Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet The Almighty Buck IT

Could IM Be The Next Step For Google? 407

Posted by Hemos from the when-it-happens-it-happens dept.
Rob_Warwick writes "Silicon.com has released an article theorizing that Google might be thinking about releasing an Instant Message client. Between a google_im:// protocol embedded in the Google Desktop Search, and their acquisition of Picasa and their IM client this summer, it almost sounds possible."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Could IM Be The Next Step For Google? More

Could IM Be The Next Step For Google?

Comments Filter:

  • More secure than AIM, no fucking way! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:13AM (#10555475)
    And if you are worried about security, Google claims that it's more secure than AOL Instant Messenger," said Nathan Weinberg, who runs the InsideGoogle blog.

    You mean it's more secure than sending and receiving plaintext + HTML? Wow. I'm impressed. Personally I think everyone should be proxying their AIM sessions over encrypted tunnels (especially if you are on a college campus) but I'd be more worried about Google archiving and learning my chat preferences. Soon I'd be getting "spam" to my GMail account based on my most frequently used words.

    Personally, I don't want to log and search my AIM conversations. Most of that is quick chat or non-sense. I see where in corporate environments it would be useful but for MY home use I just don't see the need. YMMV.

    • Re:More secure than AIM, no fucking way! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Bagels ( 676159 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:19AM (#10555528)
      Probably more secure in the encryption sense, so that it's harder to eavesdrop on someone else's IM conversation.
    • Most likely you're going to have adverts showing on some part of the chat window changing as you chat about different things.

      Might be an interesting concept. A friend asks a question and the google im picks it up and posts links to sites.

    • Re:More secure than AIM, no fucking way! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:56AM (#10555816) Homepage Journal
      "Personally, I don't want to log and search my AIM conversations. Most of that is quick chat or non-sense. "
      While true it is also sad. Back when people wrote letters you used to take some time and put thought into it. I have kept some letters from friends that went a way too college or just moved. Look at the book Grumbles from the Grave or the letters that Gallieo's daughter wrote to him the see the value of keeping letters. Even the letters of "normal" people can provide an insite in the times they lived in or to make them more human.
      IM and email has take a lot of that away. It is just to easy to write a quick email or im that friend on the other side of the country. Little thought is put into it and it has the life of a mayfly. It is here and then gone.
      Google may be going the future a great service by keeping those emails. If they keep them for a very long time that is. Who knows? In 50 years we may get a copy of all of a Presidents emails from when he was a teenager. The same with his IM messages.
      Google could become the keepers of history. The new library of Alexandrea.

      • Re:More secure than AIM, no fucking way! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by B1ackDragon ( 543470 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @10:18AM (#10555964)
        While I completely agree in theory, I find that I go back to my logs quite often since I have them. I get a lot of information through IM, and I find myself needing to go back to it later. Sometimes I even IM myself to make notes I know I will want later, but am too lazy to use a frickin post it note.

        As for the human aspect, I also find myself pouring over old IMs from when my girlfriend and I started going out, as if they were old letters. It's neat to see how much those "quick little chats" still mean to me.
        • Ditto that, man. I plugged in an old HDD, to look for some things, which hadn't been accessed in 2+ years. I found conversations with a now-ex girlfriend, some coworkers I haven't seen in forever, etc.

          Maybe I'm a freak, but I don't throw information away. I don't just write "quick" little emails, either.

          However, I can already search my IM logs, email, and other forum output (irc, etc) with a nice tool that has very little to do with google. In fact, some of you might have it as well, try the following

      • Re:More secure than AIM, no fucking way! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dhalka226 ( 559740 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @11:15AM (#10556344)

        IM and email has take a lot of that away. It is just to easy to write a quick email or im that friend on the other side of the country. Little thought is put into it and it has the life of a mayfly. It is here and then gone.

        I'm not entirely sure what I think about this issue, but let me play devil's advocate a little bit.

        You're right in the short sense. If you compare any single IM I send to any single letter I have ever written, the IM message is going to come up short. But then, that's the value of something like IM: It permits instant feedback. With a letter, you would put a lot of thought and time into it because you had to. Once you send that puppy, it might take a week just to get to your recipient, a day or two for them to read and find time to reply, and another week for your response to hit home. In short, there was a two week lag. This obviously means you want to make sure you say everything you've had to say in one pass.

