The coolness formally known as Odigo has done it again, they got us back in AIM, yay! :D Then again, im sure 2 hours from now, I'll be back saying 'Damn aol blocked us out again!' But that is completely irrelevant.

I hope all this crap about AOL is fixed soon, because it is getting beyond a joke. AOL just block every other IM client from access to their servers. I don't know how many times since PowWow 3.9, that Tribal Voice has restored access to AIM, which usually last a week, b4 AOL blocks again. For those users who don't know what PowWow is, visit http://www.powwow.com/ for more info.

It would appear AOL has blocked Odigo out.. yet again.

Haha. Good.

It's about time AOL finds a way to permanently block clients such as Odigo.

Odigo is trying to use equipment owned by AOL to their commercial advantage, without paying any kind of license fee. This reminds me of spammers who leech off of other companies' mail servers to get their work done.

I doubt AOL would be bothered so much if Odigo was a simple freeware program made by some unknown programmer...

I don't know why people are leaping to the defence of Odigo. Basically they're trying to leech off AOL's massive user base and very expensive infrastructure without giving anything in return. The same as Yahoo! and Microsoft tried to do in fact.

The only reason AOL might be inclined to let any third party IM use their infrastructure are:

A. The IM client is a grassroots effort, such as GAIM which is never likely to account for more than 0.001% of all users.
B. The IM author pays AOL directly or indirectly (e.g. through advertising) for the privilege to using their infrastructure.

Personally I'd like to see a gateway and address protocol be devised for IM systems. It needn't necessarily be fast (acceptable would do), but it should let people send IMs to people on other systems.

If AOL didn't want anyone else to connect to it than why did they allow it outside of there service. What did they expect to happen? The only way to secure something is to make it propiatory to your service and it won't work outside of AOL. If I could get my friends to move to odigo I would they got a much more secure system and THEY personally care about there users! I don't see any tech support people on ICQ and send them an email about being hacked Maybe you will hear back from them. AOL has never cared about anything but themselves and when it hurts them they holler. They have so many subscribers because of there 500 free hours crap that they should be considered a monopoly compared to all the other services. They hurt all the other ISPs out there with them ridiculous offers because they spam you with ads the moment you get on and make money from that. I personally think that when it comes to AOL the DOJ should go after them. Let's make our source open code but oh no someone else decided to use that decision to connect to there program and now they holler. AOL aren't innovating anything they take others ideas and create there own version than get mad when others do the same. Oh and they randomly monitor there users! I would never use there service and don't anyone tell me they don't monitor there users. I know for a fact they do I knew someone who was kicked from AOL because there 7 year old boy didn't know that the pixxx chat room was. He was just chatting in chat rooms and entered this one and as soon as he entered it they disconnected them from there service and when they called was told that there son went into a pixx chat room. Now how could they have known that this was a child browsing UNLESS they were monitoring to be able to determine it was a child? And no this didn't happen after being in the chat room for a while saying things that would indicate it was a child BUT as SOON as he entered the channel.

They have agreed to open it up - there's another story posted on betanews about it.

everyone uses simply because everyone does, no one wants yahoo or odigo becuase no one uses them, aim is free so why are u complaingng. everyone uses aim and most aim users dont want stupid people making bots that are gonna send u ims and try and get u to goto some hardcore site... leave it alone. everyone uses aim cuz it works and its free and the fact that the othere things that are compatible look nasty and arent stable

Could you repeat "everyone uses it" one more time please. I don't think everyone understood what you were saying. Were you saying that AIM should be left alone because everyone uses it or do you just like it cuz everyone uses it. Now I guess I have the question: is it good software because everyone uses it or is everyone using it because it's good software? So lets see, if everyone does something then it must be okay.
Let's see if that works.
Cheat on taxes? Everyone does it. Me too, me too! Ignore the homeless? Everyone does it. Me too, me too! Smoke crack? Everyone does it. Me too, me too! Sign up for AOL? Everyone does it. Me too, me too!
Hey MS makes some great products everyone uses, how about we leave them alone. Everyone uses IE so how about we just stop making other browsers. I mean really IE has all the features anyone would want right, no reason for anyone to add anything else that everyone is not going to use right? Or hey, everyone drives a car so how about we stop griping about that whole pollution thing and just leave it alone.

