Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-05
Member since:2005-06-28
Member since:2006-01-17
Some people should think before they open their mouths.
Apple's iChat is integrated with one of the largest IM networks in the world. Last time I checked more people use AIM and ICQ than use Google's chat program.
Granted maps and the searching but Apple has video and television content on iTunes. Honestly I'd rather pass the hour watching Jericho than watching some fat idiot make a fool of himself on YouTube. Didn't Google already have a video service? They had to buy to get something worth having because multimedia isn't as easy as it looks.
Apple also supports a large mail network, .mac, with some several hundreds of thousands of PAYING users. A different model than Google's ad driven systems but even so it is a large and capable network.
The .mac based services would integrate exceptionally well with a phone. Google are UI noobs to be quite frank. They've done a few good things but Apple has decades of experience with the best UIs in the market.
Member since:2005-07-06
Some people should think before they open their mouths.
Last time I checked more people use AIM and ICQ than use Google's chat program.
Thing is, these days there are _very_ meny people who just don't care what is the network/protocol behind their IM software, since they use IM clients which can connect to some, more or all of the existing IM networks (a lot of quality clientes exist for this purpose, for a lot of OSes). The number of users thus doesn't really show real preference, it mostly shows how many AOL users there have been, and how many other people just registered a nick to be present on the network to be accessible by these people who just wouldn't want to use another.
Didn't Google already have a video service?
Yupp. But how exactly do you think they were similar ? Because they both made videos accessible ? Well, I guess that was it and nothing more. Besides, Google most certainly didn't buy YouTube because of the service - they have bright enough coders - but because of the userbase. Which makes sense, given.
Member since:2005-06-29
Apple's iChat is integrated with one of the largest IM networks in the world. Last time I checked more people use AIM and ICQ than use Google's chat program.
The problem with Messenger protocols is not which gets used the most in the world, but which gets used in your country (and hence, gets used by your friends). In The Netherlands, for instance, MSN has a 99.99% marketshare, and chatting is not called instant messaging or something similar, no, it's called "MSN'ing". I kid you not. AIM, ICQ, Y! are all non-existant here.
And to reply to someone else's post:
Thing is, these days there are _very_ meny people who just don't care what is the network/protocol behind their IM software, since they use IM clients which can connect to some, more or all of the existing IM networks (a lot of quality clientes exist for this purpose, for a lot of OSes).
In The Netherlands, I have yet to encounter anyone outside of myself using anything other than the default MSN client.
Member since:2005-12-31
In The Netherlands, for instance, MSN has a 99.99% marketshare, and chatting is not called instant messaging or something similar, no, it's called "MSN'ing". I kid you not. AIM, ICQ, Y! are all non-existant here.
Which is also true for Norway, and as you say - probably most other european countries as well.
Member since:2006-07-30
That's very strange. Do you rely on statistics or are you just judging by peronal experience?
Everybody I know uses ICQ and some of them also use Skype. Nearly nobody uses MSN, though I do know some guys who don't know what it is or how to switch it off permanently 
Since I'm from Germany I suppose market share figures should be somehow similar.
Do you have any links to statistics about the market share of MSN?
Otherwise your impression may be just as biased as mine.
Member since:2006-10-10
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2005-07-03
In The Netherlands, I have yet to encounter anyone outside of myself using anything other than the default MSN client.
I still use ICQ (besides MSN, Yahoo & Jabber) and I'm from the Netherlands, as long as I still have friends on a certain protocol, why abandon it? I only use the default MSN client at work, at home I use Miranda-IM (under Windows) & Gaim (under Linux). And I know plenty of ppl here who use different clients (Trillian being the most prominent one among friends who don't use MSN). Maybe you just don't know that many ppl? 
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:2006-01-17
I've been using most instant messaging platforms since their individual respective inceptions.
People care about networks - sorry that this doesn't fit in to the "everybody wants standards" mentality but it is very much the truth. In my experience people choose the network their friends are on and I base that on a multitude of experiences with a variety of users met under an even wider variety of circumstances.
I am familiar with multi-protocol clients. I've used Fire, then Proteus, then AdiumX, and then back to Proteus. Their support for most network features is dismal at best and is always behind the proprietary clients in terms of feature availability.
As for Google's video service - I'll admit I don't know too much about it as I've never used it extensively. Same goes for YouTube. At first YT had a cool factor but it has since been doused in stupidity and is no longer worth much of my time. Aside from that isn't flash supported on some handsets? Doesn't YT use flash for playback? Doesn't that mean some handsets already provide that service?
It's not new or unique like a combination of the best of breed digital audio device with your cell phone. It doesn't really bring anything new to the table.
Member since:2005-10-11
Member since:2005-10-31
Apple's iChat is integrated with one of the largest IM networks in the world. Last time I checked more people use AIM and ICQ than use Google's chat program.
Google Talk's protocol is nothing more than Jabber, which is an open standard for communications. If that wasn't enough, there are tons of jabber servers out there that offer transport services to other chat services like IRC, MSN, AIM, ICQ, Gadu-Gadu, etc... So in the end it is obvious that whoever accesses Google Talk is capable of accessing more IM networks than whoever uses iChat.