        But I wonder--if instead of looking over a single message or something of IM, if you took the sum of all the messages with somebody for a day or two--would it still seem to come up short? I admit it. I have a lot of really silly IM conversations, just goofing around and being silly with friends, and believe it or not the things that come out in conversations like that often mean more to me than the prepared stuff. All that's true. I don't know about anybody else, but I have also had some extremely deep conversations in IM. I've helped people with girlfriend problems, I've helped friends through depression, helped some younger friends deal with things like having to move and potentially leave their friends behind. Or hell, just listened if they had a bad day and want to do a little complaining. All in real-time.

        The language might not be as flowery, the threads of conversation might not be thought out for days in advance--but I think all the emotion and compassion is there. And it provides a method for discussing things as they happen. Maybe we're being silly one minute and the next they find out something that devastates them--boom, that conversation changes in an instant. Certainly can't do that in a letter.

        In a lot of senses, I prefer IM because it's more personal. In terms of communications, it's the next best thing to being there with the person or maybe getting them on the phone (which isn't always feasible). It's personal, it's friendly, it's a couple of friends shooting the breeze and seeing what topics come up. Unlike letters, where there is usually some pre-planned "motive" (in quotes because I don't want to imply anything sinister) to writing, where the speech is pedantic and formal.

        About the only thing that bothers me about IM in particular and the Internet in general is the writing. I don't think I need to go into any details about that with this crowd. On the other hand, I have friends across the world who, thanks to this medium, I get to talk to every day. If that means putting up with a few Internet-isms, I consider it a small price.

        After all, the purpose of IM and email and writing letters are all the same: to allow people to communicate. I'm not sure it ultimately matters on what "intellectual level" we're communicating on so long as the writer and the recipient understand the message and the meaning behind it.

        And I've really gone on a ramble without much of a point. Sorry. Just kind of dropping my thoughts on "paper" and seeing where it leads.

  • Right.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ltbarcly ( 398259 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:15AM (#10555493)
    Right after they release their web browser.

  • Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mrn121 ( 673604 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:15AM (#10555500) Homepage
    I have grown so tired of the AOL IM client (for a multitude of obvious reasons, not the least of which is excessive bloating), but I find myself stuck with AIM because *everyone* is using it.

    I would love to see a google solution. Google could take over the world for all I care right now. They keep kicking out quality products, and I keep on eating them up. kudos, GOOG.

    • Gaim (Score:5, Informative)

      by SeanDuggan ( 732224 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:19AM (#10555531) Homepage Journal
      Try using GAIM [sourceforge.net]. It's a chat client that allows you to use a variety of protocols, including AIM. No ads, no bloat, and if you have multiple messenger services, it can cut the number of extraneous icons in your taskbar. Only drawback IMO is the lack of video and sound options and the occasional interruption of service when one of the messenger services decides to get clever with their protocol. However, Gaim tends to catch up within about 24 hours on the latter case.

      • Re:Gaim (Score:5, Informative)

        by BaldGhoti ( 265981 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:35AM (#10555640) Homepage
        I'm sorry, but I've been using gaim exclusively for about five months and I just dropped it today due to its general poor performance on my ancient 450mHz machines. Yeah, I know, you aren't surprised that they're slow. But guess what? MirandaIM [miranda-im.org] runs MUCH more smoothly. I just started using it today, so I haven't found any annoyances with it yet, but boy is it smooth.

        • Re:Gaim (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Dalroth ( 85450 )
          Gaim would be decent if it wasn't so horribly buggy. Gaim crashes at least once per day on me, and it really took a dump when my friend tried to send me some graphical images he put up.

      • Re:Gaim (Score:3, Funny)

        by jav1231 ( 539129 )
        Gaim, on Linux anyway, also logs your conversations. this is nice if you have kids. I can go into their .gaim directory and grep for dirty words!

        • Chat logging (Score:3, Informative)

          by SeanDuggan ( 732224 )
          Most useful to me is that it logs all 4 services that I use in one easy-to-read-and-search HTML format. The propietary formats for searching mean that you often have to fire up the messenging client (and quickly set your status to offline if you don't want random friends pouncing you) and use their interface. And if versions change, you may lose that history.

          Also useful from a legal viewpoint is that Gaim by default logs all conversations. There was some ruling several months ago that IM chat logging coul

    • Re:Awesome (Score:3, Informative)

      by XryanX ( 775412 )
      Have you tried some of the other clients, such as Trillian or gAIM? Perhaps you would like those better.

