Yahoo Changes Protocol, Blocks Third Party Clients 506
NaDrew writes "ZDNet reports that Yahoo is once again blocking connections from Trillian (the alternative multi-protocol client). Yahoo tried this a few times last year and it looks like they're trying again. Cerulean, maker of Trillian, employs some excellent protocol engineers, who I have no doubt will quickly figure out Yahoo's latest obfuscation and release a patch. A quick fix discovered late this evening: Change your Y!IM host from scs.msg.yahoo.com to scs.yahoo.com, port 5050, and it should work. This is on Trillian 0.74H, not Pro."
Centericq is also broken (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Centericq is also broken (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is of course, why not use an official client since you are in fact using their network and resources to send messages.
SO I ask the question to others
How many would use an official ad-encumbered client if one was available for your prefered environment?
Re:Centericq is also broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Centericq is also broken (Score:5, Interesting)
I was using trillian until I figured out that all my contacts were on all the four major instant messagers... then I consolidated all my contacts into just one IM client.
Re:Centericq is also broken (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Centericq is also broken (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Centericq is also broken (Score:3, Funny)
Gaim (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Gaim (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if you're on Windows, but i am, and i find that Gaim (for Windows) is a pretty poor client. I mean, it's OK, but compared to other things, it needs a lot of work. It seems to me like the Windows version of Gaim was nothing more than an after-thought. I can't get work done (I'm paid to sit around instant-messaging my friends all day -- true story.) using an after-thought. ;_;
So... i use Miranda [miranda-im.org]. Needs a lot of work also, but it's much better off than Gaim, i find, and it's just as open.
Re:Gaim (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gaim (Score:3, Interesting)
Under Linux I use GAIM - it does everything I want it to (except list Yahoo chat rooms). I have yet to explore getting my new WebCam working.
However under Windows, I use Miranda. (It doesn't require GTK). It is a very small program, uses very little memory, and has the features I need (except browsing/entering Yahoo chat rooms). Miranda rocks - it is a subtle program, but has awesome features and many plugins. If I want to use my W
Re:Gaim (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Gaim (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Centericq is also broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Centericq is also broken (Score:5, Informative)
bitlbee lets you connect to all the major IM networks using your normal irc client. When your mouth-breating, non-irc-using friends send you an instant message, it shows up just as a normal irc privmsg and you can respond in kind.
Re:Centericq is also broken (Score:3, Funny)
Hi My Name is Monica.Welcome to My Web Site.
Hope you Enjoy here and have a nice time earning $$$ from the Web.
Do Join My Yahoo Group from the link Then Join.
My Club is very informative about earning dollars from internet.One just have to make a web site , read emails or what ever i guide u to do.you then can easily earn 1000's of dollars from internet.Its just 2-3 hrs a day work thats it.I have doing web marking from last 3 years and have proudly earned 50,000 $$$ from web.Hope u can too.
I h
pfft (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it blocks gaim also.
Re:pfft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pfft (Score:5, Informative)
Re:pfft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:pfft (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, that's exactly his point - what makes you think you should get something for nothing? If you jump ship, you just end up costing your new ship money until they decide they can't be free either.
Google (Score:3, Interesting)
Gmail and GM - Google Messaging? (Score:3, Interesting)
Google wants to make money, and they'll figure out a way to make money off IM if they decide to launch an IM service. Gmail uses text ads based on the content of your mail. Why couldn't it use text ads based on IM conversations? A Web based IM client (which would be neat, because everyone has a Web browser anyway) could easily do this.
Google might even merge Gm
Re:pfft (Score:2)
Yup. At least 0.77 is blocked (it tells me my password is incorrect)--I've not emerged 0.78 yet, so I don't know if it's blocked too.
Re:pfft (Score:3, Informative)
Quick fix does not work (Score:5, Informative)
It appears to be a separate server, and you won't be able to communicate with other people on the 'fixed' yahoo servers.
Re:Quick fix does not work (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Quick fix does not work (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you hear me now? (Score:2, Funny)
Trillian (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Trillian (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Trillian (Score:2, Insightful)
there lies the problem. how is yahoo benefitting from offering its network and resources and have trillian charge for their client?
money speaks. and since trillian is making money by piggybacking on yahoo resources while yahoo sees none of it, yahoo stops trillian.
Re:Trillian (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't cost the kernel developers anything for RedHat to sell their work. They produce the kernel for their own use and for others to use. Redhat packages it up and sells it.
