Off Forum: Trillian

dumbluck · #1 February 16th, 2002, 07:38 AM

Heh. I'd never even heard of Trillian until just now. Sounds kind of cool!

Urendi Maleldil · #2 February 16th, 2002, 07:53 AM

The Trillian people keep making updates for AIM connectivity.

Will · #3 February 17th, 2002, 02:49 AM

Until now, they've been able to release patches to get around AOL blocks. This time, they periodically check every connection, and make sure that it's the AOL-sponsored client. If it isn't, then it's booted from the network. So Cerulean basically has to clone AIM, and figure out how to mesh it with Trillian. Once that happens, I have no doubt that AOL/Time Warner will tell all their drones to get a new Version of AIM, as part of a "network upgrade". Then begins a cycle of Cerulean creating AIM-clones, and AOL/Time Warner changing the network, until: A. Trillian gets squashed; B. AOL/Time Warner voluntarilly gives in to an integrated IM network not controlled by them; or C. the FCC steps in and forces either A or B.

Any way that it happens, it ain't gonna be pretty.

mac5732 · #4 February 17th, 2002, 08:05 AM

sounds similiar to the Browser wars against Microsoft..

just some ideas mac

tesco samoa · #5 February 17th, 2002, 08:36 PM

AOL has every right to block Trillian. It is their network and to use the aol network you must agree to their EULA policy which states that you can only access their networks with their own software.

I see no wrong in that.

Will · #6 February 18th, 2002, 05:15 AM

quote:
Originally posted by tesco samoa:
AOL has every right to block Trillian. It is their network and to use the aol network you must agree to their EULA policy which states that you can only access their networks with their own software.

That is the "legal" arguement. The "ethical" arguement is that IM networks should be opened, like the phone networks or the Internet. You don't see AT&T saying that their customers can only call AT&T customers, or MCI only MCI, or Sprint only Sprint, or whatever other phone companies. One arguement used extensively has been a Microsoft analogy. Microsoft could easily (and legally) have only allowed Internet Explorer Users to access any of its websites, and it could have easily "persuaded" several other companies to do the same. AOL could have done the same thing after it aquired Netscape. Opera, NeoPlanet, and other browsers would be left in the cold. The thing is, none of that is really ethical. The browser analogies, IMHO, fit best. Websites are stored on a company's servers, using the company's bandwidth, space, resources in general; yet any (decent) web browser can access it. The same should apply for IM networks.

Also, the government told AOL/Time Warner to open up its IM networks as a part of the merger. AOL/Time Warner, unethically, made a loophole. The wording of the agreement basically went as so: "AOL/Time Warner agrees to open up its IM networks to connection with any other IM client that wishes to connect, after we implement a new protocol which we have told the government we will implement in a year." As soon as the merger was finalized, AOL/Time Warner announced that it will no longer be developing a new protocol, OSCAR is doing just fine. Certainly legal, and yet unethical for using the word of the law to get around the purpose of the law.

Yet another reason why AOL/Time Warner is being less than ethical is the fact that they are NOT preventing ALL IM clients not developed/licensed/supported by them from connecting. Those using the TOC protocol can still connect. However, the AIM networks have been tweaked to the point where TOC support is butchered, allowing only sending and recieving of Messages; no file transfer, no away message, no chat. I have no doubt that at some point, TOC will not be supported at all. Yet for now, some clients are allowed to connect, and some aren't.

So, legally, AOL/Time Warner does have every right to boot Trillian Users from its network. And in the pre-Civil War era, Southern farmers had every right to own slaves. And in the pre-Magna Carta era, British rulers had every right to refuse the public their voice. Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean that it is right.

Wow, that was a bit of a rant...

Puke · #7 February 18th, 2002, 05:47 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Will:
Wow, that was a bit of a rant...

one of the better educated rants i have read in a while, though.