      *Disclaimer*
      Before anyone jumps on me for not mentioning Kopete, he was talking about the AIM client, and no Linux user in their right mind would use the Linux port of AIM's client.

    • Re:Awesome (Score:2, Informative)

      by Chrax ( 782154 )
      I would suggest jabber. You can sign up for/access it from gaim [sourceforge.net] and you can choose a server with AIM/MSN/Yahoo compatability so you're not stuck with an AIM and Jabber client.
    • GOOG

      Speaking of that, I found it amusing they chose 4664 as the port Google Desktop Search listens to locally. :-) (look at the number upside-down)

    • Re:Awesome (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dragoon412 ( 648209 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:48AM (#10555744)
      You may want to look into Miranda [miranda-im.org]. It's a GPLed, light-weight, multi-network IM client that's much less of an eyesore than GAIM, and with the rather large number of plugins, is as flexible as you want it to be.

      Think of it like Trillian's smaller, sleeker cousin.

  • Don't forget gmail notification (Score:5, Interesting)

    by John3 ( 85454 ) <john3NO@SPAMcornells.com> on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:16AM (#10555508) Homepage Journal
    Google has also recently added a gmail email notification client that sits in the tray and notifies you when new gmail messages are received. Quoting from their description of the program:

    "The Gmail Notifier is a downloadable Windows application that alerts you when you have new Gmail messages. It displays an icon in your system tray to let you know if you have unread Gmail messages, and shows you their subjects, senders and snippets, all without your having to open a web browser."

    Sure sounds like a potential IM client.

    • Re:Don't forget gmail notification (Score:4, Informative)

      by blackicye ( 760472 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:29AM (#10555597)
      I tried out the Gmail notifier for two weeks, then uninstalled it.

      Aside from it having some minor issues (popup requesting confirmation of email login and address every reboot not always being able to connect and check you messages, among other things)

      It has a 7+ MB memory footprint for its process.
      • The memory footprint is for all the hidden IM code they're testing. :-)
      • I don't personally see the need for such a thing anyways. I've gmail open in a tab and when I get a mail, the title changes to indicate this. Also, non-critical mail, such as mailing lists and stuff goes directly to a label without hitting the inbox, so no false alerts there.

        I have my browser up often, often, so it works fine for me. Not to mention it works equally well on linux. For me, who use both win and lin often, I like common things to be similar. :) That is why I'm extra sad SIM [sourceforge.net] seems to have stopp

  • One day... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheGatekeeper ( 309483 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:19AM (#10555532)
    With Google branching into so many fields, one day you'll drive your Google to the Goggle to buy some Goggle to eat while you watch Google on your Google.

    I'm serious. Please do not mod funny.

  • Isn't that a bit cautious? :-) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:20AM (#10555537) Journal
    Between a google_im:// protocol embedded in the Google Desktop Search, and their acquisition of Picasa and their IM client this summer, it almost sounds possible.

    How about -- soon to be a reality? :-)

    Hmmm... I hope they'll go for Jabber. IMHO, the world doesn't need yet another IM protocol. Actually, I don't think we need yet another IM client either, but that's just me. Who knows what innovative features Google might come up with. I have a hard time imagining the next generation for IM clients myself. Any ideas? :-/

    Hmm, maybe a shared virtual storage among a group of invited IM buddies. Have no idea if someone already did this though. And I think they'd need to stay free even while coughing up with the hard drives to accomplish this if they'd want any kind of user base. Hmm...

    • Re:Isn't that a bit cautious? :-) (Score:4, Informative)

      by MKalus ( 72765 ) <mkalus@@@gmail...com> on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:28AM (#10555590) Homepage
      iChat IMO is pretty much what one wants in an IM client, and I tried both Audio & Video conferencing with them to places around the world and I have to say I am very very impressed by it.

      In essence, if google really creates it's own client, it will most likely use an established protocol, and AIM would almost certainly be the logic consequence.

      Now let's hope that iChat starts to support other IM Protocols soon.... They already allow for it in the addressbook.
    • Knowing Google, they will probably introduce some nifty features in an IM-client that will put them ahead of the ones allready out there.

