Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet IT

Google Talk Available Early 897

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Talk Available Early

Comments Filter:
  • Gmail (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bobsacks ( 784382 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:24PM (#13384436) Journal
    Any word on when Gmail is going to go public? Last I heard google news was waiting because of it's inability to create revenue because they were using other peoples news or some such. But the mail portion has adds and the like, so I guess it is able to make revenue.
  • by Seumas ( 6865 ) * on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:29PM (#13384492)
    Um. Jabber is a full fledged messaging program.

    This is basically just google providing a public jabber server. I haven't gotten around to setting one up for myself, but have wanted to use a high quality, highly available, reliable jabber server to stick an account on. Now that google is doing it - I absolutely will.

    This is exactly what I said they should do in the first place. Hurray!
  • can't get on (Score:2, Interesting)

    by protocol420 ( 758109 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `lokotorp'> on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:33PM (#13384529) Homepage Journal
    GAIM won't let me on, using me@gmail.com as a username, it seems to be trying to resolve me@gmail.com@talk.google.com and fecking it up. anyone have ideas?
  • Great News! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:39PM (#13384587) Homepage Journal
    I'm very happy that this indicates they may be using the Jabber protocol for IM. I've been using it for my friends and family (I run my own Jabber server behind an OpenVPN network) for quite some time now and it's a much nicer protocl than any of the other ones out there. The main reason being that it's free/open. Plus, I don't need to change my chosen clients to talk to the rest of the world now since anyone who matters (to me) has a GMail account. Here's to Google making a wise choice yet again! :)
  • Made Clear? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Azarael ( 896715 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:40PM (#13384598) Homepage
    The reasoning behind google sponsoring so many people to work on GAIM for summer of code? Maybe they will release a gaim based client?
  • by DarthTaco ( 687646 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:41PM (#13384617)
    I don't know. I'm not too excited about using as a chat server host a company that is known specifically for their data warehousing and searching and mining capabilities
  • Then this [slashdot.org] oughta give you the creeps.
  • by Heisenbug ( 122836 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:49PM (#13384689)
    I wonder what google thinks they're going to add to chat services?

    It's a bit of a toss-up ... google maps and gmail changed the whole landscape for those services, and I wouldn't have thought there was much to add there. Google groups and froogle, on the other hand, didn't change much of anything. I'm reserving judgement, because they're smarter than me and that seems safest.

    The only thing I can think of, since it uses your gmail account as a login, is integration with your gmail address book -- but then yahoo and MS chat services do the same thing with their mail services, and that didn't exactly change my life.
  • by Sweetshark ( 696449 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:49PM (#13384695)
    Despite attempts at breaking into the instant messenging market, I believe AOL still rules the market, atleast here in the US. Yahoo, MSN, etc. didn't really decrease the market share of AIM. I doubt this Google IM thing will be any different.

    In europe MSN is pretty much king and yahoo second. Almost no one uses AIM.

    And which architecture was designed with the ability and the intention to bridge to those existing services?
    Right - only Jabber.
    Microsoft gets a bit of its own poison - embraced and extended by an open standard.
  • What about Hello? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:55PM (#13384743)
    Google Hello [hello.com] lets you send images almost instantly to other Hello users and integrates with Google Picasa [google.com] very well. Hello also has a built-in IM client for other Hello users. I actually use Hello at work to chat with my wife since all the other IM protocols are blocked where I work and Hello works over HTTP.

    Does anyone know if Hello will work with Google Talk? I don't feel like having to run Hello and Google Talk. However, if they do both work together, what would be the point of Google having both Hello and Google Talk?

  • by mwilliamson ( 672411 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:58PM (#13384768) Homepage Journal
    looks like it allows connections from tor [eff.org] servers. I love routing my IM's over tor to stop prying eyes. ;-)
  • Re:OK (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ResQuad ( 243184 ) * <(moc.ketelosnok) (ta) (todhsals)> on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:04PM (#13384825) Homepage
    Wasnt there mention of google making a Google branded version of firefox in the past? So thats possible.

    They could make a google branded open office.

    Will they buy oracle? No 'cause its not open source.
  • Re:Gmail (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mgoff ( 40215 ) * on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:06PM (#13384840)
    Its probably the best way to make sure that spammers don't start getting gmail accounts/

    I don't get it. Why couldn't a spammer beg for an account like everyone else? Once they get in, they get 50 invites and create 50 more accounts (and repeat). I suppose they could track who invited whom and watching the parents and children of known spam accounts.
  • by Indianwells ( 661008 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:07PM (#13384846)
    Exactly! Google will now have a reocrd of: 1. Your web searches 2. Your email 3. You im conversations If google were the government would you be afraid?
  • Conference Rooms? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by randomErr ( 172078 ) <ervin,kosch&gmail,com> on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:09PM (#13384876) Journal
    Is there anyway to get a list of conference rooms on Google Talk?
  • Google Talk ... and all that dark fibre Goggle has been buying up? This isn't just about instant messenger - Google is building the next voice communications network! With their new WiFi hotspots - it could be wireless voice communications (at least if you're in a major center).