When you use Trillian to send an IM via Yahoo, you're using Yahoo's servers, which they purchase and pay to maintain, and their bendwidth, which they also pay for. You're costing them money, and you're not viewing their ads, which is the method they use to make money. From their viewpoint, you're a leech on their services.
No such drain occurs on the kernel developers from Redhat selling their product.
I have no problem with Open Source products which use Yahoo or other IM providers. But if Trillian wants to make money off their product, then they should license the right to access Yahoo's servers. That's a personal opinion; my understanding is that they're not be under any _legal_ obligation to do so, and I'm not implying anything different here.
Re:Trillian (Score:5, Insightful)
hmmm.... (ponders the ethical dillema)....
Anyone know why Trillian isn't paying for use? Have Yahoo and company offered?
Re:Trillian (Score:3, Informative)
No, Trillian does charge you money. When they first jumped from 0.7-something to 1.0 and charged for it, they more or less stopped updating the free 0.x branch except for protocol changes and security updates. They're now up to 2.01 and if you don't pay them money you're essentially using the same software they were releasing for free 2 years ago.
Which is why I've switched to Gaim.
Damn... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait...
Re:Damn... (Score:3, Interesting)
I use it pretty much exclusively for webcam and voice stuff. Same with my friends. When your significant other lives 500+ miles away, its a nice solution to 'see' them, and no where near as irritating as using MSN (which has been a POS every time I've accidentally let it stay active on a system). Otherwise everyone I kno
Re:Damn... (Score:3, Funny)
videosluts.com doesn't count.
But kudo's to you for figuring out where her video was being rebroadcasted from with "net"...
Kopete also (Score:5, Informative)
The business case sadly makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The business case sadly makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes people prefer trillian?
If yahoo can figure that out instead of trying to lock people out maybe they won't have to lock people out.
Re:The business case sadly makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, website 'X' will have their own chat protocol, and account
Re:The business case sadly makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is the answer anyway.
Re:The business case sadly makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
How to win back IM? (Score:5, Interesting)
Many of my fellow posters have suggested that the solution is for people to switch to Jabber. I agree that the solution should start with Jabber, but it's not as easy as asking everyone to please switch.
I'm going to try to identify the obstacles to a migration to open standards, and I hope that others will expand on this and maybe even offer some solutions.
How do you convince ISPs to begin deploying Jabber servers as they would deploy mail servers? Is there any money to be made in deploying and operating a worldwide network of Jabber servers? If so, maybe some entrepreneur could come up with a clever idea for bootstrapping the network.
As some people have mentioned, it is possible that IM may evolve interoperability naturally, but I wouldn't count on that happening anytime soon. The final weapon of the proprietary IM providers will be to add crypto authentication to the protocol, with a key embedded into the clients. They would then have a solid legal recourse (DMCA) against "rogue" clients seeking interoperability. (Who knows, though... that could be a useful selling point for open standards!)
There... now that I've identified the problems, all that's left is for someone to provide the solutions. ;)
PLEASE NOTE (Score:5, Informative)
I could dig up the older comments/articles which thoroughly contradict this troll-ish article summary but I don't think it deserves my time.
Yahoo did not, I repeat did *not* try to "block" third party IM clients "several times last year". *All* they did was upgrade their protocol for better reliability/etc (I have personally noticed the increase in reliability/refresh rate etc). It is up to the 3rd party developers to upgrade their protocols if Yahoo decides to do so.
And Yahoo did offer to help them fix their stack to help it work with their servers. I am not affiliated to Yahoo, btw - I just think it receives a lot more undeserved flak then it should.
Re:PLEASE NOTE (Score:2)
Re:PLEASE NOTE (Score:4, Informative)
Story here [slashdot.org]
Story here [slashdot.org]
Story here [slashdot.org]
Re:PLEASE NOTE (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. It's an unfortunate side-effect.
They're also forcing all their users that DO use the Yahoo! approved clients to upgrade to their new client. A client with more bloat, more featuritis. No choice for the lowly user in all this. Yet the entire value of their messenger service is the number of people on it. That's the only reason 3rd party apps are made; people want to talk to other people who are on the Yahoo network. Instead of recognizing their users, even if they don't pay for the privilege of using the network, as a valuable asset, they treat them like, well, sheeple. Especially if you happen to be on a third party client.
