From...

August 24, 1999
Web posted at: 8:38 a.m. EDT (1238 GMT)

by Alexandra Krasne

ALSO    AOL's AIM gets bugged    Instant message standards group toils on    Standoff persists in instant messaging duel    Sign up for the Computer Connection email service    For more computing stories  MESSAGE BOARDS:     Instant messaging wars

In this story: Ahead of Microsoft Can't we get along? Up to AOL RELATED STORIES, SITES

(IDG) -- In the latest episode of America Online versus Microsoft for Interoperability in Instant Messaging, we were ducking flying accusations about hacking and privacy violations.

It seems their only agreements are the concept of interoperability and the need for a real standard for instant messaging.

Both Microsoft and AOL have submitted technical information to the Internet Engineering Task Force, an industry standards body that is drafting a standard for instant messaging. Their purported aim? That users of all services -- Microsoft's MSN Messenger, AOL's Instant Messenger or ICQ, Yahoo Messenger, Tribal Voice PowWow, and any interested others -- be able to talk with one another.

"We are delighted that Microsoft and America Online are contributing to the development of a standard," says Vijay Saraswat, who leads the IETF's standards committee. Engineers, researchers, and vendors from around the world are developing an open protocol called Instant Messaging and Presence Protocol.

Draft protocol specifications may be available as soon as January 2000. On Thursday a committee will submit an early blueprint of the messaging standard to the IETF Application Group for review and comments.

Ahead of Microsoft

AOL appears to have the upper hand at the moment by sheer numbers. Market researcher International Data Group estimates AOL has 43 million AIM subscribers plus another 40 million users of ICQ. But AOL has opened its protocol only to a select group of companies.

At the end of August, Microsoft plans to open to the development community the protocol for its now three-week-old instant messaging service, MSN Messenger, which boasts about 1.3 million users.

MORE COMPUTING INTELLIGENCE
	IDG.net home page
PC World home page
FileWorld find free software fast
Make your PC work harder with these tips
Reviews & in-depth info at IDG.net
		IDG.net's desktop PC page
		IDG.net's portable PC page
IDG.net's Windows software page
IDG.net's personal news page
Year 2000 World
Questions about computers? Let IDG.net's editors help you
Subscribe to IDG.net's free daily newsletter for computer geniuses (& newbies)
Search IDG.net in 12 languages
News Radio
	Fusion audio primers
	Computerworld Minute

By opening its protocol, Microsoft allows other companies to make their services compatible with Microsoft's. Users of these various services could communicate freely.

Several services say they'll accept Microsoft's offer. Tribal Voice plans to make its PowWow messaging service compatible with MSN Messenger, and AT&T says the same for its I M Here.

But the saga took some ugly turns. AOL accused Microsoft of illegally hacking into its AOL Instant Messenger system to ensure interoperability. AOL blocked access to AIM users by MSN Messenger users and then proposed a "business arrangement."

But that is not what Microsoft had in mind.

"This is in no way in the best interests of our mutual customers or a solution to the broader issue of solving the industry need to have a standard for interoperability on messaging," according to a statement by Microsoft officials. "[AOL] seems to be doing everything they can to not enable interoperability for consumers, which is disappointing."

Can't we get along?

Meanwhile, other instant messaging vendors joined the push for a standard. On July 29, AOL received a letter urging cooperation from Activerse, AT&T, Excite@Home, Infoseek, Microsoft, Prodigy, Tribal Voice, and Yahoo.

Yahoo felt AOL's sting, too. The company built AOL interoperability into a beta version of Yahoo Messenger so users could add AIM users to their buddy lists. Communications lasted 24 hours before AOL blocked them, Yahoo officials say.

But the incident showed Yahoo that its users want that interoperability.

A general standard may eventually emerge when more companies publish their protocols as Microsoft is doing, says Brian Park, a Yahoo senior producer. But he suggests an alternative.

"The idea is not that everybody publish their protocols and not for everyone to hack each other's software to get interoperability," Park says. "We want a standard right now."

Analysts suggest this battle is being fought not for customers' benefits, but for that of vendors.

"It's about market share," says Tom Huskerson, research associate at Zona Research. "These companies -- AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo -- basically until the issue of standards is settled, will continue to go after each other."

"AOL is more concerned with protecting its market share than an open standard," Huskerson says. "They will come to their senses eventually. But this hurts the consumer. It's like only being able to talk with someone using the same phone company. Right now, it's a bare-knuckle fight over market share, and it's gotten nasty -- almost childish. It's an ugly fight."

Up to AOL

AOL, however, contends it supports interoperability -- but only through explicit agreement among companies. AOL remains tight-lipped about any deals with Microsoft or Yahoo.

"As we've said, we support interoperability of instant messaging," says Andrew Weinstein, an AOL spokesperson. "We are working with the IETF and think the standard should protect the privacy of AOL's users. We're also working with Apple, Sun, Real Networks, and Novell to move to a standard. Currently our service is interoperable with Lotus IBM, and a week ago, we made it interoperable with Novell's."

AOL also has agreements with Apple, EarthLink, Juno, and MindSpring.

Interoperability will be more complete if the companies cooperate, Weinstein says. For example, during the brief time of communications between MSN Messenger and AIM, some features did not work, he says. A sender identification and a warning function were not active, according to Weinstein, although Microsoft maintains the services were compatible.

Regardless, the communications are more likely to be smooth if they're not unilateral.

"We're willing to work with anybody for interoperability," Weinstein says. "And we're happy to talk with Microsoft to resolve this."

Tom Spring of PC World contributed to this report.