Opinion: AOL/Microsoft Real-Time Messaging Debate
Friday July 30th, 1999
As you all know, AOL, Netscape's parent company has been involved in a cat-and-mouse game with Microsoft over access to their Instant Messaging protocol. Yesterday, AOL announced a partnership with Apple to bring Instant Messenger to Mac users. Today, Microsoft and other Messaging hopefuls wrote an open letter to Steve Case of AOL asking him to stop blocking them from access to the Instant Messenger protocol.
I'm not going to go into all the details regarding this at the moment, but I'd like to throw out an opinion and see what mozillaZine readers think. Click Full Article below to read more, and give us your opinions in Talkback.
(Note: this doesn't really affect Mozilla, but since AOL is now Netscape's parent company, I thought it would be interesting to get the opinions from those who are involved in or interested in the Mozilla project.)
#8 M$ & Standards
Friday July 30th, 1999 11:10 AM
You are replying to this message
We all know Microsoft's opinion on standards... write 'em, force other's to comply to 'em, ignore 'em.
If Microsoft is so concerened about their "custormers" being able to talk to AOL users, then why didn't they just offer AIM for d/l?
Has Microsoft opened their servers for AOL to be able to include MSN support in AIM? How about for Yahoo!?
If Yahoo! agrees so much with Micrsoft, why are their two clients incompatible?
What ever happened to net meeting? Wasn't that about ppl being able to connect and exchange stuff (even more stuff than AIM??)?
If Microsoft thinks a letter is the way to make things happen, maybe Netscape/AOL should send one to Microsoft asking for IE to be standards compliant.
I realize that the above are just little "sniplets" and not related to much to each other, but really, how do you think Micrsoft would respond to a letter asking them to open ANYTHING. As with most, I agree that it would be nice to be able to not have 3 different Instant Messenger clients running, but do we really need to do that at the expence of AOL? Why not make Microsoft pay for it if they want it so bad... or is Bill & Co. to poor for something like that?