Umm... I for one don't use it. My friends and I started with ICQ first, and we are all still on it. I like how ICQ works better. Unfortunately, it hasn't gone far since AOL bought out Mirabilis (the makers of ICQ, if you didn't know it).

Waaaaaaaaaait a minute! You like the way that ICQ works BETTER? Ehh...ICQ is the easiest to hack protocol ever made. It can reveal your IP, and there are a variety of ways to crash it. And its really easy to spoof (which makes spamming easy). I'm not a big fan of AOL's software (although, i do use it so i can talk to friends who have aol). I have yet to see any ways to reveal your ip in AIM or spoof a Screen Name.

I guess i'm just trying to open everyones eyes. ICQ may be popular, i mean it has gotten over 100 million downloads from download.com alone, but its the biggest, bloated, and buggiest piece of internet communication software that i have ever seen.

And the way that this Odigo software probably works, is by spoofing ICQ, and AIM. So maybe you should think before you add yourself to the "i would die for ICQ" category.

Does AOL have the right to deny anyone access to their servers for any reason they can think of? Sure, Odigo uses their bandwidth and their servers, but so do web browsers and E-Mail clients. When I go to a page from an AOL member, my browser logs into AOL, sends a request to get that page, and AOL sends it. How much different is this then Odigo?

As for the ads, what is that paying for? AOL's bandwidth, or the development cost of AIM? AOL just wants money, and that's not a bad thing since everyone wants money, but does AOL have the right to block Odigo?

I run an internet company, web hosting, and I am NOT allowed to block anyone I want for any reason I can think of. As long as the customer pays, and doesn't violate the rules or laws, I have to let him stay. So long as an AOL user is using Odigo, shouldn't AOL be forced to let it stay? Freedom of choice? This is like forcing AOL users to use AOL browsers to view AOL websites. Wether or not AOL has the right to, it would be good business to make a deal with Odigo. And AOL isn't the same as MS. And until AOL starts making OSs, it shouldn't be compared to MS, since AOL is a service provider, and MS a product provider

(I'm for the feds forcing MS to release information to make Win compatible OSs, but not for splitting them up, just for the record, and I feel this way because I feel that would help the community, but this isn't the place for a discussion on MS)

Has anyone here examined the Odigo and Microsoft source or protocol in depth? I doubt it. Why do we insist then on argueing over things such as who uses what server? The way I interperet the way the clients communicate isnt through a central server(linked)[such as IRC] but rather peer-to-peer useing a server as a directory.. well bob can see it way differently. So who is right, not me or you or anyone but the programmers, and we arent them... So why dont we stop argueing over who uses what servers, because we know Odigo and Microsoft do HAVE servers, and how about we disuss more important issues such as enforcement of existant laws pertaining to this case, and if non pertain then discuss the ethics behind open message, such as open emailing was discussed back dureing the yahoo controvery, or about hypocrisy, such as AOLs open-networking initiative, or about hypocrisy such as the *nix clients AOL doesnt block, yet are thrid-party, or about hypocrisy such as AOL releaseing protocol and then denying access, or about hypocrisy such as AOL etc.

No...

The specs of the protocol were released solely for the Unix world, where AIM does not exist. That move was never intended to spur development of competitive AIM clients on the Windows platform, especially from commercial entities.

To imply that Odigo is the "victim" here is absurd. Odigo is not only leeching from AOL's servers after being asked not to (which constitutes hacking, a crime), they are trying to cash in on what AOL has worked so hard and for so long to build. And not to mention, Odigo bypasses AOL's ads which help fund the AOL service.