    Bee-bee-boo-boop "Picard to all phone companies: You are being replaced."
  • by bigblueball ( 909721 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:28PM (#13385031) Homepage
    I've got it working via Trillian Pro, and posted the details here: here [bigblueball.com]. Works great, but nothing to get excited about. Right now it looks and acts like a standard Jabber server. I'm more interested to see if they'll include connectors for the other IM networks (I suspect they will) and what the Google Talk client looks like. With multi-network support, a no-nonsense UI (while most IM programs are nonsense-full), and voice chat (or better yet, VoIP) support -- Google Talk will rock.
  • by mblase ( 200735 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:30PM (#13385054)
    I understand that (a) Jabber is XML and open protocol and all that, and (b) anyone can install a Jabber server, and (c) Jabber provides secure connections to said server, in Google's case by default.

    Granted all this. But speaking as someone who's just running a client, why should I care? Aside from the secure connection, will chatting on Jabber be much different for me than chatting on Yahoo or AOL or ICQ?

    With GMail, there's a web-based client which has a lot of whiz-bang features that clearly distinguish it from AOL Webmail or Yahoo Mail. But I need a chat client to connect anyway, and it's the client's features that impress me, not the protocol.

    Hmm, perhaps I just answered my own question.
  • by atomm1024 ( 570507 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:31PM (#13385070)
    True, but that doesn't actually protect your conversations from Google. People connected between your Internet connection and Google's server won't be able to monitor your conversations, but Google itself will, which is just as undesirable. Another reply has already mentioned Off-The-Record Messaging, a good solution for existing systems.
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:32PM (#13385071)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by elucido ( 870205 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:35PM (#13385095)
    We could use a group search feature. If we all are talking via IM why not let one person search and have everyone access the results?
  • This (may) sucks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Krunch ( 704330 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:46PM (#13385168) Homepage
    It looks like talk.google.com users can't talk to external Jabber users (like thoses using jabber.org for example). I really hope it's not a feature and that it will be fixed when they'll announce the new service. If it's not the case it's not that better than MSN, it's just leaving a monopoly for another one. Nice to see they use an open protocol but it would really sucks to have a closed Google Jabber network.

    Another thing some people might have noticed is that reverse DNS for talk.google.com is toolbar.google.com. Now have a look at JEP0151 [jabber.org].
    Virtual presence on Web pages (also sometimes known as co-browsing, while co-browsing can also mean something different) makes people aware of each other, who are at the same Web location at the same time. The basic purpose of a virtual presence system is to show names, icons, and/or avatars of people who are on a page or a set of pages and to let them communicate.
  • Re:Gmail (Score:5, Interesting)

    by _Splat ( 22170 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:32PM (#13385483)
    Not exactly.. it's similar to how a bank doesn't have enough cash to pay out every account at once... they assume that most people will only use a small fraction of their space, and only allocate that much. If everyone decided to fill up their Gmail accounts all at once, there would be trouble.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:46PM (#13385563)
    Apparently a Google Talk client already exists:

    The folks over at Download Squad have a copy. Read the review: http://www.downloadsquad.com/2005/08/23/googe-talk -review/ [downloadsquad.com].

    Now I'm just hoping we all get a copy damn soon.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @10:35PM (#13385862)
    That's why I use a client like Trillian. I can talk to anyone on most any service and switch to a native client if need be. That said, it would be nice to have 1 ID, but it's not really an issue for me.

    Email has a different background as it wasn't developed for commercial purposes originally whereas IM is really about serving ads to as large a userbase as possible and getting said userbase through features and established userbase.
  • Re:Gmail (Score:3, Interesting)

    by callipygian-showsyst ( 631222 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @11:24PM (#13386170) Homepage
    > Feel free to send an invite my way:

    Done! And if anyone else wants one, reply to this thread, too.

  • by cesarcardoso ( 1139 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @11:54PM (#13386351) Homepage Journal
    Hey, at least, they don't use a proprietary protocol to talk to us :P
  • by ankhank ( 756164 ) * on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @11:59PM (#13386374) Journal
    Did you ever read a story called "The Sources of the Nile" by Avram Davidson?

    Imagine finding a way to know what people are going to be thinking about, talking about, asking for -- in advance.

    Well?

    You could, say, direct advertising to them based on what you knew, if you could do that.

    Email, digitized voice, a huge networked universe of fast computers growing all the time.

    The Internet sees Google as unthreatening, and uses Google as a preferred route.

    Has anyone ever asked the folks who came up with "Don't Do Evil" what the other half of their statement is? It must have a corollary.