Even AOL treats third party clients better, by "supporting" an oudated version of their protocol. It might not have all the whizz-bang features, but it keeps even those damn geek hippies on the network, which is a good thing for all those involved, really.
How would you feel if Microsoft suddenly changed the "hotmail" protocol, so you could send e-mail to any one on hotmail, or receive any from them? Even if it's your girlfriend, or your mother?
How about if your telephone company suddenly won't let you connect to the bad side of town? All those free phonecalls cost em, you know?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are they responsible for trillian? (Score:2, Insightful)
While it might be nice of them to support trillian as well, that just makes it more difficult to maintain their own service. Don't assume that their change was made maliciously just to irritate trillian users.
FYI Miranda forum thread (Score:5, Informative)
In short, scs.yahoo.com:5050 is no good.
Not necessarily a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
AIM (Score:2, Interesting)
Yahoo's Loss... (Score:2)
And another thing... (Score:2, Redundant)
What's the point in that?? (Score:2)
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
What about the law? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they want to get rid of 3rd party clients, then this is just another arms race, meaning we will eventually have open clients that work, after some finite delay.
In all honesty I can't blame yahoo! for trying. After all, for each person that doesn't see the ads associated with their official client, they lose revenue.
Yahoo! is a great site and they provide a LOT of stuff for free, so I don't blame them for trying to get some money back for all the free stuff they have given us over the years. I guess since IMing is so popular and so much time is spent in the IM client, to them that's a LOT of missing eyeballs over a long period of time that don't get to see the ads. That's a lot of money lost by the minute. And let's face it.. we are using their computers for free, and not giving anything back each time we use a third party client.
My question though, is that if they hate third party IM clients for cutting into their rev. stream, why don't they take the law out of their own hands and use the law to their advantage? Is there nothing that could be done, by drafting some clever EULA or something, that would make it illegal or something like that to use 3rd party clients? That might actually dampen the efforts with libyahoo and other projects that try to develop an open protocol lib. Sourceforge might even cease to host such projects, being that they are in the realm of piracy or accorting to the DMCA.
While it would suck for me (as I love to use centericq over their stupid client), why don't they just make it illegal to use third party clients?
Re:What about the law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. We're giving them a community for their clients to speak to. We use their computers for free, and they get our time for free. Sounds like a fair swap. If we didn't use 3rd party clients, there would be nobody except YIM users for YIM users to talk to. YIM users see the ads, but if YIM users didn't have anyone to talk to they wouldn't bother to use YIM in the first place.
I'm quite sure, if they wanted to, AOL, Y! etc could
Re:What about the law? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well I disagree. First off, I don't think that the 'suits' that are paid to think about how to ruin our lives haven't already thought of this. I don't think that by censoring my thinking I am doing anyone any good. By asking the question that I did, I think that will eventually reveal that in fact Yahoo! doesn't really want to kill the 3rd party clients -- at least not yet. I think that if they really wanted to, they would have been more aggressive about it already. And believe me, by my posting that question here on
I think that in actuality they prefer for the time being that as many people as possible use their Y!IM network. Maybe sometime later in the future when they are a monopoly (if that ever happens) they will then proceed to kick the ass of every 3rd party client.. but until then, they secretly believe 'the more the merrier'.
That's the cool thing about having so many competing systems. And that's the problem with something like Microsoft where they managed to kill off all their competition. They become dicks and stop doing a good job as soon as that happens.
They're begging for it (Score:2, Informative)
If they're going to be such babies about letting *more* people use their system, let 'em. They're pretty much second fiddle to AIM, it seems...
Re:They're begging for it (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that it's not as simple as one person changing messenger clients. If I change, I can't talk to anyone I currently do unless 5 other people change (I am apparently in the minority with such a small list
And that's why multi-service chat programs are needed.
I have a better idea... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: Yahoo Changes Protocol, Blocks Third Party Cli (Score:5, Interesting)
Messaging clients with advertisement-based model will surely object to allowing third party clients to connect, since it doesnt make any business sense.
Furthermore, they may have allowed such third party clients in the past, to gain that critical mass that ensures market peneration and continued usage, but once they are past the bell curve, they would then clam down on it.
Think of it as an equivalent to Microsoft clamping down on piracy - they never prevented that in the past knowing that so long as its their products being used, they will be able to generate revenues one way or the other. Now that the market penetration is coming to a saturation (or if not, there are far more alternative solutions available than ever before), they have started to really put on the squeeze.