Some people should think before they open their mouths.
Indeed and, although your ignorance kept you from geting it, your post is a very good example of that. Therefore, please at least try to follow your own advices in the future
Member since:2006-01-17
GreatBunzinni,
First of all you make a great deal of assumptions about my personal level of knowledge. A pretty grievous error on your part.
Google uses Jabber but Jabber is _just_ software, it's not a network. Does Google not run a Jabber based network? How many people are on _that_ network specifically?
Furthermore you make a point about Jabber gateways. Are these even supported by the Google Jabber network or do you have to opt for another Jabber based network?
I never said a user of one service had more or less access to networks.
I suggested one network had more users.
If you can't even follow such a simple point as that I really doubt that I've any further interest in debating the matter with you.
Member since:2005-07-13
GTalk is now part of the "standard" Jabber network. A lot of servers/networks interconnected under the same protocol. I have a jabber.org address and I can talk to my gmail.com friends like I talk to my jabber.org contacts.
But, yes, I guess that msn/aim/yahoo/icq have more people on their networks than all jabber servers together. But, at least, Jabber is an open standard.
EDIT: typo.
Edited 2006-12-17 16:06
Member since:2005-10-31
Google uses Jabber but Jabber is _just_ software, it's not a network. Does Google not run a Jabber based network? How many people are on _that_ network specifically?
That goes to show that you don't have the faintest clue about what Jabber is. Jabber is not software, as you so boldly claimed. Jabber is in fact a set of XML-based streaming protocols. To put it in simpler terms so that you can understand, Jabber is the language that software uses to talk between each other. Jabber is not a client but Google Talk, Gaim, Psi, Kopete and others are jabber clients. Jabber is not a server but ejabberd and Wildfire are jabber servers.
I never said a user of one service had more or less access to networks. I suggested one network had more users.
You claimed that the users of a certain service could communicate with users in separate networks like AIM and ICQ. Do you happen to know how the iChat users are able to communicate with users which are in separate networks? They do it through transport services, just like it is done in jabber networks. And by claiming that the iChat users had access to AIM and ICQ users, you tried to imply that the iChat users had access to more users, completely ignoring the fact that a long list of jabber servers offer transport services to a wider range of networks (AIM, ICQ, MSN, IRC, Gadu-Gadu,etc..) than iChat offers.
So when you make idiotic claims like:
First of all you make a great deal of assumptions about my personal level of knowledge. A pretty grievous error on your part.
You are constantly demonstrating that you do not have a single clue about the issue being discussed here. I don't assume your level of knowledge is close to null because of a whym. It is due to your blatant ignorance and bold claims about stuff you clearly know nothing about. You make statements which are so wrong to the point of being pathetic ("jabber is software") and then try to make claims while grasping at straws.
Member since:2005-08-18
'Google uses Jabber but Jabber is _just_ software, it's not a network."
Uh, no. It's a IETF standards track IM protocol, RFC-3920 and RFC-3921.
"How many people are on _that_ network specifically?"
As many as there are gmail users, presumably.
"do you have to opt for another Jabber based network?"
If Google does not provide the IM features you need, yes. You know, just like how different email providers provide different services and features.
Btw, it's not correct to speak about "jabber networks" since all/most jabber servers are reachable from eachother. Just like how you can send email to someone at gmail.com even if you dont have a gmail address.
Edited 2006-12-18 08:42
Member since:2005-07-16
Google Talk's protocol is nothing more than Jabber, which is an open standard for communications. If that wasn't enough, there are tons of jabber servers out there that offer transport services to other chat services like IRC, MSN, AIM, ICQ, Gadu-Gadu, etc... So in the end it is obvious that whoever accesses Google Talk is capable of accessing more IM networks than whoever uses iChat.
And considering that iChat can also connect to a jabber server, your point is what, exactly ?
Member since:2005-07-15
Member since:2005-07-06
Apple's iChat is integrated with one of the largest IM networks in the world. Last time I checked more people use AIM and ICQ than use Google's chat program.
I would bloody well hope so! ICQ has been around forever and AIM has been around since at least '98/99. And until recently, the only way to sign up for Google chat was to get an invite from an existing gmail user (although now I believe they will send the invitation codes to a cell # as a text message).
Member since:2006-08-13
Member since:
2005-11-16
Neither article mentions the superb Opera Mini browser which makes browsing on a mobile a very enjoyable experience.
There's always room for improvement, but I really can't see what revolution Google can bring in this area.
Also judging by the truly awful branding and in house software some of my previous Orange phone have been afflicted with "Orange's years of experience" is just meaningless marketing speak.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Since the forum is already hijacked by the Mac crowd, I, will continue the same dicussion;-) (It has been a long time since I heard anyone stick up for AOL's services the way l3v1 does above)
They (Google and Apple) would obviously come at a phone from two different perspectives.
