLFan]

Encryption? Like, good SSL-based encryption? Do you know how many people use AIM or Yahoo Messenger without encryption? Do you know how many use it with their university or coffee shop's unencrypted wireless service?

Google, if you're listening, please please please make authentication and encryption the default with your new messaging service! Please! I'm stuck on campus all day, and I've got non-tech friends who refuse to use GAIM with GAIM-encrypt!

ok, the server works

[mecro]

Ok, so their server works. That's the part that most of us don't care about. What sort of client will GIM be using? Isn't that what makes it or breaks it for most of us?

Searchable IM's, yay!

[qw0ntum]

It's going to be great to be able to leverage Google search stuff into IM conversations. I know, we already have logs and Google Desktop, but the same could have been said about email prior to Gmail. I know I make use of Gmail's powerful search on at least a weekly basis. After your messages reach the thousands, it makes things so much easier, and I'm sure most people IM more than they email.

Re:Gmail

[THotze]

Yes, and there's a good chance it will stay this way. Its probably the best way to make sure that spammers don't start getting gmail accounts.

Its a method of 'verifying' users by having other users verify them (by making the service invite-only.) Its more secure than say, having to enter the text from some obscured image (which can be done en masse by paying somebody probably something small.)

So yes, at this point, anybody who really wants a gmail account has one, but spammers have largely been shut out.

Re:gmail icks me

[SumDog]

The reason for their distribution pattern is a little to prevent abuse, a little to create a community network and to be honest, it was a really good beta testing idea.

It prevents spammers auto-registering a ton (if someone starts to invite a bunch of spam bots, you can easily trace and break the propagation chain) and prevented the server from being overloaded during the initial run.

From a Computer Science and Social Engineering standpoint, it was/is a good setup. Get over it.

Re:ok, the server works

[shutdown -p now]

What sort of client will GIM be using? Isn't that what makes it or breaks it for most of us?

Why would it be? I will just keep using Psi as I always did. But what is good now is that more people will use Jabber on their side, making life easier for me (sure, there are transports already, but they are not feature-complete, and sometimes simply buggy).

Re:Gmail

[Panaphonix]

So yes, at this point, anybody who really wants a gmail account has one, but spammers have largely been shut out.

How so? Couldn't spammers invite each other?

Re:ugh, throw it on the heap...

[batkiwi]

STANDARDIZATION. They will be the FIRST IM service to use the IETF messaging and presence standard.

Remember the days back when Prodigy users couldn't email AOL users, and you coudln't email either from a university "internet email"

That is where we are now with IM.

Imagine if back then someone was whacky enough to make an email client which required an account from every major provider in order to email your friends, rather than simply everyone moving to the official smtp and mime standards.

That is where we are now with IM.

Google having an IM service should give the critical mass necessary to jabber for other IM services to investigate, and finally use it (at least bridged).

I yearn for the day when I have only 1 IM ID. People who like yahoo can use their client and YIM ID, people who run their own jabber server can use whatever client they want, etc. Hell, they can even run propriatary video conferencing/etc which require their own software for all I care as long as I can do simple messaging with anyone on any service.

Re:Now spy on your friends!

[Jorkapp]

Did you consider that the government can use google?

Re:http://www.miranda-im.org/

[Wonko42]

Here's an idea: use the ICQ protocol for your ICQ contacts and use the AIM protocol for your AIM contacts. I know, I know, it doesn't make any sense, but it works, believe it or not!

Now if only I could figure out how to put on these damn pants. I can never seem to get them past my shoulders...

Re:ugh, throw it on the heap...

[Anonymous Coward]

> STANDARDIZATION. They will be the FIRST IM service to use the IETF messaging and presence standard.

Yes, that's what my sister is always talking about. "I like to chat on AIM with my friends," she says, "but I really wish there was an IETF standardized messenging service that I could use instead."

Re:ugh, throw it on the heap...

[batkiwi]

"I like to chat on AIM with my friends, but brittney uses that y one. Her boyfriend's on it so she won't get aim! What a bitch"

Jabber interoperability

[TardisX]

Hmmmm, as of this point it doesn't appear that you can have contacts on other jabber servers.

The whole point of jabber is that servers are distributed, the server name is part of the JID (Jabber ID) which means that JID's look a lot like email addresses.