Finally, companies like trillian may well have the best protocol engineers in the world, but such disruptions in service shall push away customers every time, however small the percentage might be. Unless connectivity to widely used messengers is provided by agreement, such connectivity outages will cause most users to move to move away from them.
Adopting a new protocol (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is pie in the sky, but this whole messenger war seems so stupid. Wasn't someone working on a standards for a messenger protocol? This whole messenger war thing seems so stupid and only serves to piss users off.
This is ind of like copy protection and DRM. They keep trying to stop people and people just keep getting around it. Nobody ever seems to learn. Are they just going to keep beating their heads against the wall until the end of time? Are all these guys that clueless and stubborn?
Re:Adopting a new protocol (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this supposed to be the goal of Jabber [jabber.org]?
It doesn't seem to have gained much momentum in any case.
Re:Adopting a new protocol (Score:5, Interesting)
Backwards compatibility with unsupported products? (Score:5, Insightful)
Awfully sorry. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Awfully sorry. (Score:3, Interesting)
As it happens, I do not know anybody who uses Y!IM so I do not care about this. The story would be very different if it was MSN Messenger. I use Linux, my job requires it in fact, and of course there is no official MSN client for Linux and probably never will be. I would LOVE for all my friends to use Jabber, bu
malicious intent? piffle! (Score:4, Interesting)
And to those complaining about the yahoo client, I find it to be the best IM program overall. The new version has a clean interface, quick access to your address book and other features, but is customizable to not show any of that stuff if you don't want the clutter. Best of all, it doesn't deliver ads. NONE. Plus the offline messaging is a great feature.
Perhaps the people complaining haven't used it for a year or two and just think it's awful that a commercial company would break compatibility for an upgrade? It happens all the time in the open source world - cut Yahoo some slack.
Re:malicious intent? piffle! (Score:3, Informative)
This time, however, Yahoo said it will continue changing its protocols to prevent clients such as Trillian from finding new ways to incorporate Yahoo. Again, the measure was cited by Yahoo as a way to prevent IM spam.(emphasis mine)
So, yes, spam is cited as a reason, but yahoo _is_ saying that they are going to continue to block third party clients.
Google (Score:5, Funny)
Makes you just itch for a google client doesn't it?
'Cause if it's Google it must be good!
GMail - like turning on the lights and watching the cockaroaches scatter!
Yahoo Profit from Ads? What Ads?! (Score:5, Informative)
Another point... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have heard (but don't know because I've never used Trillian) that Trillian has "broadcast" features that sends messages to a list of users. I believe that Yahoo is trying to block clients that have this type of feature and clients, such as Gaim, that happen to share protocol libraries or access methods with these clients are "collateral damage".
Perhaps if Trillian wanted to have a good working relationship with the service providers, they would not make it so easy to abuse the services in the first place -- IMHO.
later,
tims
"Set the IM-Sheild to rotating frequencies!" (Score:3, Funny)
I can see the Yahoo engineers trying it now.
Arrogance.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand that there are valid reasons for not using the Yahoo client like unsupported OS's or "it sucks" - whatever. In the end, you are using their service for free and they aren't obligated to give you a damn thing. They could fold their tents tomorrow and wouldn't owe anyone but their creditors and customers (those who pay for services).
Why doesn't some enterprising person create a P2P chat client? I was going to go on a rant about how if someone wanted to have a totally free IM client, they could buy the servers to host connections, pay for bandwidth, etc.. but the P2P chat may be better in the long run. Granted, that doesn't solve the problem connecting to Yahoo (or the like) but it's a good start, right?
Begun, this Yahoo-versus-Users war has. (Score:3, Interesting)
"This time, however, Yahoo said it will continue changing its protocols to prevent clients such as Trillian from finding new ways to incorporate Yahoo."
So it's obvious that clients like Gaim, Kopete and Trillian need to come up with a scheme to keep up. It would seem prudent to have a feature that detects a failure to connect, asks the user if he would like to update the Yahoo protocol plugin, and if yes, downloads and installs it automatically, and then connects successfully. It just takes some manpower to keep the plugins up to date, but this would be coordinated by a cross-client task force that would share information on the latest protocol changes.