AOL pioneered instant messenging; they were doing it years before ICQ, et al. Just because their service got to be a huge success doesn't mean other companies have the "right" to tear them down on their very own servers.

Hacking and reverse engineering are not crimes, please read up... reverse engineering to allow compatability has stood up in court in multiple countries includeing the United States and nobody has been in court on charges of "hacking".

I never said reverse engineering was a crime. But hacking into someone else's computer equipment certainly is illegal.

BTW, yes, people have done hard jail time for hacking.

No, Odigo, etc are NOT hacking into AOL's servers. They connect up just like AIM does, using the authentication protocols. Users still need an AIM account. All Odigo does is combine three IM clients into one (Odigo, ICQ and AIM).

And I'm all for it. Odigo just have to keep at it, and implement a perfect copy of the AIM protocol, or use TOC (IMO, the easiest solution)

Whatever purpose AOL released TOC for is irrelevant. It's released; you can't take something back.

And, IIRC, wasn't AOL whining about AT&T not letting AOL use the CABLE THEY LAID AND PAID FOR?? How hypocritical can you get? They want free access from cablecompanies on one hand, but deny anyone access into protocols THEY PUBLISHED?

Odigo is using the undocumented protocol (i.e. not the TOC one), and they are (were) doing it again's AOL's will.

That IS hacking when you break into someone else's computer against their will.

again's = against (don't know how I managed to do that)

Yes, they can take it back. They own the AOL servers. They have every right to dictate who can use them.

If Odigo wants to use AOL's servers, then they can pay the licensing fee.

I don't understand where everyone gets off thinking just because a piece of software is so popular that it should be free. If you worked you a** off on a piece of software and a million people start using it, are you going to give it away for free? Millions of people drive Ford cars. Is the Ford company going to give cars away for free?

AOL wrote the software for AIM. They didn't buy out ICQ so you people could have it for free. The software is THEIRS. Not YOURS. If I was forced by the government to give my software for free, you know what? I'd stop writing it. Then you get NO software.

There is nothing wrong with all these companies developing their OWN standard so they are interoperable with each other to steal business away from AOL. I don't see Odigo trying to log onto Microsoft's servers.

If you want something for free, then stand on a street corner and let people drop money in your hat.

Right on.

There's a few issues at work here.
Should AOL be able to block a group or organization from communicating directly with it's user base via whatever means? Answer: According to legal precedent, No. AOL has in the past filed suit to gain open access to communicate with other organizations user base. Likewise you would see several suits open up if suddenly AT&T created a new service that only allowed AT&T customers to talk to each other over a proprietary network. AOL has set up a pattern of hypocricy in it actions. It sued some time back over being able to get cable access from competitors, millions of dollars in congressional lobbying and then suddenly when the TimeWarner deal began to move, suits were dropped, lobbiest were recalled. Coincidence? In the midst of this some generic statements were given to the press about how AOL was "committed to open access" but so specifically worded that they did not claim they would ever allow anyone else access to their own systems.
AOL also made mistakes in going open source, they allowed the protocol for their system out and now people are using that knowledge to gain access to communication with their user base. As I understand it they are still using that protocol. Had MS done the same thing I think we all know that AOL would be taking advantage of that as we speak, without apology.
AOL has not made any attempt to block out communication with ICQ. Why? Because ICQ does not have the inherent security flaw currently found in AIM that allows AOL to block certain clients. Again AOL smoke screens stating that they are "only concerned with the security of their users" (while using a known security hole to block out other client applications) meanwhile doing nothing to ensure that ICQ users are protected from these "criminals", likewise doing nothing to ensure that AOL users are secure from the thousands of other security problems that they have. Yes ODIGO and MS and all the others are using AOL's network everytime they do what they do, so what. Everytime I send an e-mail how many systems do I touch, every web page I go to how many other companies systems do I route through, does this mean that I have to use a seperate client for each one of those systems just because the provider I use doesn't own them or have a "partnership" with them? No, the other companies just write it off as the cost of business and keep on going.

