On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Ankit Jain wrote: |-------- Original Message -------- |Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [LIH] [KYIM-support] Please Read and Answer !!! |(fwd)] |From: Alexandre Aufrere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Date: Fri, April 5, 2002 7:16 pm |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | |Looks more and more like FUD....
No it's not FUD .. this is reality... MSN has done it once before with AOL/AIM ... and I see absolutely no reason why they won't do it again with Yahoo! or any other IM. |> |i don't see the Jabber protocol inside MSN, in spite the fact Jabber |> is |> |> open, |and widely used in some countries. |> |> Not as popular as Yahoo! is globally... if Jabber were the #1 IM client |> or even #2 or #3 .. M$FT would have surely done something about it! | |Well, AIM should be #1 or #2, especially considering that each AOL user |has automatically access to it, and i don't see AIM TOC protocol inside |MSN. -- From Wired.com --- 1:25 p.m. July 23, 1999 PDT America Online apparently returned fire in the war over messaging clients, blockading Microsoft users from accessing its service. Early Friday, users of Microsoft's new service were unable to access America Online's Instant Messenger (AIM). The portal had blocked access to its AIM servers in an unfortunate move, said Rob Bennett, group product manager for Microsoft's consumer and commerce group. More details here http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,20914,00.html -- From Wired.com --- Microsoft calls the blockade an "unfortunate move" .. if AOL had not done that .. they would probably have lost the battle of the IMs already. Lets face it M$FT is one huge monster that would love to stomp out the competition at any cost. What is the guarantee that M$FT won't do the same once the Yahoo! protocol is made open ??? | Moreover, in France, we have a special situation, because France |Telecom owns partly jabber and the (by far) #1 ISP of the country. So |FT's IM, formerly independant, now based on Jabber, has a very very wide |audience, especially compared to MSN. Well, French MSN doesn't support |Jabber as well. I don't know about this ... for all you the people at Redmond might be working on this!! (This is FUD! ;-) |The truth is that the Chat itself has zero value, what has value is all |the pages u go for more information, and that are mandatory inside a |good Chat Network: Profiles, Mail, Briefcase, Photos, etc. and, for |that, there is always adverts that make Yahoo earn money, and, moreover, |for some of their services, they are charging. Adverts bring hardly any money in... it's a proven fact that frequent users of the internet tend to ignore ads subconsciously .. which is why the old 648x48 (???) pixel ad bars have given way to ads of different shapes/sizes ... and which is why we also have ads that keep moving all over the screen.(yuck!) |Moreover, they can send periodically advert messages thru the IM network, |and charge advertisers for it. we even may add HTML to make it more |"rich"... don't u think it even has more impact than ads displayed on |the messenger itself that nobody reads ? And anyway, we already get |them, that we want it or not. Advertising as a sustainable revenue stream went out of style ages ago... to talk about it in todays scenario is just not worth it. |The power of Instant Messaging in advertising is that, to use it plainly, |u have to fill ur profile (or repeat ur details every time u chat with |someone new, which is annoying, and even it that case, at least the |Country is filled, which has value), and, from that, they can target |their adverts. Targetted adverts are of very high value everywhere in |the world. Ok.. there is a difference of opinion here... I use Instant Messaging a LOT for my work.. I'm an independent consultant.. and IM's are an amazing way for me to connect and communicate with my clients in real time. I haven't done much chatting in over 2 years now ... but if I was chatting up someone and saw a profile that was interesting... I'd rather continue chatting with that person rather than go clicking on some dancing monkey that offers to make me rich!! :-) The same way free for all ad-filled TV has made way for ad-free subscription based TV channels that offer better quality programs/more recent movies etc.. the internet will also move away from the current advertisement driven free model to a paid model which will offer better value for money to the user.(Tough luck for all your free loaders out there.) |<MAYBE_UNFAIR_SARCASM> |It's very disturbing to see marketing guys from a new, internet company, |as yahoo, reasoning like if they were building sewing machines in the |1920's </MAYBE_UNFAIR_SARCASM> The basic laws of business haven't changed!! The ultimate goal is to make money.. and make more money! So unless you can convincingly prove to a company that opening up their propreitary technology will actually be good for them in the long run.. you can't expect them to change. |> some effort going on to provide intercommunication amongst different |> IMs ... once that happens.. you'll be able to use any IM client of your |> choice that |> according to you doesn't Suck. |well, as for IMs, a part of the bandwidth is either paid by u or ur |company, and bandwidth for servers can be paid by such methods i'm |describing before, as bandwith is not the most expensive thing on Earth. Developing and Improving the technology on the back end .. adding/maintaining hardware .. paying people salaries ... and the bandwidth that is consumed... all of that costs money... may not be the most expensive thing on earth ...but it does cost money and someone has to pay for them... if all people accessing Yahoo! servers are actually using an MSN client.. and seeing ads served by the MSN network.. then how is Yahoo! going to get paid ? or if they are using Open Source solutions and doing away with the ads. it still results in the same. (Ofcourse a competitor making $$$ out of your network and equipment is worse than you not making money!) |> While I would love to see the yahoo/icq/$IM protocols being opened > |out... > I don't think it makes business sense for a business that is |offering > the service free to be able to afford to make that choice. |> > Until then it's back to sniffing and reverse engineering for those |> running creating the opensource clones. |i fear u r right, but i don't think this is smart from the guys at |yahoo, | they will be eaten because of that. Internet history prove us that it's |far more easy to loose a market than to win one. And also that every |reasoning based on "at time t, 98% or my users are using software S, so |i should develop only for software S and don't care about the other" is |doomed. Well Yahoo! is creating clients for other platforms too .. and personally I'm happy with the new client.. and it does work on RH7.2 (someone had raised this issue in one of the mails on this thread) | And i wish her really good luck to develop their clients for |every vanilla of Linux, BSD and more largely popular UNIX out there. We |even have problem sometimes compiling on some of those vanillas, and it |can only be fixed because we have access to the source... Yes this is true.. maybe some day soon ... we maybe able to run the official win32 version of yahoo under wine on x86 systems. (the current 5.0 version does run under wine .. but it has some weirdness with widget rendering.) Personally I don't find anything wrong with using commercial/closed source applications if it gets the job done... I would like to use open source software .. but I wouldn't junk something just because it's not opensource. There are people who have such ideological problems or overly paranoid... such people can't be helped... they'll have to help themselves and work at creating the Opensource version. Since the new ymessenger is skinnable .. it is possible for you integrate it with the L&F of your desktop.. the latest release from yahoo is the most functional yahoo messenger I've seen on linux ... but as you said you can't have applets and other features unless then are officially supported by yahoo... you win some .. you lose some ... life goes on! So people get to choose between a feature rich official version .. or an un-official version that gives them what they want. Kingsly _______________________________________________ linux-india-help mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-india-help