Of course, one can wonder if all this is really worth it. One day the whole world will be on Jabber (except we will rarely call it Jabber since it's so ubiquitous), and we will tell tales to our children of those days when we couldn't necessarily communicate with other IM users since there were competing (!) systems, and IM communication companies spent resources on trying to prevent communication. And they'll smile politely and think "old age has caught up with gramps." (and then they'll fly home in their cars, but that's another story)
How long until Yahoo sues Trillian? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even without the DMCA they may be able to bring a case against them if Yahoo's TOS prohibits 3rd party clients.
Re:How long until Yahoo sues Trillian? (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. The encryption wouldn't be protecting copyrighted content, so the DMCA wouldn't apply. Maybe they could try to pull a Lexmark, but I really doubt that strategy will actually pass muster with a human judge.
Even without the DMCA they may be able to bring a case against them if Yahoo's TOS prohibits 3rd party clients.
Nope again -- it would be the end-user who USES trillian that would
Open protocols (Score:3, Interesting)
Trillian Patches Available (Score:5, Informative)
Already fixed in GAIM CVS (Score:4, Informative)
Goddamn, that makes me feel geeky.
Use Jabber... (Score:3, Interesting)
I often chat with friends that still uses MSN and ICQ through Jabber's transports or whatever it is they call them
Just let them make money. (Score:4, Insightful)
But these companies spend millions of dollars on their networks for the hardware and software that is part of it. Let them play a little add here and there to help support it.
All these ad blockers and ways of getting around their revenue streams only make them try and make more annoying advertising.
If trillian wanted to be a good friend to yahoo, they'd pass through their advertising as well or find some other way to compensate them. Just because Yahoo decides to offer their network services for free doesn't mean anyone else can deploy software that uses it as well. It's like having someone write a robot to suck the content off your website, chagnge a few slogans and graphics and publish it on their site as their own minus your advertising.
Just for the record (Score:4, Informative)
Oh honestly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, all Yahoo! did was change what servers were handling what traffic. Historically they do that once every six months, presumably as a load balancing issue (the server list keeps widening and coming from a larger geographic area each time.) Trillian had a patch out in under 12 hours because the change was exceedingly minor.
Yahoo! is not breaking remote clients. They're working on a service they provide, and sometimes other people's emulation of said service just needs to be upgraded to keep up with developments in Yahoo!. Quit with the nefarious tone.
Re:Why do they bother? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now my question, didn't the gov't come out with a law a while ago forcing AOL to share their IM standards so third party software could integrate with it? And if so, wouldn't this apply to all IM software, including Yahoo?
Not Yahoo! -- Yahoo / SBC (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and yes. AOL had restrictions placed on IM i January 2001, but they were lifted in Aug. 2003 because that decision had largely rendered them unable to compete in the video conferencing scene that MSN and Yahoo had built up.
A good article summarizing this seems to be this [com.com] one.
NOW
Re:Why do they bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do they bother? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, 3rd party clients are the ONLY way they receive revenue from some of us. I keep a Yahoo and Hotmail email account. I rarely IM anyone outside of AIM. Trillian's checking of Yahoo email drives me to their site (where I see their ads). No checking, I don't go as often to check my mail. They lose money. As far as I'm concerned, Yahoo is shooting themselves in the foot.
Re:Why do they bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, I've never had ads when using their official client. There isn't even a little space for them to show up. Do most people see ads or are we just assuming that that's the reason they're doing this?
Re:Why do they bother? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just for completeness, it is possible that they have technical reasons for changing the protocol
Re:Gaim..?? (Score:2, Interesting)
I was using GAIM on Yahoo just last night - not sure if it's still working today.
Re:Gaim..?? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Gaim..?? (Score:4, Insightful)
A word of advice... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
It's already there, open source, many servers, and intercommunication possible between multiple servers.
And some people have made proxies for jabber-commerical messenger systems communication.
And it works with many, many clients, console-based as well as graphical...
Re:So (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So (Score:4, Interesting)
That by itself is enough to make it the clear leader for corporate use. I set up a server for our office LAN and our IT guy installed Psi on every employee's desktop. Now we have a private, low-latency communication system for passing short messages back and forth in real-time. There hasn't been a single problem with the roll-out; I started the server, spent 20 minutes telling the other employees how to use Psi, and walked away from it.
With any other IM service, we'd have to deal with privacy policies (such as mandatory encryption of all messages) or other hassles. With Jabber, we can freely send sensitive information between employees without worrying about outside snooping. Beyond that, we wrote an notification API for use with our internal applications that allows you to send event notices to selected employees via either email or Jabber. It's nice to get instant notification of system status changes without depending on our Internet connection being available.