?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Annoyed that AOL added bots to your IM? - Journal of Omnifarious

Nov. 16th, 2005

09:24 am - Annoyed that AOL added bots to your IM?

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Annoyed that AOL added advertising bots to your buddies list?Then try out a different IM service. There are many things about how AIM works internally that are bad for users, but good for AOL. It would be much better to use a different IM client that used protocols that were more standard, and an IM company that wasn't so hard up for cash they'd consider adding advertising bots to your buddies list without your consent in order to try to scare up some advertising dollars.

The better IM service I'm speaking of is Google Talk. The only message AOL will understand about their callous treatment of their users is mass exodus from their service. And Google Talk is better from a technical perspective anyway.

Current Mood: [mood icon] discontent

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:tin_lizzy
Date:November 16th, 2005 05:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm personally in favor of mass exoduses (exodi?) in any/all contexts. either with a purpose or just for fun.

bored? incite a mass exodus. pissed off? incite a mass exodus. trying to throw the earth off its axis and get us all hurled into the sun? incite a mass exodus.

*feeling a little silly & delirious today* 8D
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:November 16th, 2005 06:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)

I'm kind of frustrated that there's no real good reason from the perspective of a random user to move away from AIM, Yahoo, or MSN messenger, even though it's good for them in ways they will probably never percieve directly.

Google Talk is built on an open protocol. This means anybody can write an IM client for google talk. Now, anybody can write an IM client for AIM, but this is despite AOL, not because of them. There are a small, core group of people who spend a bunch of time reverse engineering the protocol whenever AOL changes it. That's not a very stable situation, and it will always give those alternate IM clients a vague hint of 'unofficialness' that's kind of irritating.

Also, if people stop squabbling over IM protocols, they can move on to creating something else. Use of a standard IM protocol is good for everybody in the long run. But it's an invisible sort of good. :-/

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:November 16th, 2005 06:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)

I sometimes just ignore silliness when I have something I care about. :-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tin_lizzy
Date:November 16th, 2005 06:10 pm (UTC)
(Link)
yeah - ditto.

and I do hear you on the AIM thing, I just didn't have anything additionally intelligent to say about it, as you pretty much summed it all up ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:pphaneuf
Date:November 17th, 2005 01:25 am (UTC)
(Link)
For what I've used of it, Google Talk seemed a bit unreliable. I don't know if this is due to the Jabber protocol or to the Google servers, but when someone would get disconnected forcibly, their presence would stay much longer for the Google account than the ICQ or the MSN one. Messages would also become very laggy and be "chunked up", where with AIM/ICQ, things would flow smoothly. I think I even lost some messages.
(Reply) (Thread)
From:d_e_l_i_r_i_u_m
Date:November 18th, 2005 12:02 pm (UTC)

um

(Link)
1) i have it but nobody else will use it yet. =delijoan (via my gmail), in case you wonder.

2) seems like everyone's on trillian

3) i wonder if/when gt will be added to trillian

4) the line appears to be social vs tech+ and im not techy enough to fix my comp when i screw it up.. i'm sure you are right, but im afraid that without all the tech-ignorant online social people like me, it wont matter.
(Reply) (Thread)