Understand this Odigo, MS, and others are not out for getting DATA off of AOL's systems (as digitalsin has suggested). This is not a matter of data mining or getting something that's super secret (if all they wanted was the information about the users they could get that without ever hooking into the service). It's also not a matter of how much bandwidth that Odigo MSN et al would leech off of AOL, since millions of messages a day go through web based interfaces everyday from non-aim users and fraud accounts. Once the connection is open to AOL, they could just as easily ask for the pipe to flow both ways and leech bandwidth from MS and Odigo. Secondly in order for you to show up on the AIM buddy list or to even use Odigo to access AOL and ICQ you have to be a registered user of AIM/ICQ and import your buddy list. AOL again clearly not the loser in this scenario.

AOL has also not taken anyone to court over the matter. Why? They can't legally do it since none of the companies in question are doing anything illegal. For instance if I created a program that edited text files and then saved those files into a format that was compatible with Word 2000 docs in every way as to be indistinguishable upon opening, MS would have no legal recourse unless I some how stole the technology or illegally reverse engineered in order to create the document format. Odigo and MS have done neither in this case, the law allows for reverse engineering of products in order to create other compatible products.
Plain and simple AOL wants to protect it's user base. They will do this and continue to grow the user base by using peer pressure and the strength of numbers that that base represents. They will not make a better product, they will not give better service, they will simply rely on the flock mentality of "well everyone I know has it". Meanwhile I will use a product that does something for me, does what I want it to do, looks like I want it to look, from a company that doesn't act hypocritically or do sudden about-faces on policy every month.

AOL screams the loudest about getting a standard protocol onto the internet, but is the first to walk away from the table once it finds that that protocol will not be the one that AIM currently uses. AOL's sole goal is to dominate the market whereever and whenever possible. This is above and beyond what MS has ever done.
Plain and simple AOL is afraid of losing it's customer base to superior products and this is the prime motivation for disallowing open access to it's proprietary network. Reality check AOL can't even get AIM and ICQ to talk and here's a company that not only gets their product to talk to AIM but also to ICQ and soon MSN. Forget that Odigo less than a million users to AOL's 119 million screen names (they never cancel a screen name not even the 1 that I haven't once used in 3 years). Companies like Odigo that offer interoperability between IM services will soon begin to chip away at AOL if AOL does not make all efforts to block them. Soon AOL will see other companies liscensing Odigo technology to access AOL services, altogether bypassing AOL and leaving AOL unable to do anything about it. Just think about it for awhile, don't be a zealot, just think about it. When a company controls 90% of a given market what are they? "Monopoly". AOL by it's own admission controls billions of communications each day and over 90% of the growing IM market. If any other communications company controled 90% of the market (say AT&T, SWBell) everyone would be up in arms asking how it happened and what's someone going to do to stop it. Think about it. It's all communication and soon the FCC will get into it really deep and make all those hard decisions for AOL.

Sorry, you are missing the point. These people are logging onto AOL's servers. This is not an informations exchange issue. It boils down to theft. Would you allow someone to use your computer as a server to exchage data? Of course not. BTW, I HATE AOL but theft is theft. If they can find a way to stay off AOL's server, then it would be ok.

The only problem here is the fact that AOL is being a Hipocrit.
AOL want's other communications systems to be open to them, but they won't open their own. This is just plain greedy on AOL's part.

When will "Big-Business" learn that you can't do something without having consequences.

There are two Points of View here. AOL's and Odigo's.

From AOL's POV:
Odigo is using AOL's servers without permission or paying for the access. This is "stealing" in their Mind. AOL who owns a propeitary service and does all they can to sheild their users from using non-AOL software by having everything the supposedly will ever need into the AOL client. So by Definition the AOL IM client had it stayed only a part of the AOL client would be a closed system.

