I totally agree with Ben. What I wanted to point out is the ambiguity surrounding interoperability in the IM industry (MS, AOL Time Warner [non-interoperability even between their own systems: ICQ and AIM]). But we can see more and more "universal" IM clients (Odigo, Imici, Trillian) that interface with multiple protocols; I wonder though how they deal with the legal implications of this compatibility. More on this topic: http://www.techtv.com/products/software/story/0,23008,3336529,00.html Besides, I did not intend to reduce the debate to purely cynical business considerations. There are big, open questions about what is going on in chat "cities" and who should be "accountable"... This is part of my dissertation project. Guillaume
From: Guillaume Latzko-Toth <latzko-toth.guillaume@uqam.ca>
Chat Messenger as a standard "de facto". Non-interoperability of instant messaging services is the key of profitability.
In which case nothing has been learnt from the SMS/texting fiasco. Here in Europe interoperability of SMS = a network externality effect = profit, snowballing externality effects = explosion in use = more profit.
IM has some of the same properties EXCEPT users are not charged on a 'per IM' basis and there is little/no interoperability .
Some room for innovation and strategic re-direction I think?
-- Dr Ben Anderson +44 (0)7710 187 806 www.essex.ac.uk/chimera/people/ben_anderson.html
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l