      Gmail was the first to come with 1 GB storage, the other free e-mail providers had to rush to catch up, and gmail is not even out of beta yet! Still, the day everybody can sign up for a gmail account, I consider a few of the existing big email networks history. First of all: hotmail, who do not seem to have made any moves to comply themselves with the new standards in fre

    • Maybe they're cautious cuz they read the article (Score:5, Informative)

      by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:40AM (#10555679) Homepage
      And saw this part at the end:

      A Google representative said the protocol flagged by Smith does not hint at a pending Google IM product; rather, it is merely a component used to capture IM data from AOL Instant Messenger and make it searchable on the desktop.

  • IM market too crowded (Score:5, Interesting)

    by __aaitqo8496 ( 231556 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:22AM (#10555548) Journal
    I can't possibly imagie them trying to take over a large portion of the IM market. It's already quite crowded as it is (AIM, MSN, Y!, ICQ, Jabber, etc.)

    What I can see them doing is making a universal IM client with the addition of a GIM protocol or maybe GIM-only features that might sit on top of other clients (who knows?).

    Although it is also interesting that Google has implemented AIM log searching into thier desktop search, it doesn't mean they'll be extending this to a GIM service; that also is to say that just because the desktop search looks through IE history, doesn't neccessarily mean they'll be make a GBrowser.
    • "I can't possibly imagie them trying to take over a large portion of the IM market. It's already quite crowded as it is (AIM, MSN, Y!, ICQ, Jabber, etc.)"

      That's probably what people said about the free webmail market when gmail was coming out. Google knows how to provide value in slick, fast, low-bloat products that do one thing and do it well. That's why gmail is the best free webmail there is. And that's why, if google did decide to jump into the IM market, their product would be a real contender.

      • Re:IM market too crowded (Score:4, Insightful)

        by __aaitqo8496 ( 231556 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:43AM (#10555705) Journal
        "That's probably what people said about the free webmail market when gmail was coming out."

        Yes, however all email is inter-operable. You can send email from whysanity@gmail.com to whysanity@slashdot.org and it works.

        IM is a completly different beast: AIM doesn't talk to MSN doesn't talk to Y! doesn't talk to ICQ. There is no single standard that allows whysanity@aim to send messages to whysanity@gim. This is why I find it hard to believe they would create a unique service without making it interoperable with others (or at least single client like gaim).
        • That was my thought exactly when I first read this. Oh no, not ANOTHER one! Its bad enough I have to run trillian just to talk to everyone because there is no standard. I refuse to have 4 IM clients installed on one machine. 5 would just be obsurd. It would really be nice if this were a cross-platform type solution for all of the clients where you could have a google IM ID that could talk to any other IM service & vice-versa. Otherwise I'll only get it if co-workers and customers get on it and I h
        • There is no single standard that allows whysanity@aim to send messages to whysanity@gim


          Yes there is. It's called Jabber. That's why Google would be smart to push Jabber if they did start an IM service.

  • Google jumping out! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by manmanic ( 662850 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:23AM (#10555557)
    Seems like Google are moving away from static browse-only-when-you-want-to information provision to dynamic, in-your-face services. Just some examples: email [google.com], alerts [google.com] (like this third party [googlealert.com]) and SMS [google.com]. In all cases, Google are getting a more dynamic relationship with their customers - giving more and (as they no doubt hope) advertising more in return.

  • Slashdot Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Malicious ( 567158 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:23AM (#10555558)
    Between software, browsers, and now IM clients, sometimes I wonder if the Slashdot editors actually believe that Google will make these peices of software, or if they're just trying to bait Google into registering a bunch of un-needed domains.

  • Oh great... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So now my wife can search my IM records to find conversations with my girlfr...oh wait, this is slashdot. Yay google!

  • The invasion is underway.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:26AM (#10555571) Homepage Journal
    From what google is today , I would like to throw your collective memories back into the early eighties.

    I was a toddler with drool down my face... but I've done my homework . Remember when Microsoft was the underdog fighting the "Not Invented Here" IBM's stranglehold on the computer industry (I don't see any DEC clones here).

    We're back to another underdog fighting a monopoly ... at least this time , make sure we don't end up with *another* monopoly on the internet.

    For a company whose motto is "do no evil", this move doesn't fit into the picture. But for a potential juggernaut ready to steamroll the Redmond Giant, this looks like the IDEAL move. Makes perfect business sense too - but google was never about Money - or that's the submlinal message that makes the geek community google fans.

    Be afraid, be very very afraid ..