From Odigo's POV:
Only people who have signed up with AOL in the first Place can use the AOL-IM portion of the Odigo IM client. Therefor people using Odigo IM for AOL-IM access have the fair right to do so. Odigo is providing an Alternative Interface for the AOL-IM service. Since AOL allows access to their servers from the outside, it is an Open service. AOL itself provides the means of accessing the AOL services from outside of the AOL client so this was their downfall in this matter.

The mistake AOL made was making the source availible, had it not been availible it would only have hindered progress of making a AOL-IM clone, since any internet protocol can be intercepted and scanned and learnt from.

The bottom line is that AOL shouldn't be a hipocrit about open access. Right now, the Global IM systems are fragmented into many factions, Of which, AOL-IM, Yahoo-IM,MSN-IM, even ICQ all exist and are mutually Incompatible. I personally don't want to have 6 IM clients all running to appease all my friends on the 6 different Services. Would you like having to sign up to 6 different phone companies?

I think not. If AOL want's the AOL-IM system to be closed, they should never have brought the AOL-IM outside of the AOL service.

If that were true. Assuming that AOL could prove theft or abuse then they would have a case to take to court. As it stands AOL does a lot of name calling and accusing but has failed to take anyone to court over the matter, because they can't.

The plain fact is that REGISTERED AIM/AOL/ICQ users are simply using a different client in order to receive the service that they previously registerd for. To my knowledge there is nothing in the AOL terms of service that states that you must use a specific client to access the AOL Instant Messaging service. This is yet another reason that AOL does not have legal ground to stand on.

Yes the protocols that AOL published were meant for *nix development of an AIM client. Unfortunately for AOL they could not limit people to using the protocol for *nix and they also could not limit commercial companies from using the protocol in their own software, due to the licensing that was applied. We're seeing the same thing with Linux, there are plenty of commercial companies out there using open source to make a product even if it is open source code developed by a "competitor". The only difference is you don't see Linux companies moaning over another company scooping their code.

BTW AOL is not a pioneer in instant messaging, they simply took an existing idea that someone else had already had and applied it to their large user base to gain market dominance. AOL would like for everyone to think that it's come up with the idea for just about everything including common household phrases. Unfortunately for them there are still people using their brain out here.

Yes, somebody gets it!

By the way, AOL Owns ICQ. That is the *ONLY* reason why it is allowed to communicate with the oscar servers.

I think you may have misread or I my have mistated. I was saying that AOL has not blocked ODIGO or any others from communication with ICQ but they have block communication from AIM siting "security" issues. My point was why do they not have the same concern about external clients hooking up to ICQ.

About 7 years ago (coulda been more, coulda been less, i'm gettin old) AOL cried loud & long about Yahoo having a closed e-mail network. What did AOL say then? That Joe & Jane Internet User should have every right to email anyone they want!!! And they were right! Now that the shoe is on the other foot, AOL is denying interoperability. It's hypocrisy only large, smoke blowing corporations can get away with without accountability.
DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT! REPEAT AFTER ME: INTEROPERABILITY NOW!

Please list for me all of your usernames and passwords. I wish to be interoperable with your computer.

Makes a s***load of sense doesn't it?

First let me say, I HATE AOL. With that out of the way, I think you are compairing oranges to apples. This is not Email we are talking about. What it boils down to is Odigo, MS and others are logging into AOL's servers. They are using AOL's equipment. I hate to say it but AOL has every right to block them.

