Has anybody noticed the distinct mess that IM is in? Why is the world of IM comprised of countless different networks, clients and functions?? There's a few RFCs around for standardised IM and I'm yet to understand why there is no official or de facto standard which everybody adheres to.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2778.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2779.txt


Could you imagine what would have happened if 'email' consisted of dozens of different email protocols and networks as opposed to what we use today?

I firmly believe there should be an official, world-wide standard which is not owned or run by any particular entity. I believe that the quality of a given client should dictate whether or not you use it, not simply because of the network attached to it. Everyone I know uses ICQ - mostly because it was one of if not THE original IM solution. These days there's god knows how many variations floating around and IM could become so much more useful than it is now (eg sending a message natively from a PC to a mobile phone or to any other internet-connected device!).

I don't like MSN and I don't like any of the other crappy clients around. I pine for the days of old whereby standards actually had a place and were respected by technology companies. I guess Microsoft can be held quite responsible for the way the computer world is today. Look at web browsers - what a mess. I use firefox, which as I understand it, is fully W3C compliant... yet there's still a large number of pages I can't view with it because they've been designed to follow microsoft 'standards'.

Everyone I know uses ICQ - mostly because it was one of if not THE original IM solution.

Purist.

Could you imagine what would have happened if 'email' consisted of dozens of different email protocols and networks as opposed to what we use today?

POP/3, IMAP, PGP, HTTP, MS Exchange, SMTP, AMTP, + SSL mods of these...

Sure it gets messy managing all these sometimes; if all of these are what you really need to get whatever needs doing done.

Can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have so many choices?

if you want standards based IM then use jabber. if you couldn't find jabber then you must be inept hunter

I am already very much aware of Jabber, hast... I've been following it for a while and it doesn't appear to have made a hell of a lot of difference... MSN is still widespread as is AIM, ICQ etc etc etc etc

blah blah blah...

apple is going to put jabber in their next version of iChat

jabber is a very cheap solution for messaging in the workplace

so that is where it is likely to take up market share

also i think iChat has always used jabber for rendezvous messaging



last edited by hast at 22:32:29 30/Oct/04

hast, I thought apple developed rendezvous themselves. I'll check out the copyright information when I go downstairs to my mac later on for you.

Could you imagine what would have happened if 'email' consisted of dozens of different email protocols and networks as opposed to what we use today?

That's exactly how it used to be. There were plenty of large online networks and they were seperate. After a while they all either completely merged with the Internet or provided significant connectivity to it for email.

IM will merge. But right now, there's no benefit to the big players. Maybe Skype's the answer.

yeah, its a bit confusing

i think rendezvous is the protocol they use to find computers and services on the network

and iChat over rendezvous is basically jabber over rendezvous

who really cares? If you had one standard what would it achieve? You could still have msn/icq/aim etc all running their own seperate networks, even if the program you used to access them was the same. It'd just be like IRC only more personal with personalised lists instead of just a bunch of people hanging out in a channel on an IRC server.

propietary protocols (ie MSN, AIM)... unfortunatley the bigger tech companies have the money to push them and have them widley accepted.

And yes, the same companies can release kludgy software and have it not comply with standards. but because the company is so big that they can get people to use it.

You will see a push for standards on more and more websites, especially since mozilla is picking up pace with their browsers.

As for a standardised IM protocols... you dont wonder why they created the RFCs'? to deal with this problem?



last edited by Andrew at 22:48:58 30/Oct/04

Just quickly skim through those rfcs and it looks like most of the requirements are met by the majority of IM protocols and clients.

Purist.

return key to go to a new line, ctrl-return to send the message.

last edited by scuzzy at 23:23:34 30/Oct/04

mostly because it was one of if not THE original IM solution

If you want to be hardcore, Talk or even Write is THE original IM solution. If you want to consider multi-network, then IRC really is starting point of it all.

Although my housemate just reminded me that write was able to write to other networks.

ICQ is pretty broken these days.

Although my housemate just reminded me that write was able to write to other networks.

So could talk :)

How about you just pick up the phone for christs sake.

If you want to be hardcore, Talk or even Write is THE original IM solution. If you want to consider multi-network, then IRC really is starting point of it all.

Although my housemate just reminded me that write was able to write to other networks.

ICQ is pretty broken these days.

IRC is a force unto itself... technically speaking you could say its instant messaging, which it is BUT its not instant messaging in the way you or I think it is. IRC is great but its pretty naf. Joining an IRC server is probably one of the greatest security risks ever. If you're a hosting company or whatever, I guess one of the easiest ways to make yourself a target would be to host an IRC server which then becomes home to skiddies who spend 90% of their time engaged in "wars" over imaginary girlfriends. :rolleyes: (we really need this feature, trog!)

