Larry Garfield looks at the current state of text messaging systems and has just one question: Can't we all just get along?
In the beginning text was without form and void. Then there came Unix 'talk'. 'talk' begat Internet Relay Chat, which was cool but clumsy. Then Mirabilis created ICQ and "Instant Messaging" and the world saw that it was good. That begat AOL Instant Messenger, MSN Messenger, and Yahoo, and they were good but refused to speak to each other, as siblings are wont to do. But they grew jealous of their mobile cousin SMS for it was not tied to a PC and sought to move to mobile phones as well. And so did confusion grow.
Desktop users are by now very familiar with the mess that is instant messaging with three (four with ICQ, now owned by AOL) separate and incompatible monolithic networks, but mobile users have, until now, been spared most of that chaos. Short Messaging Service (SMS) is standardized across all GSM-based phones and many CDMA phones, making it virtually ubiquitous. Unfortunately, that blissful existence is soon to end. The desktop behemoths (AIM, MSN, Yahoo) want in on the mobile market. Some mobile devices now support one or the other network, and a few support all three in addition to SMS. That means that many more accounts to manage. And it is about to get worse.
The big mobile companies see the next big thing for mobile instant messaging as something called Wireless Village, or Mobile Instant Messaging and Presence Services (IMPS). Developed mostly by Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia and recently subsumed into the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA), IMPS is intended to provide one-to-one and group-based messaging as well as "presence", a fancy name for flagging one's current status (available, in call, in bad mood, etc.). IMPS is XML-based, has the backing of most of the big carriers, and the OMA has submitted IMPS to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Carriers can setup their own servers, carrier networks interoperate with each other, and carriers can create their own "branding" for their IMPS services. It can even "push" messages, so you don't have to be always signed-on to be notified when you get a message. Sounds great, right?
There are three problems with IMPS. First, for IMPS to take off it will need buy-in on the desktop, where the big three IM carriers (AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo) are not going to give in without a fight. Second, there's no guarantee that it will be cheap or easy to deploy since, according to the specification, it "may require" expensive patent licensing from the participating companies or maybe even someone else. That big question mark on the balance sheet may keep wisely cautious developers away. Third, it's not alone.
Starting way back in 1998, the Jabber project has been developing an open, extensible instant messaging and presence system based around an e-mail like distributed architecture. Jabber is also XML-based, the specification and most of the code is available under various open source licenses with no patent problems, and it has also been adopted by the IETF under the name XMPP (eXtensible Messaging and Presence Protocol). Even Apple has gotten involved and is building their new iChat IM system atop XMPP. XMPP offers everything IMPS does, except for push-notification, with a simpler architecture and without being tied to large companies, and while it doesn't have even close to the following that the big three do it still has more traction than new-kid-on-the-block IMPS. It also allows anyone to setup their own internal networks open only to their own employees/friends if desired.
There are mobile XMPP clients for Palm OS, Pocket PC, Windows Mobile for Smartphone, Symbian, RIM, and J2ME as well as all desktop platforms, and the Jabber foundation is supposedly working on an IMPS gateway. Of course, a gateway is still a step down from a directly compatible network, but it's better than nothing.
Of course, the big carriers don't like XMPP. They'd rather drive people toward their own heavily-branded IMPS services that they can control. Open protocols are good for everyone but those who have invested infrastructure in closed systems. Some users don't like it either, because it requires they choose a provider like with e-mail rather than having one chosen for them.
So what does the future hold? As a user who likes controlling his own data and respects the power and flexibility of open standards, I hope Jabber/XMPP ends up the big winner in the end. The mobile companies, of course, hope IMPS wins out. All three big desktop IM companies (AIM, MSN, Yahoo) are hoping that they can edge out the competition in the mobile space in order to fully take control of the desktop. Frankly the current incompatible mess would be better than a single IM company controlling everything, which is exactly why Jabber/XMPP is the best option in the long run, although I could live with a XMPP/IMPS duopoly with gateways between them. That's far from certain, however. The only thing that's certain is that it's going to get worse before it gets better. Get used to maintaining a half dozen accounts.
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Warning: include(/usr/www/users/infotv/us/ssi/views_right_promo.html) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /usr/www/users/infotv/news/n/5381.html on line 267
Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/usr/www/users/infotv/us/ssi/views_right_promo.html' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in /usr/www/users/infotv/news/n/5381.html on line 267
|
|
|
Archive