I hope the inability to have contacts with non @gmail.com JID's is merely a pre-launch wrinkle.

Consolidation

[Baloo Ursidae]

You only need one Jabber ID to talk to every internet-connected Jabber server out there. You only need to register your logins on the other IM systems and you've just obsoleted the need for Trillian, Gaim, Kopete and all the other half-assed attempts at IM unification. You're thinking this is added complexity, when it's actually complexity removed.

Re:Gmail

[notthe9]

If they invite each other, it leaves a trail and you can cut off the whole bad branch.

Re:smash's world: I'm almost slashdotted right now

[Nugget]

Jabber's use of a dedicated SSL port is legacy and deprecated behavior, in favor of using STARTTLS to negotiate SSL on the normal port.

That's how they "get off".

Re:GoogleTalk + Dark Fibre = Internet Phone System

[Momoru]

I'm not sure how Google gets away with being so clandestine, yet people think they are not evil. It reminds me of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory... If Google is such a great open non evil company, how come their employees don't have public blogs like all those at MS? (In fact they fire the one person that had a semi famous blog) How come they are one of the most opaque companies on wall street in telling their shareholders what's going on? How come all their projects are so top secret despite the fact they end up just being another jabber knock off? I understand things like their search algorithim should be kept secret, but cripes why all the mystery?

Google: Like AltaVista, only worse

[Anonymous Coward]

And so, Google continues down the Portal Path trodden earlier by AltaVista, making the same mistakes -- ignoring their (whithering) core business, putting their best valuation spin on everything they do, blowing their cash on bad acquisitions. Heck, they've even hired Louis Monier! But, they run on Linux, so they must be okay, right?

Re:Gmail

[Red Alastor]

It's kinda interesting. Of course, all the asking for invites on public forums breaks the system, but if it wasn't for that, this would be a good way for Google to track people who might have similar interests (people who give invites to others are probably friends).

That would be stupid of them since it's easier to establish such relationships : people who e-mail each other frequently are probably friends.

Great! This is absolutely freaking great!

[Anonymous Coward]

The client is awful, and Google is now officially going to have access to 90% of the communication I have online, but I can't help but think how awesome this is.

Jabber... an open standard... for IM clients...

No more OSCAR, Yahoo, or MSN. No more need to reverse engineer protocols that IM providers break whenever they're feeling saucy. You can connect with any damn client you want, from any OS you want, and talk to other people no matter what they're using.

I realize Jabber has offered this for a long time, and in my more zealous moments I have advocated people switching. But, in one fell swoop, by putting out a simple client (and it is simple; overly simple for someone like me -- JUST RIGHT for my parents!) that speaks an open protocol, and putting what is bar none the hottest name in tech behind it, they've just done what 10 years of my patient evangelizing could have never done.

How long until this is a serious market share competitor with AIM and MSN? Months? A year? It will happen, and sooner than we all think. How long until it's the only name you need to know for IM? Not much longer.

They might be reading all of my email, IMs, and studying every one of my web searches. Hell, they might be printing out hardcopies of these things, lighting them on fire, and taking a big dump on them. Right now they are my heroes.

Re:Google tomorrow?

[mp3phish]

Not in the theory of multiple universes..

In this case, predicting the future and then altering it by doing something in the present just means you switched to an alternate universe. the other one still exists... and you still clicked the link.. you just don't know about it because in your current universe you didn't click it.

Re:Whats the point?

[mp3phish]

I don't see what your point it?

In my opinion, using jabber in a mainstream IM client (ie, one that is going to be used by joe schmoe and susy ann in jr. high keyboarding class while the teacher isn't looking) is a dramatic step forward.

Google is competing head on with the services that yahoo, aol, and msn provide. Only they are doing it using open standards, and allowing 3rd party clients. From my perspective, this is equivilent of Google putting the rest on notice:

"Look, we aren't going to let you rape your users anymore. We are going to do what you do... Properly."

I think this is a great step forward. Sure, you might think it is a waste of time in the long run.. and you might be right. But something like this NEEDED to be done in order to get the other IM services to play fair. Everyone already knows that the other services would have never opened their protocols without something like this coming forward. The rest will be required to follow suit or bail out of the business. (you may not see it now, but it is coming.. just watch)

Re:Google tomorrow?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Yahoo supports voicecomm. And webcams. And offline messaging.

