<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Battle of the instant messengers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://unitstep.net/blog/2006/06/22/battle-of-the-instant-messengers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://unitstep.net/blog/2006/06/22/battle-of-the-instant-messengers/</link>
	<description>the home of peter chng</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:13:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter Chng</title>
		<link>http://unitstep.net/blog/2006/06/22/battle-of-the-instant-messengers/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Chng</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:02:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.unitstep.net/blog/2006/06/22/battle-of-the-instant-messengers/#comment-20</guid>
		<description>I think at one point, several years ago, at least two of the big companies (maybe &lt;a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1011379.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Microsoft and AOL&lt;/a&gt;) were in talks to make their services compatible.  I think the deal fell through, however, and nothing materialized.  

There have even been talks about creating an &lt;a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1023-964317.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;open standard&lt;/a&gt; for instant-messaging, based on Jabber.  However, the instant-messenging market is too "factionalized" (if that's the word I'm looking for) to accept such a standard.  Again, why switch if all your users are already on one of the major networks?  So far, the only IM client I know of, that really uses Jabber, is Google's gTalk.  (Trillian and other IM clients &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; use Jabber)

Recently, Microsoft and Yahoo! have talked about &lt;a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5893802.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;joining hands&lt;/a&gt;.  I will be &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; surprised if this happens.  Why?  Money.  Ad-revenue is the big thing on the Internet nowadays, and you can bet Microsoft and Yahoo! both make a lot from the ads served up in their respective IM clients.  Allowing compatibility would remove the incentive to switch, and thus, potentially decrease their ad-revenue.  Unless some sort of ad-revenue sharing agreement can be reached, I don't see this happening.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think at one point, several years ago, at least two of the big companies (maybe <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1011379.html" rel="nofollow">Microsoft and AOL</a>) were in talks to make their services compatible.  I think the deal fell through, however, and nothing materialized.  </p>
<p>There have even been talks about creating an <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1023-964317.html" rel="nofollow">open standard</a> for instant-messaging, based on Jabber.  However, the instant-messenging market is too &#8220;factionalized&#8221; (if that&#8217;s the word I&#8217;m looking for) to accept such a standard.  Again, why switch if all your users are already on one of the major networks?  So far, the only IM client I know of, that really uses Jabber, is Google&#8217;s gTalk.  (Trillian and other IM clients <em>can</em> use Jabber)</p>
<p>Recently, Microsoft and Yahoo! have talked about <a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5893802.html" rel="nofollow">joining hands</a>.  I will be <strong>very</strong> surprised if this happens.  Why?  Money.  Ad-revenue is the big thing on the Internet nowadays, and you can bet Microsoft and Yahoo! both make a lot from the ads served up in their respective IM clients.  Allowing compatibility would remove the incentive to switch, and thus, potentially decrease their ad-revenue.  Unless some sort of ad-revenue sharing agreement can be reached, I don&#8217;t see this happening.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whittaker</title>
		<link>http://unitstep.net/blog/2006/06/22/battle-of-the-instant-messengers/#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>whittaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2006 01:20:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.unitstep.net/blog/2006/06/22/battle-of-the-instant-messengers/#comment-17</guid>
		<description>i wish they'd just combine and make only one messenger.  it's real annoying when you ask someone hey do you have msn and they're like no but i have aim.  and it just ends at that and you never get to enjoy the cyberchat with that person! think it would ever be possible for there to only be one online messenger thing?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i wish they&#8217;d just combine and make only one messenger.  it&#8217;s real annoying when you ask someone hey do you have msn and they&#8217;re like no but i have aim.  and it just ends at that and you never get to enjoy the cyberchat with that person! think it would ever be possible for there to only be one online messenger thing?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