    • Re:The invasion is underway.... (Score:4, Funny)

      by ValuJet ( 587148 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:37AM (#10555659)
      For a company whose motto is "do no evil", this move doesn't fit into the picture.

      I couldn't agree more. Obviously creating this IM client (wow, who'd a thunk it) is a horribly evil move. How dare they offer up an IM client that you can or cannot decide to use. It is truely evil.

    • make sure we don't end up with *another* monopoly on the internet.

      Are you saying there can be more than one? ;-)
    • Microsoft was created by IBM and turned on it's master. The same could be said for Intel. Even though IBM was totally taken in by BillCo, IBM truly dropped the ball when the windows wars began in the late 80's. We still refer to PC's as IBM compatible even though they are Intel compatible. IBM thought that they could just make money off hardware, and when the PC junior failed they pulled back on both hardware and software. Bad move.
    • Should they cease to compete with anyone, since that would be "evil"??

      Come on, more competition is a good thing. More players yields more choice, lower price, etc. etc. If google wants to go into the IM business to compete with MS, more power to them! Everyone wins in the end with better products.

    • Re:The invasion is underway.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by feidaykin ( 158035 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @10:40AM (#10556120) Journal
      I knew someone was going to compare Google to Microsoft at some point. Here's the huge difference: People always hated Microsoft! Somewhere the notion developed that Microsoft started out as a great little company and turned evil, or that everyone used to love them "back in the day" but now hates them. Both of these are false. Microsoft started out by charging money for what others were willing to give away for free (BASIC for example) and they were always hated for it. There was never a period in Microsoft's history where they were even remotely as revered as Google is today. Google has enriched the world, while Microsoft has a long history of using the world to make the company richer, from day one.

  • At what point... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bje2 ( 533276 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:26AM (#10555574)
    first off, i'm a huge Google fan and user, and have been for years, before it was even popular...but...

    just to play devil's advocate...at what point do you start making monopolistic comparisons between Google and Microsoft...they already have the largest market share in Web Searches...they've brnached out into e-mail and now desktop searches...they are probably gonna move in on instant messaging and likely the browser wars...and yet, absolutley no criticism what-so-ever about how they could possibly become some sort of internet monopoly...are they justing benefiting from the fact that (thus far) their products are free?...or is everyone just happy that the aren't microsoft...?

    • Re:At what point... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bgat ( 123664 )
      You can't. Google doesn't restrict access to the Internet a'la MSFT (Passport, avi, IE, etc.), they just provide a better destination for products and services than Redmond.

      You can't be a monopoly if your customers are entirely free to go somewhere else.

    • Re:At what point... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by chrisbro ( 207935 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:44AM (#10555711)
      IIRC, monopolies in and of themselves are not bad. Practices that strongarm other companies out of competing with them are the things you should look out for. Monopolies can exist because their product is superior to everyone else's. As long as they don't start pulling Microsoft bullying tactics on everyone else, I think we're ok.

      It's called capitalism, and it ain't necessarily a bad thing.
    • But aren't they (mostly) just following the same path as Yahoo!? Start with a search engine, and start adding other services people want. I mean, people were probably worried about Yahoo! becoming an internet monopoly a few years ago.

      Google showed up with a better search engine, and is adding new services with that as a good foundation. But what's to stop somebody else from doing the same to Google? If Google doesn't continue to provide the best product, somebody will replace them. So if they stay on

    • Monopoly (Score:2)

      by mcc ( 14761 )
      "Monopoly" doesn't just mean a company is really big. It also, despite what Microsoft would like to convince you of, doesn't just mean the company has no competitors. It has to do with whether the company has the capacity to wield their market power as a weapon to quash or prevent competition, and the company's ability to retain customers against those customers' will and best interest. In short it isn't about the company's size in a market, it's about a company's level of control over a market.

      Google is l
    • What if Google started charging $0.001 per search? I'd probably pay it, but grumble anyway.

      People like Google because:
      * Free [everyone]
      * Well-designed GUI (especially for gmail) [normal people]
      * Isn't Evil [mostly geeks]

      I'd be very interesting to see how google evolves over the next 5-10 years...

    • comparisons (Score:3, Insightful)

      by guet ( 525509 )
      At the point where they attempt to 'cut off the oxygen supply' of competitors, using any means necessary.

      At the point where they take over and then strangle whole markets, just to maintain their dominance in others. (Internet explorer versus Mozilla being the perfect example, promoted heavily for free, then dropped when dominance was established). Watch out for an attempt at more of the same with XAML.