I wont be impressed until they add AIM-style direct connections at least. Then theyre comparable to aim, but really no better client wise. Now, if you could convert/resize images inside (especially pasting screenshots), then it would set it ahead in my book. (And as mentioned before, webcam support).

They also don't allow customizing of fonts, which I'm glad of but will mean they'll never capture the IM crowd. They should do it gaim style, and allow it but have an option to strip it all for people that dont like others assuming they know how to style text to match /your/ desktop. Speaking of which, gtalk is yet another app on my list of things that assume you want to use their skinning engine instead of the native settings. Why do developers do this? Do you really want to get/make 15 different skins just so all of your apps look right together?

Re:Google tomorrow?

[papukanghi]

I dont know whats the big deal. its weak looking interface ... the voice feature is avaliable only on windows. even skype is better than this. Yahoo has all these features and more.. avtars for example.

Its just a case of one company making people go gaga about its products. its a same crappy IM with a protocol that has been around for 4 years. when jabber came out no one was excited because it was an intiative on the parts of some open source developers.

now google does it and somehow its cool. I really dont get it. its stupid to the point of being painful.

here is a conversation with a non-techi friend.

(11:39:45) dqasddw: http://www.google.com/talk/ [google.com]
(11:39:54) dqasddw: its there
(11:52:31) parvati: wow..
(11:53:18) dqasddw: what is the wow paro?
(11:53:23) dqasddw: please tell me.
(11:53:59) parvati: heh.. it's *google*
(11:54:08) dqasddw: skype is better than this.
(11:55:58) parvati: well yeah.. but it's *google*.. and there's this guy on the slashdot list who said basically because it's google EVERYone will have it in a week.. first the techies, then their friens.. then anyone who wants to be cool..
(11:56:15) dqasddw: yes. so?
(11:56:48) dqasddw: how is it cool?
(11:59:00) parvati: it's not cool.. it's google..
(12:06:02) parvati: accha ok.. am not google PR.. but the fact remains, there's something attractive about anything google... in time, it'll lose the charm..
(12:06:11) parvati: and something new will come to replace it..
(12:07:29) dqasddw: im not a yahoo PR but the fact is ... yahoo has had this service before. jabber came 4 years ago which was essentially the same thing.
(12:07:55) parvati: yes baba.. i still love yahoo :-)
(12:08:28) dqasddw: no no thats not the point. i was talking to this guy who said "you know google has RSS news feeds feature"
(12:08:42) dqasddw: i said yahoo has had that feature for a year.
(12:08:51) dqasddw: he said i dont like yahoo.
(12:08:58) dqasddw: i said why?
(12:09:00) parvati: why?
(12:09:02) dqasddw: he said i dont know
(12:09:36) parvati: no, you're right.. i mean, i tried yahoo search after you told me about it, and it IS better..
(12:09:53) parvati: but google has that *thing*.. like coke and pepsi..
(12:11:29) parvati: because google has managed to retain that 'underdog' feel..
(12:12:26) dqasddw: yes. clean interface.
(12:12:54) dqasddw: they dont put any adv on their website but put those ugly text adv's on almost all of the websited in the world.
(12:13:25) parvati: lol.. yeah! that's true.. clean interface = deep psychological impact

Voice thorugh firewalls/NAT

[dr. greenthumb]

It just looked like YAIM to me until I read this:

You should also be able to use Google Talk at your company, since voice calls should work across any firewall or NAT.

If this is true, then it blows MSN Messenger, AIM, Yahoo Chat, iChat etc. out of the water.

Getting these kinds of applications to work is getting harder and harder due to all the broadband routers out there your NAT-lock you in - and making it pretty damn hard for Joe Sixpack to configure it to properly route incoming UDP and TCP connections.

For me, being on a campus network not allowing incoming UDP nor remotely-initiated TCP connections it's been impossible to you use any kind of voice functionality in IM clients (with the exception of Skype [skype.com]).

Has anyone tested this? Is Google Talk using a P2P approach similar to Skype to make this work?

Thats the whole point

[Clansman]

Google needs to see your conversation in order to target an advert at you.

What would they try to sell you if all they saw was an encrypted stream?