Apple's (rumored) phone will focus on iLife--first iteration will probably be a phone that plays music--a phone/ipod mashup, if you will. This is not to say that Apple won't build on this in the future, as they most certainly will. If the phone or experience do not flop, Apple will add features over time, iChat, movies?, games, wifi, etc....
Whereas, the article hints that Google will focus on location based services (a euphemism for "ads") and search.
I would not buy a phone from either of these companies, but that is not to say that they could not both be wildly successful in their own rights with two todally different products.
And this is ignoring the possibiltiy of Apple and Google doing more together.
Member since:
2005-11-21
Don't confuse User base with Producer base. Google bought YouTube for the notion of useful video being Produced by the general public.
If Google wanted a huge User base they would have bought MySpace. They did get smart and integrate search into that dump called MySpace.
Member since:
2006-02-15
with the phone than they've done with wifi.
I sit here looking out my back window at the lamp post with the nearest goog-fi WAP. It's just close enough to interfer with the operation of my existing wifi without being close enough to actually login to, even though I was an early roll-out tester.
The GOOG does a wonderful job of search and they've even gotten lucky a few times with software packages, but they're way out of their field when they get involved with anything to do with RF, especially telephony.
Member since:
2006-08-04
My current phone does Maps, has chat, has a browser (opera is great) and it has... Google. So why do I need a Google phone? Just what are they going to do that my phone isn't already doing? They should stick with porting their apps to tie into their services, like gbuy, docs and spreadsheets, etc.
Member since:
2006-01-23
I suspect that Google's phone will listen to your words and stop the conversation momentarily to advertise something appropriate. Though this is very clever, free talk time will have to be the norm.
Of course, I could just be paranoid. However, this could be a great service for the absent-minded and save many marriages, as they will have ordered birthday and anniversary gifts for the first time--on time.
It would be interesting to be able to use all Google services in an integrated way, as well as talk on the phone and text message.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-02-15
Member since:
2006-01-17
Soulbender,
A few points ...
The Internet Engineering Task Force RFC or Request for Comment documents are SOFTWARE specifications. They detail how programmers can write software that CAN interoperate. It does not specify that software must interoperate. Ever heard of an intranet? A private HTTP network. HTTP is specified in an IETF RFC as well but that doesn't mean every HTTP network MUST be linked.
Now I'll freely admit it's been some time before I examined Jabber but at last glance, some years ago, it was a bragging point that Jabber servers could be implemented in such a manner that they are "isolated from the public Jabber network".
Decentralization is one of the key points of Jabber protocol.
As such not all Jabber networks are a single integrated network. In my own personal experience as far as individual Jabber servers go most of them were isolated from the public Jabber network. It's perfectly correct to speak of Jabber networks as there exist both a public Jabber network and a number of private networks. Or are networks called something else when they are implemented in an isolated fashion, in the world of Jabber?
For example - you can only send email to a google user if your mail agent interfaces with the public network. It's the same for Jabber. Heh. There are private e-mail networks that run separately of the Internet as a whole and you cannot send mail to google users from a private network, heh. As Google made their network public at the start of this year I suppose the point is moot as far as Google is concerned but even so it is not incorrect to refer to Jabber "networks".
Either way this is all too far from my original point so I'm just going to shut up now.
edit: typo
Edited 2006-12-18 13:03
Member since:2005-08-18
"The Internet Engineering Task Force RFC or Request for Comment documents are SOFTWARE specifications. "
No, they are protocol specifications. It is perfectly possible to implement RFC's in "hardware".
"Ever heard of an intranet? A private HTTP network."
Sorry, that's not what intranet means. An intranet is indeed private but it is not tied to HTTP in any way. An intranet may use any internet protocol.
"Or are networks called something else when they are implemented in an isolated fashion, in the world of Jabber?"
Sure, but Google's isn't. You don't talk about Hotmail's email network do you? Even though it is possible to implement your own private smtp-based email infrastructure.
Member since:2006-01-17
Soulbender,
They are specifications for protocols which are implemented, by and large, as software.
When was the last time you heard of a piece of hardware designed exclusively to run HTTP transfers? Closest thing I can think of is Sun's implementation of hardware encryption to increase processing speed of such requests.
Granted you are correct in that an intranet can be of any, one, or many protocols. I was using HTTP for an example of my point that just because a specification exists doesn't mean it is a global network which seemed to be implied in your last message.
The first six months that Google's Talk network was running it did not support server to server communications. Was it a network then? Sure. It still is. The difference was/is/are the keywords public and private. Google is also free to turn off server-to-server networking if they choose. It's not a user choice and it's not a guarantee.
I do refer to hotmail's network, by the way. Just about any time I send to or receive from Hotmail it's delayed by some deal of time. If one checks the headers one can see it usually got delayed ... somewhere within the Hotmail network.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2006-01-17
Soulbender,
A network is a group of interconnected objects in the most basic definition from Oxford. So when a group of objects become part of a group of objects it ceases to be a group of objects?
In other words the Google network ceased to be a network and turned into a single object just because they turned on server-to-server messaging? God knows no networks consist of other networks.
Ever hear of the dot net top level domain? Heh.
