Main menu
You are here
Gmail + AIM = Evil?
Gmail supports AIM. That's good news. Err, it's bad news! This is an evil feature and in this article I will write why Google is evil.
A Shameful Lie
First, Michael Davidson, a Googler, writes in the announcement that
'Google has been committed to open standards and interoperation for instant messaging. So when our friends at AOL agreed to let Gmail users talk to users on their network, we jumped at the chance.'
This is a shameful lie and an abuse of the term 'open standard': no open standards are involved in the evil Gmail feature. Gmail behaves like a normal AIM client. The AIM servers still talk a proprietary protocol and so does Gmail; nothing changed. So, we are still talking about walled gardens in instant messaging.
Google's current move with AIM support in Gmail is in no way comparable with their recent contribution to the destruction of walled gardens in social networks.
A Curse for Adoption of Open Standards
Technically, Gmail now became a multiprotocol client implementing a proprietary instant messaging protocol. Google thus promotes the use of the proprietary networks by allowing their users to connect to this walled garden.
As I wrote a few months ago, multiprotocol clients are a curse:
- Multiprotocol clients are a curse for interoperability.
- Multiprotocol clients hinder adoption of open standards like XMPP and SIMPLE.
- Multiprotocol clients even hinder their own adoption!
- Multiprotocol clients explain why "the Firefox of instant messaging" does not yet exist.
More details about these these tough claims can be found in the section Why a Curse and Why Transports? of that article.
Not Fair to other Instant Messaging Services
Google's agreement with AOL is a coalition between 2 incumbent players. Such a partnership is an evil entry barrier to make it more difficult for other players in the market to compete on the same level. Both Google and AOL restrict the market by this move. This is not compatible with Google's "Don't be evil".
How to Fix
If Google want to restore it's reputation for not being evil, it should process the items on this TODO list:
- Excuse for the wrong use of the term 'open standard' in the announcement
- One of these:
- Use transports instead, to achieve the AIM integration as a means to achieve #2
- Get AOL to adopt XMPP for server-to-server interoperability
Others who Think it's a Misfeature
Other bloggers who also don't like the AIM feature:
This list will be updated when you provide me more links.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Glad they did it
This indeed isn't the situation I hoped for, but I'm still glad they did it. For a lot of users, this AIM integration will be the reason to be 100% online on XMPP instead of only a few times per day when checking their Gmail only. It's just too bad they couldn't agree on a more open solution, but when Google gets more users and a stronger position that might change.
By the way, communication still goes through the Google Talk server with XMPP; you can see that by sending a XMPP message to aimscreenname@aim or fetch info on the 'aim' JID. It doesn't really change the situation though.
Are you sure?
"'Google has been committed to open standards and interoperation for instant messaging. So when our friends at AOL agreed to let Gmail users talk to users on their network, we jumped at the chance.'
This is a shameful lie and an abuse of the term 'open standard': no open standards are involved in the evil Gmail feature. Gmail behaves like a normal AIM client. The AIM servers still talk a proprietary protocol and so does Gmail; nothing changed. So, we are still talking about walled gardens in instant messaging."
Are you sure that Google didn't jump at the chance to interoperate?
The biggest problem I have
The biggest problem I have with the Google statement is that they abuse the term 'open standards' whilst their success is based on them (therefore 'shameful'). Open standards have nothing to do with this whole story: Gmail adopted the proprietary AIM protocol for communication between the Gmail and AIM servers. Why then do they make it look like Google and AOL interoperate using open standards? Yes, they abuse this term for marketing purposes...and that is the most evil part in the whole story.
Anyway, to answer your question: no, because they could do so much more. It's a lie because they write they are committed to interoperability. AFAICS the interoperation is limited to Gmail and AIM. If they really were committed to interoperation for instant messaging, they could at least make it also possible for third-party software which is already interoperable with Google Talk/Gmail (like Coccinella, Psi, and Gajim e.g.) to profit from this semi-interoperation. They didn't do that.
Google made some kind of strategic partnership with AOL: a coalition between two competitors to create a walled garden using the network effects of the closed AIM network to make it harder for newcomers to enter the market...this is not compatible with what Google claims: if they were really committed to open standards and interoperability, they would have allowed third parties to also interoperate with Google and AIM...which is not the current situation: this is no interoperation; this is just a deal between only 2 market players. That's no real interoperation.
Finally, Google also could have written something this:
At least this seems to be more right...
PS: more details about my position can be found in my 'Why Transports Matter' article to which has been linked in this blog post.