[FoRK] Google Talk

Stephen D. Williams sdw
Wed Aug 24 16:10:31 PDT 2005


I didn't get to help with that RFC, but I did participate in the 
original IETF Presence/IM working group for about 2 years.  I concur, 
nobody but Jabber really had full interoperability offerings.

sdw

Gordon Mohr wrote:

> Ian,
>
> I was involved in many of those efforts; I demonstrated toy
> interoperability with Microsoft, Lotus, Fujitsu, Ubique, and
> AT&T in 1998, and coauthored RFC2779 ("Instant Messaging /
> Presence Protocol Requirements") with Mark (of Lotus)
> and Sonu and Jesse (of Microsoft) in 1999/2000. You also
> seem to have overlooked me as a coauthor of the
> "draft-day-impp-basis-00.txt" document you referenced.
>
> I stand completely behind my statement that "[Google is] the
> first 'major player' to make an overt commitment to have
> their system open to anyone who follows published standards."
>
> No amount of posturing (or even earnest standards
> participation) by the other major players makes up
> for the fact that they never opened their systems to all
> comers, using open published standards. At best they
> promised to support unspecified standards at some point
> in the future. That's hot air.
>
> In contrast, outsiders could log on to Google's system by
> finding the server *before its public launch*.  Google
> recommends other third-party applications that can be used
> to connect to their system, and says "[a]ny client that
> supports Jabber/XMPP can connect to the Google Talk
> service." That's an overt commitment.
>
> Where's the similar list or commitment from Microsoft (or
> other major players)? Oh, wait, only 'authorized vendors'
> are allowed to connect to MSN Messenger. No GAIM, no
> Trillian, no others. See the 'approved' list at:
>
>  http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Authorized.aspx
>
> Sure, Microsoft wanted to participate in and influence any
> standard that might arise. I have no doubt the individual
> participants in the standardization efforts wanted a good
> standard to arise, also. But as a whole, Microsoft wanted
> the appearance of standardization, as a club to wield
> against the other entrenched systems, moreso than they
> wanted actual open interoperability.
>
> Otherwise, they could have years ago made the same overt
> commitment that Google did yesterday.
>
> They might now. The dynamics have changed.
>
> - Gordon
>
> Ian Andrew Bell (FoRK) wrote:
>
>> I am not often in the position of defending Microsoft (nor do I wish  
>> to be).  You can question the sincerity or the motivation behind 
>> such  action, but not the validity of the action itself:
>>
>>     http://www.networkworld.com/news/2000/0803instant.html?nf
>>     http://quimby.gnus.org/internet-drafts/draft-day-impp-basis-00.txt
>>
>>     ...notice a FoRKer, Mark Day, as well as Microsoft on the list  
>> of contributors.  Microsoft submitted a proposal in the summer of  
>> 1999 (I was there) and offered to open their network if AOL would.
>>
>>     http://www.packetizer.com/rfc/rfc.cgi?num=3428
>>
>>     ...this begat SIMPLE:
>>
>>     http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/simple-charter.html
>>
>>     ...also influenced by Microsoft staff.
>>
>> -Ian.
>>
>> On 24-Aug-05, at 2:04 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Andrew Bell (FoRK) writes:
>>>
>>>> The statement that Google was the first major player to make an overt
>>>> commitment to open their systems is absolutely untrue.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9907/23/aim.ms/
>>>> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/18837/18837.html
>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?991118.icaolspat.htm
>>>>
>>>> MSN attempted to allow their users to connect to AOL IM  in 1999.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Um, surely openness would mean allowing other systems' users to  
>>> connect to
>>> *their* systems?  "Allowing" their users to connect to AOL's systems,
>>> simply increases the attractiveness of your offering over theirs,  
>>> since
>>> now your users can access both user pools.  That's not  
>>> interoperability
>>> and openness, that's "embracing and extending".
>>>
>>> BTW -- some drama about Google Talk's privacy policy:
>>> http://hublog.hubmed.org/archives/001188.html
>>>
>>>
>>>> 'We will never share personal information with unrelated third  
>>>> parties
>>>> for marketing purposes without your express permission.'
>>>>
>>>
>>> what about for non-marketing-related purposes?
>>>
>>> - --j.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Blake Irving (ex of Hotmail) @ Microsoft was actively involved in
>>>> both the IETF efforts and a radical proposal in 2000 to federate
>>>> identities between AOL & Microsoft.  AOL would not come to the table
>>>> at the time for obvious reasons.
>>>>
>>>> In 2001 the FCC approved the AOL - Time-Warner merger with provisions
>>>> that it open its IM network to competitors.
>>>>
>>>>      http://www.techlawjournal.com/atr/20010112.asp
>>>>
>>>> ...that was overturned 2 years later under the Bush / Powell FCC.
>>>>
>>>> This pantomime with Google / Skype / Whomever will play out in
>>>> similar fashion.
>>>>
>>>> -Ian.
>>>>
>>>> On 24-Aug-05, at 11:35 AM, Gordon Mohr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They're the first 'major player' to make an overt commitment to have
>>>>> their system open to anyone who follows published standards. That's
>>>>> big,
>>>>> and Google should have enough staying power to wait for an
>>>>> interoperable
>>>>> ecosystem to grow against the established systems.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FoRK mailing list
>>>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
>>> Comment: Exmh CVS
>>>
>>> iD8DBQFDDODuMJF5cimLx9ARAncRAJ9VmBuBnYTDEII1QK0dV9jNk7JIogCgmHPU
>>> SsnjPIRB6gYy6TdEg8mSJpQ=
>>> =3B+t
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork




More information about the FoRK mailing list