    I suspect it's -- Be God.

  • by sp1der ( 909763 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:00AM (#13386383)
    In the Google Talk client, in the icon tray, select About. Notice on the bottom light grey characters on the which background. They read: "play 23 21 13 16 21 19 7 1 13 5" Using a=1, z=26, it translates to: "play wumpus game" Not sure what to do with it, just thought it was interesting that it was there. Investigating...
  • by rappo ( 671118 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:14AM (#13386460)
    from Wikipedia "wumpus": Hunt the Wumpus was an important early computer game. It was based on a simple hide-and-seek format, featuring a mysterious monster (the Wumpus) that lurked deep inside a network of rooms. Using a command line text interface, the player would enter commands to move through the rooms, or shoot arrows along crooked paths through several adjoining rooms. There were twenty rooms, each connecting to three others, arranged like the vertices of a dodecahedron (or the faces of an icosahedron). Hazards included bottomless pits, super bats (which would drop the player in a random location) and the Wumpus itself. When the player had deduced from hints which chamber the Wumpus was in without entering it, he would fire an arrow into the Wumpus' chamber to slay it. However, firing the arrow into the wrong chamber would startle the Wumpus, which might then devour the player. [...] Versions of Hunt the Wumpus are currently available all over the Internet, for almost all operating systems and machines, including Linux, Palm Pilot handheld computers, and mobile phones. The first bot on IRC was a multiplayer Hunt the Wumpus game, in which firing an arrow into a room with other players caused another player to be killed: "Foo is hit in the back with an arrow!" Unfortunately, the "Wumpus-o-Matic" player never made it off the drawing board. See also Rog-O-Matic. Wumpus have also made an appearance in the TCG Magic: The Gathering, specifically in the 1999 Mercadian Masques expansion. They appear mainly in the art for green cards in the set, though two are playable creatures: the appropriately named Hunted Wumpus, and also Thrashing Wumpus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wumpus [wikipedia.org]
  • by otisg ( 92803 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:29AM (#13386544) Homepage Journal
    This is what happened to the guy who spread the news early on:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/smash/36648272/ [flickr.com]
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/smash/36659424/in/pho tostream/ [flickr.com]
  • by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:29AM (#13386550) Homepage Journal
    "Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did,"

    said Reid Hoffman, the founder of two Internet ventures, including LinkedIn, a business networking Web site popular among Silicon Valley's digerati. "It's largely that they're hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they're working on so many different things. It's harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/technology/24val ley.html?pagewanted=2 [nytimes.com]

  • Re:Gmail (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <slashdot.kadin@xox y . net> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @01:18AM (#13386736) Homepage Journal
    I've played around with a "social networking" site (thefacebook.com) which used to have -- and perhaps it's back now, I'm not sure -- a really neat feature. It would give you a zoomable 2-D representation of your social network as an SVG file.

    The SVG part isn't important (I was never really clear why they picked this format over any other vector format...) but the idea was pretty cool. With yourself at the center you could see who was near you in the social structure of the network, and who they were closely associated with, etc.

    I never used the service long or heavily enough to develop a very robust social network (and not enough of my friends used it to make a very good model of the real world) but this is not so with email. Practically everyone I know, with the exception of a few older or particularly Luddite relatives, I've emailed at one point or another.

    It would be neat to have a program that scanned your email archives (with Gmail this wouldn't be too hard, since all mail is retained in the archive unless manually deleted) and constructed a social network from it. If I were going to design it, I'd make "closeness" be the frequency of emails, and the angular separation between two people who both talk to a third based on the number of shared keywords in their emails. That way you'd end up with all your business associates off in one direction (say all radiating away from you within a few degrees of each other) but your family, with whom you probably use few words in common with your business emails, in a different direction entirely.

    If the program could scan people's emails recursively -- assuming they were all on Gmail and had suitably large archives of email -- you could create a pretty neat social model that would actually be reflective of the real world.

    Of course, the privacy issues surrounding something like that would be gigantic. People get all creeped out by Gmail scanning emails and then presented targeted advertising...I doubt they'd tolerate a system that scanned all their archived email in order to produce a graphical model, even if it was semi-anonymous.
  • by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <slashdot.kadin@xox y . net> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @01:39AM (#13386822) Homepage Journal
    You're right to be concerned.

    You're wrong to blame Google for it, though. All Google is doing is making the technology of surveillance more obvious. Your emails and IMs aren't, and never were, private. Unless you were using some form of end-to-end encryption, that is. But for the vast majority of people, that assumption of privacy, at least when it comes to the Internet, is just that: an assumption. And a very poor one at that.

    Frankly, I like GMail. I think everyone ought to use it. Okay, not really. But I like that it makes people like my parents, who despite years of cautioning never gave a second thought about emailing someone their bank routing number or Amex-online account login, think twice about what they type in. You can rail all day to people about how email is really nothing more secure than a postcard, passed from machine to machine across the network, but that's all very abstract. The first time you notice how those GMail ads seem to eerily change depending upon what you're writing about, the whole thing becomes more clear.