I'm sure that there has been many many different methods of IM developed over the 34 years of the internet but none has achieved the status of say email. Can I go into ICQ and send a message to Bob's address on another network? No, at this juncture, I cannot do that.

Email offers users the ability to use any client they want (within reason) and they don't have to worry about whether or not they're on the same ISP as Bob or even the same operating system. All they need to know is that that single address will almost certainly guarantee that Bob will get the message. Programs like Trillian are great in concept but aren't a proper solution - they're a bandaid fix.

Apples & Oranges anyone?

Email offers users the ability to use any client they want (within reason) and they don't have to worry about whether or not they're on the same ISP as Bob or even the same operating system. All they need to know is that that single address will almost certainly guarantee that Bob will get the message. Programs like Trillian are great in concept but aren't a proper solution - they're a bandaid fix.

The difference is that with IM clients you have multiple contact points for your address book. Just like real life, with land lines, mobile phones, email, snail mail, work number, work address … f*** the list goes on.

I mean what you are essentially saying is “wouldn’t it be cool if anybody who wanted to contact me just press the ADAM button and they magically got in contact with me?” and the answer is no, not really.

The counter for this argument is something like “but I can still phone your land line on my mobile”, which is true. But that is simply a device that lives on multiple networks at once.

The second thing is that if everybody was to magically transform to some amazing standard and we would have one IM address to rule us all, it would have to be the most perfect software engineering feat of all time. I mean look at the s*** heap that E-Mail is in the current world, and look at how hard it is to force server-side changes though that could help spamming.

Now look at IM and imagine how you change a potentially unlimited number of services, who are all run by different people, after you find a bug or exploit? I am sure in magic land with fairies and elves everybody updates at the same time, but it just doesn’t happen.

The second thing is that if everybody was to magically transform to some amazing standard and we would have one IM address to rule us all, it would have to be the most perfect software engineering feat of all time. I mean look at the s*** heap that E-Mail is in the current world, and look at how hard it is to force server-side changes though that could help spamming.

The problem with email is not that the concept is flawed, rather the implementation is. Email was designed in a time when not much thought was given to the fact that somebody who is less than scrupulous would exploit it for their own ends. Email was borne out of idealistic research labs by idealistic researchers. In the real world, the standards would be constructed in a manner that would place great emphasis on security and integrity.

The same applies basically to the internet - it too was created without too much regard for what might happen if somebody decided to exploit it for their own ends.

last edited by sikgem at 14:00:18 31/Oct/04

return key to go to a new line, ctrl-return to send the message.

alt-s

why cry? everyone i know uses msn, icq is old hat annoying slot crap.

what is this? IM gestapo

I use both, i'm a facilitator.

you're definitely a tool of some kind

Unfortunately in these daya, using the same network would then create more susceptibility to spim (IM spam). While it would be great to be able to chat to everyone on ICQ, AIM, MSN etc, it's not the best idea.

The idea of Trillian/Miranda is possibly the way of the future, not a bandaid fix. One program with whhich you can control all protocols, much like email (Thunderbird, Incredimail). Using a program with full oversight of all the function of each protocol, more control can be obtained and therein lies the battle for competition which drives the IT industry; the program level, not the protocol level.

denny made a funny.

The problem with email is not that the concept is flawed, rather the implementation is.

Actually you have stepped on the real problem. E-Mail was never designed to do what we do with it today. It needs a re-write of massive proportions.

The idea of Trillian/Miranda is possibly the way of the future, not a bandaid fix. One program with whhich you can control all protocols, much like email (Thunderbird, Incredimail). Using a program with full oversight of all the function of each protocol, more control can be obtained and therein lies the battle for competition which drives the IT industry; the program level, not the protocol level.

I think client side applications is probably the simpler (politically simple that is) of the answers. Without going into hunters magic land; the most likely fix for the future was where the Servers understand different protocols and just let you connect to them and talk to whoever. EG if you wanted to talk to dickwad@hotmail.com and you where at 123456789 on ICQ, it wouldn’t give a f*** and just process the message

Of course that is likely as hunter becoming prime minister.

Anyway to wrap all of this up: One IM client to rule us all isn’t going to happen soon. The current technology is in place and functional.

How do you explain to the mundane that their IM client is critically flawed? How do you force people out of their safe place and download a new client that acts and feels different to before?

People don’t like having to learn new things, even more so when they don’t see much of a benefit to doing so.

The real question is, would a new system be better for all users? Sure having a new system engineered would solve a bunch of issues both engineering and CHI wise, but does that mean the new problems, flaws and bugs be worth it?