At a June meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force, AOL, the industry heavyweight, submitted a proposal for open instant messaging (IM) standards.
AOL's proposal said in part, "We are reaffirming our consistent commitment to interoperability with the release of our proposed architectural design for a worldwide instant messaging system -- the kind of full interoperability that we all would like to see."
Vijay Saraswat, co-chairman of the IETF working group on Instant Messaging Presence Protocol, called it "a very good first step."
Although AOL cautioned that it had "resisted efforts by our competitors to impose a 'quick fix' system that would jeopardize our members' privacy and security," the company showed it was at least present at the game, if not actually playing ball.
In June, it looked like AOL was cooperating. It had taken "a very good first step."
|
Related Articles: The Jabber Jihad: Universal Instant Messaging 
 |
They why did the CEO of iCAST go before the House Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications on Oct. 6 to complain about AOL dragging its feet?
Only recently did people start paying attention to IM. Many thought it was a device used primarily by teenagers on AOL. But according to freeim.org, an industry lobbying group, IM is the fastest growing communications function on the Internet, with more than 130 million users worldwide, and more than 3 million signing up every month. "Over 1 billion instant messages are sent every day, far more than the entire mail volume of the U.S. Postal Service," the site says.
"Over 1 billion instant messages are sent every day, far more than the entire mail volume of the U.S. Postal Service." |
Up until recently, IM has essentially meant AOL. AOL built the success of AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) from scratch, first as a part of the online service, then on the Web for free download, and finally by licensing it to Lotus, Lycos, Earthlink, and other ISPs. The result is that non-AOL subscribers chat with AOL members and each other (but not to anyone outside the AOL realm).
In 1998 AOL acquired ICQ, an Israeli company that was almost as big as AIM, if not bigger. Recent figures have AIM at 65 million screen names and ICQ at 73 million downloads. AOL's closest competitor, Microsoft, had 18 million IM users as of July.
IM has always been free on the Web; as a result, it didn't seem important. But it's poised to soon go into two big markets -- wireless and to the enterprise. That, and the fact that AOL has over 90 percent of the market and isn't bending over backwards to make its service interoperable, has a lot of people concerned that the next big thing on the Internet will be closed, not open.
Instead, it will be controlled by AOL, a big company on the verge of becoming significantly bigger when it merges with Time Warner.
The "facts clearly demonstrate AOL's desire to maintain its wall around the [instant messaging] market for as long as it can," said Margaret Heffernan, president and chief executive officer of iCAST, which offers a competing service.
"The facts also demonstrate that it is in the public interest that that wall be removed as soon as possible," Heffernan said in testimony prepared for a hearing in early October before the House Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications.
Heffernan and others crying foul is hardly new in the IM world. Over the past year iCAST and other companies, including Prodigy, AT&T, Tribal Voice, and Odigo, have all tried to let their messaging services work with AOL.
The companies were attempting to exploit a protocol that AOL made public, but AOL repeatedly blocked their efforts, saying that the moves undermine the security and privacy of its members. Microsoft even attempted to make its MSN Chat work with AOL, though it too later pulled back in favor of trying to win the battle by slinging mud instead of code.
Microsoft even attempted to make its MSN Chat work with AOL, though it too later pulled back in favor of trying to win the battle by slinging mud instead of code. |
But that same group of companies, including Microsoft (as well as Excite@Home, Phone.com, and Yahoo) has formed IMUnified, a coalition of companies to develop interoperability between the various companies' messaging services.
(In case you're not fully attuned to the irony of this, AOL's position in the market is so dominant that Microsoft has been reduced to
Has Microsoft completely forgotten about its fierce efforts to protect Windows? For that matter, has AOL completely ignored the fact that by keeping IM proprietary, it only succeeds in "protecting" its users from free and open communications with the rest of the people on the Internet?)
As IMUnified says on its web page, "You can pick up any telephone and call anybody in the world, no matter who your phone service provider is. And you can e-mail anyone, no matter which e-mail application you use. But you can't send or receive instant messages to anybody, anywhere, because instant messaging is not yet fully interoperable."
Since messaging services don't interoperate, IMUnified argues that this creates "islands" of users within the Internet, and that will stifle new messaging products.
Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Microsoft and the rest of the IMUnified gang, until AOL decided to open its doors, there seemed to be no permanent solution.
Next: Look Ma, interoperability!
|
AOL has been unruffled by the complaints and attempted hacks, although it has said that it plans to make AIM interoperable within a year -- but first it must tackle the technological challenges of ensuring member security and privacy.
Like any market leader, AOL has no incentive to interoperate or develop standards, as that will only erode its position. |
Then in late September, America Online ran a "test" that let people using its ICQ IM product connect to their accounts via AOL Instant Messenger. During the test, people could enter their ICQ usernames and passwords into AIM and send messages through the service. ICQ customers who log on through AIM cannot chat with AIM members, only with other ICQ users. (Despite AOL's acquisition of the ICQ service, the two have remained separate.)
Word of the test leaked out, and AOL downplayed it, calling it R&D, not an alpha or beta test. However brief, the test provoked more controversy. Avner Ronen, a founder of rival company Odigo, used the occasion to publicly accuse AOL of dragging its feet, since the test demonstrated how hollow AOL's argument about security was.
"It's interesting because AOL's strongest defense has always been, 'our tech isn't compatible,'" says David Marks, an analyst with the Gartner Group. "In tech, it's a way of saying they don't want to do it."
"AOL has a long standing MO of keeping its users corralled within its corporate confines, whether it be for content, services, or user interfaces," Marks says. "My take on the situation is that AOL believes that releasing its protocol would expose its users to other (and perhaps superior) IM applications that work on the AOL system."
Marks says a rough analogy might be AOL's stubborn adherence to its browser, despite more advanced products from Netscape and Microsoft. "The inverse of the same strategy applies to allowing non-AOL subscribers using the AOL IM service: it is brand exposure that might help drive traffic and potential subscribers to the AOL sites," he says.
Those may be a couple of good reasons not to open AIM and ICQ, but there are plenty of others.
AOL controls over 90 percent of the IM market, and a lengthy delay won't hurt AOL -- it will hurt Microsoft. Like any market leader, AOL has no incentive to interoperate or develop standards, as that will only erode its position.
The biggest reason is ad dollars. AOL (which some industry wags have dubbed Advertisers on Line) is reaping the profits from a built-in base of 80 million eyeballs in its IM service. If competing IM clients can interoperate, those eyeballs can use any chat client, without viewing the ads on AIM.
Not only that, since AIM's use spreads largely by word of mouth, or what's known on the Web as "viral marketing," the longer AOL holds on to its dominant position, the stronger its position becomes. And now that AOL owns Netscape, the company is probably all too aware of Microsoft's ability to enter a market late but still take it over.
Another advantage is that Web-based chatters will visit and spend more time at AOL.com and ICQ.com (which AOL also owns). In fact both AOL.com and ICQ.com function as portals, with a search engine, e-mail, directory of chat rooms and links to news headlines -- all of which aim to keep people online longer. ICQ also has the potential to become a real-time e-commerce service and has tied it to other communications features, such as Internet phone calling. (ICQ chief operating officer Frederick Singer calls it a "desktop communication portal.") And the Search the Web function on AIM opens aol.com on a browser window.
While dominance on the desktop is bad news for all the small fries in the market, IMUnified thinks that's just the tip of the iceberg:
"The danger of this island phenomenon is an even greater problem when one recognizes that the emerging body of wireless IM users is projected to equal or eclipse the number of PC-based users in upcoming years. This lack of interoperability creates a closed marketplace where users cannot easily move from provider to provider, thus limiting competition in this important market."
Until now, AOL has been able to ignore the shouts of the smaller IM companies. But the impending AOL merger with Time Warner has put the company under greater scrutiny, and the efforts of FreeIM.org (essentially the same companies behind IMUnified) have focused the FCC's attention on IM as a potential problem.
In mid-September, CNET.com cited a source close to the FCC as saying that FCC officials wanted to impose a firm deadline for AOL to open its IM network so that other technologies can communicate with AOL users. Though that may or may not happen, the FCC may be the only organization able to pry open AOL's doors, unless compelling technology comes along.
John Ochwat is a former editor for Upside magazine and contributes to numerous tech publications.
Return to the P2P DevCenter.
Copyright © 2009 O'Reilly Media, Inc.