    Google isn't invading your privacy. It's just making you aware of the fact that you never had any.

    Of course, people say, before Google existed and thousands of users' emails were archived and indexed, intercepting email was hard. Okay, point granted. But really how hard? Certainly not outside the reach of government agencies. If you're really afraid of the three-letter-guys, then everything Google does to drive the unencrypted=insecure link home to the average user is good.

    Because the only privacy you'll get on the internet is the kind you create for yourself. The more users who realize this and the sooner they take steps to implement it, the better. When everyone starts actually encrypting their email and messaging, then we'll actually have some privacy for the government to try and invade.
  • Closed network (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nurgled ( 63197 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @03:24AM (#13387176)

    According to the Google Talk developer page [google.com], Google is only planning pre-arranged peering with a set of providers. Their goal, it appears, is to reduce spam and other abuses by ensuring that all clients are connecting through trusted services.

    While I see their point, it does seem like a bit of a cop out. "Service choice" doesn't really mean much unless I can choose to use my own service and still inter-operate. A truly open system should allow anyone to play, not just the big boys.

  • by Arceliar ( 895609 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @05:56AM (#13387618)
    It would be interesting to make a list of what basic (computer related) services Google DOESNT provide yet.

    1: Not yet an ISP! - Give me WiFi, damnit!
        *Reads This [slashdot.org] * "Good boy Google, now fetch"

    2: Webpages - With the amount of storage they have for gmail, they could certainly fork up 50mb free webpage accounts by now, right? Just like with the mail, the average person probably wont use 50 megs, I'm sure that's what they'd count on. But it would be really interesting to see something like this happen with google. Oooh, what's this, searching [google.com] appears to imply it exists, dispite the fact that it links nowhere...

    3: Coffee and TV - It's true you can search froogle for just about anything, and it's true google has a small merchandising [googlestore.com] department (appairently), but they don't have anything like...amazon.com as an example (all be it a rather poor one). I think you get the point...if your company makes something, they cant add it to a google store, and if you want something, you cant buy it through google. (again, froogle, I know, but it's just not the same).

    4: A Better Blogger - What the hell is up with blogging everything these days? I mean...it's like a diary, except anyone has access to read it. Now, this was fine until one day you turn on the news and they're reading some random John Doe's opinion on the economy, and acting like it's important. *ahem* but anyways, Blogger. If they slapped the google name on blogger, and wrote just a tad bit of support into the client their Google Talk client right here (something really simple, like, link your gmail account to your blogger account, and then just a little link in the drop down menu) and I'd bet my Bawls [bawls.com] they'd see a sudden spike in blogger's popularity and it crushes other services as quickly as blogging crushed my hope in humanity.

    5: Google Browser - a Gowser? I don't know what to call it, but it's an idea that I've seen google talk about as early as September 2001. Fork mozilla already! Just think about it though, how many of you have google as your start page? (or something that links to google in bright bold letters at the top of the page, such as this lovely one you're reading right now). If they've already made a messenger client and service, then they've clearly invested at least a reasonable amount of effort into software. It's not hard to imagine a massively google-customized fork of firefox, or mozilla, finding it's way onto my desktop, laptop, and PSP (once I get a good linux port running, emulating an x86 is too much of a round-about way of doing things for me). Of course, then someone would suggest they make a google media player, and they'd jump on the idea. And people would keep naming off apps they want google to make until one day they make a google kernel (goognel? or something...) and we have a complete google operating system running. I wish.

    More importanlty, why did I stay up till 5 AM reading/posting on here? And when exactly in the night did I misplace my pants?
  • Re:Whats the point? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @06:46AM (#13387732)
    What IM services can you not log into using third party clients? Heck, some services even document their protocol extensively (like AIM's TOC) to promote third party client support.

    Now, if google interacts correctly with other jabber servers, that's something else entirely. That means the central server disappears from the chat network. Which would be a dramatic change from the current situation, where you can't join an IM network as a server without permission from the IM network's owner.
  • by dascandy ( 869781 ) <dascandy@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @07:18AM (#13387828)
    No.

    What are they going to do with it?

    All those things reveal not much, except that my interests are as broad as the universe (and occasionally larger, when I try to find stuff about something people call god).

    They could send me more spam (gets me off their mail service), spim (gets me off their IM service) or more ads (gets me on more effective adblock measures). Until they're going to ask money, I'm going to keep using the services. When they do, I'm gonna be the first to leave.

    There's no point in worrying for privacy in public places. When I change clothes in the middle of times square NY I'm not getting much privacy. Didn't I choose for that? Nonencrypted emails, websearches etc. do the same.

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.

Working...