      At the point where they attempt to force partners to sign exclusive and secret contracts locking out com
  • Does anyone else have this spooky feeling about all of this? I like Google, I like Gmail, but I'm beginning to become disturbed not by the downside of Google's products, but rather by their lack of a downside. The big G is well on its way to controlling a significant percentage of the internet. Economics might have predicted something like this, but it still strikes me as ominous.

    Then again, it could be because I have the soundtrack to John Carpenter's The Thing playing in the background. Hmmm...

  • One has to wonder (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jakhel ( 808204 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:28AM (#10555585)
    did we indeed create a monster? Look at the evelolution

    -search engine
    -search engine/mail service
    -search engine/mail service/file searching system
    -search engine/mail service/file searching system/possible OS/IM Client

    Granted that yes this is the same route yahoo took (only yahoo doesn't have a file searching system and possible OS on it's development list), but google seems to be taking this to the next level. If google continues to grow and adds more Gfunctions to their already large collection, will it eventually become as large and distrusted (possibly even hated as far as /. is concerned) as microsoft? I mean, do you really welcome your new Goverlords?

    I could just be overreacting.

  • interoperability, google (Score:5, Insightful)

    by majid_aldo ( 812530 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:28AM (#10555587)
    as long as they play nice and get past the legal hurdles; interoperability is key.
    no, not like trillian.

  • Still now linux support.. anywhere (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cybrthng ( 22291 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:35AM (#10555641) Homepage Journal
    Well, there may be hacks.. but for a TECH company with BILLIONS in the bank - why - oh why - is there no forward momentum, develop and thinking in regards to capitalizing on the linux market?

    Sure the protocol will probable be hacked into gaim or kopete, but thats not enough.

    The web is supposed to be platform independant - introduce cross platform tools google! Please!!!

  • XMPP? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DrMorris ( 156226 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:35AM (#10555647)
    I would be really happy if a big company as Google would establish a standardized IM. By "standardized" I mean that they should use an open and well documented protocol, such as XMPP (aka "Jabber", see RFC 3920-3923).
  • As long as I can search other people's conversations, I don't see the problem with Google IM. Should make for some entertaining reading. ;^)

  • Hmm. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:37AM (#10555661) Homepage
    Everything Google has done so far has been things where the level of consumer lock-in has been relatively low. Search and news services, all that it takes to switch products is to go to a different URL. Email requires a bit more work to change but people do change their email address from time to time. Googlebar and the hard drive search, well, all that takes is installing a little program.

    IM though is drastically different because you don't use IM to communicate, you use IM to communicate with people you already know. Does anyone really think AIM is the best IM client? I doubt it, but AIM is what is popular because AIM lets you talk to the people you already know. The degree of lock-in for IM is immense. So launching a new IM client wouldn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. People have been making IM clients for years and years now and "alternative" IM clients have never generally seemed to get anywhere unless, like, Trillian, they can support a lot of different IM networks in one app; doing this is a lot of thankless work for not much payback. Unless you're Microsoft and you have to own everything, exactly what does "wow, people are using an IM app with my logo on it instead of an IM app with those other people's logo on it" gain you?

    Maybe it would make sense if gmail added some YG-like or IM-like (or both) features between people with gmail accounts. Maybe it would make sense if gmail added some kind of small proxy so that people logged in to gmail could send and receive messages from AIM. But I think some of these googlewatchers just periodically attribute every possible software product under the sun to being part of Google's plans. So far we've had Google planning to make an operating system, a browser, and I've even heard the IM client rumor before. So far Google's new products have consistently been a bit more subtle and surprising than that.

  • somewhat OT, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:38AM (#10555669)
    I discovered something interesting about Gmail.

    I filled out a customer feedback form for a major car manufacturer, and gave my Gmail address as a reply destination.

    While clicking the submit button, I noticed that I forgot to put the "." between my first and last name, my address being Firstname.Lastname@gmail.com.

    I thought oh well, they're probably not going to reply to me anyway.

    The next day I was surprised to see a reply by them in my Gmail inbox!

    Makes me wonder how many typos Gmail can tolerate and still forward you the email...
  • I think they could really pull it off. If they make their IM client as easy as user-friendly and reliable as their email client with some nifty new features it could draw a lot of people from AIM. I know I was drawn from hotmail along with my entire family and almost all of my friends. If they give enough reasons to switch, people won't complain about the hassle associated with it.

