Trouble in IMland
Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:15:40 -0800
There are so many problems with this article I hardly know
where to begin. But I'll try anyway.
(1) "Demand for multimedia instant messaging is expected to
be strong"? Yeah, right. Text IM is enough for 99% of
users. Text IM has taken off while accompanying voice/
video apps have sat unused -- and not for lack of bandwidth
or microphones. In fact, text IM is often *better* than
voice/video, since you can more easily give text IM
fractions of your attention.
(2) Sending files works just fine in all the popular
instant messengers. I expect they all do the reasonable
thing, which is to open a direct connection between
endpoints whenver possible, and when that's not possible,
either fail or use a proxy. It shouldn't take until June
to define an IM type that says, "HTTP GET/PUT the given
(3) The whole friggin' point of pre-IM SIP was as a
signalling channel to start sessions in other, more
appropriate protocols. You mean they broke this when
adapting SIP for IM?
I'm willing to chalk the muddleheadedness up 50% to typical
tech-journalism confusion, 50% to the ill-considered marriage
between SIP and IM/P initiatives.
And whatever happened to IMUnified?
Time to bring back PIP-DEMO! [*]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Bone" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 4:35 PM
Subject: Trouble in IMland
> And the protocol wars grind on and on... my commentary? SIP
> was a bad idea then, and it's still a bad idea --- catchy
> evolved acronym notwithstanding.