  • Coffepots? Caribbean Cruises? Teleportation? (Score:3, Funny)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:47AM (#10555739) Homepage Journal
    Honestly every week we hear another thing that Google is going to do.

  • Do we really need another? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LinuxHam ( 52232 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:49AM (#10555757) Homepage Journal
    Wouldn't it be much easier and more cost effective if they would just announce "hey gmail users, now your id & pwd work on our Jabber IM server!" It would instantly become the most popular Jabber server on the net, and the only effort would be in creating a cluster resilient enough to handle the onslaught, something they seem to be "pretty good" at. Wasn't that one of the original design goals of Jabber? So people could reuse their email addresses as IM uids, and service providers can host their own IM servers?

    Finally, for everyone pushing Gaim, don't forget to mention Gaim-encryption [sf.net] to go along with it. It staples SSL and its own key management over top of any protocol Gaim supports. No SSL proxies or shyte like that. The chats are encrypted the entire path, client-to-client.

  • Could get other Jabber client motivated (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Phantasmo ( 586700 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:51AM (#10555782)
    This could have some real potential. They could introduce XMPP server-side history (searchable through GMail and Google Desktop), and server-to-server SSL, and avatars, and Ogg Speex voice chat... *drool*

    There is a lot of cool stuff in Jabber that most client authors aren't bothering with, usually because the really interesting stuff is a moving target. Maybe if Google came in and threw its weight around we can make some real progress and catch up to AIM, MSN, Y!, etc.

  • Hello (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dJOEK ( 66178 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:57AM (#10555828)
    Did any of you people actually take a look at Hello [hello.com]? (the IM they acquired)

    the main focus of this thing is photo sharing. Granted, it does so encrypted, which is a Good Thing, but doesn't that seem a bit ... unflexible? there are probably better IM solutions, with more possibilities and a wider range of features (no, i won't say Jabber .. don't make me ... NO i said!!!)

    And where is the 'Search' focus of Google?

    we've had searchable mail, Searchable desktop, ...
    I'd hate it if people contacted me based on what they found in archived chatlogs of me.

    Google's inching closer to a real Privacy-Soul-Sucking-Search!
    remember 'the ads are generated by software?'

  • Just what we need, *another* IM protocol (Score:3)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @10:07AM (#10555897) Homepage Journal
    Instead of creating yet another protocol, why not just use something like jabber.. Or joining forces with AOL, or Yahoo or even Microsoft..

    We have enough protocols in use now, we really dont need another to muddy up the waters even more.

  • Don't be Evil... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ediron2 ( 246908 ) * on Monday October 18, 2004 @11:22AM (#10556406) Journal
    Since google's (ahem) prime directive is to not be evil, an IM client provides a fascinating glimpse into whether that directive can survive (has survived) their IPO:
    1. If google chooses to use an existing protocol, or creates a well-engineered protocol and publishes it widely for non-google developers, we can guess that they're sticking to their rule.
    2. If, on the other hand, they act like Microsoft, AOL, and others, so much for 'Don't Be Evil.'

    A proprietary protocol has profit advantages over shared ones, in the short term. However, a large company putting their weight behind such a protocol isn't a guarantee of success, given MSN and AOL and Yahoo and other well-established chat providers. Taken another way, publishing the protocol and finding some other way to profit (relevant ads, increased market share for other profitable products, etc) would be a way to gain share rapidly. So, there could be other reasons than 'don't be evil' in favor of choice #1 above. But the only motive for guarding a protocol (choice #2) would be putting profit ahead of the customer's interests.

    Incidentally, I still think google pretty much is breaking down. One out of ten searches I do gets dominated by astroturfed commercial sites with nothing relevant. Try finding an impartial web-hosting review site, for example. A competitor could eat google's lunch simply by allowing trusted reviewers to flag any site that seems too high on the list. If it is there improperly (by creating whole hierarchies of interlinked websites), prune it and any egregious peers. Get us back to where the top link is nearly always useful.

  • Huh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by srcosmo ( 73503 ) <ultramegatronNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 18, 2004 @01:16PM (#10557389) Journal
    Interesting that we only ever find out about Google's latest schemes when someone discoveres a domain name registered to them, reference to a protocol embedded somewhere, or something similarly obscure...

    They seem to enjoy springing stuff on people from nowhere.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close