Tell that to the feds, they want Microsoft to open source its Windows codes

You sure? What's the difference between e-mail and IMs? Nothing really, when you get down to the protocol layer. It's just text transmission from the server to the client, and from the client to the server. And you pass through many, many other systems to transfer that text. AOL declared their AIM service public, and free. They opened up the protocol as well. Same circumstances as their e-mail servers. Just slightly different software. They have no right to deny anybody access because of the client they use, any more then your ISP has any right to say that you're only allowed to check your e-mail using Eudora. What about all the Outlook users out there? Netscape's out in the cold too... All because they "own" the mail servers, on an OPEN system. It doesn't fly... If AOL wanted to control their service, which they claim, they should NEVER have opened it like they did. You don't rent Disney World for a day, and invite all your friends to come in, and then not let them use the rides.

Odigo don't NEED a list of usernames and passwords. They can log on JUST LIKE AIM. AIM doesn't have a list every username and password, does it?

It's utterly amazing how many people seem to think that if something (like data and information) is on the internet, it automatically should be free and public domain.

This is such a messed up attitude. It's a bit like saying anything you put in your front yard is eligible for acquisition by anyone who likes what is out there. Point is, just because it's using a medium which allows for access by different entities DOESN'T meant anyone can "steal it". Yes, taking information such as user names and e-mail is STEALING if the owner of that information, the person(s) who put in money and time to maintain that data, do not agree with you taking that information.

If AOL is scared of Odigo (a laughable notion) or if AOL just wants to be mean is totally irrelavent to whether Odigo should be allowed to access AOL's data. Whether the people agree with it or not, it is totally, utterly, undeniably 100% AOL's decision on opening up that data to a particular client.

Stop being Info-Commies and thinking you're entitled to everything someone else does if it's on the 'net.

This was all started by AOL, why should we support them? If AOL has always intended to keep their services "secure" and force users to use their client to access the service, they should have NEVER released any type of source code.

Now, you may say "Well, they aren't using the protocol released publicly anymore" -- So? They initiated the interest in allowing interoperability with their service. They could change protocols until their programmers have carpal tunnel, but the interest is already there and that is something they cannot take away.

If they were REALLY intent on preserving security at network usage by other clients, they should have created a more efficient authentication protocol that would simply not allow any client, modified or different from AIM , to connect to the service. period.

So you're saying that because AOL has not demonstrated security practices which fit your description, everyone can legally and ethically access whatever they want even if against AOL's will? I'm not sure that logic even makes sense. Seems to me that if it is AOL's machines, data, bandwidth, it is their right to dictate who can access it.

I do not feel security was ever the real issue. They should have never tried to move the client into open source. What happens? People always try to create new and improved clients to interact with the service. AOL just cries "security" when they realize they started something that cannot be stopped.

This is equal to issuing accounts system to whoever wanted one, and then immediately placing a firewall to deny all connections from the outside for that specific service. Well, if you didn't want them to connect, why did you give them the account? Why did you give them the REASON to want to be there?

The issue at hand is not whether or not AOL's data should be protected. The issue is why AOL is being so childishly insistant on keeping their messaging service internal to AOL. Basically, they already have a huge user base, and providing AIM with AOL for free is essentially the parallel of Microsoft providing IE with Windows. Instant Messaging technology is not inherently associated with a service provider in any other way than that it must use an internet connection. IE, however is inherently related to Windows, since an internet-enabled operating system is the future of personal and business computing.

What AOL is trying to avoid, is allowing anyone outside of the AIM arena of users to contact anyone who uses AIM. They want to be the sole provider of messaging for AIM users. In essence, this is AOL trying to make a last stand before connecting their messaging application with the rest of the world, which has already realized that it is in the end-user's benefit to provide inter-connecting networks of messaging technologies. Imagine if Bell, AT&T, GTE, etc. had never reached a level of mutual maturity and understanding to unite their networks. You'd have to have Bell phone services to contact another person who uses the Bell phone service. If you use AT&T, and your parents use GTE, you'd have to subscribe to GTE to call home.

Grow up AOL. And DigitalSin, nobody is trying to say that information and data on the internet are free. We are saying that people are free. We shouldn't have to pay for crappy AOL software or download AIM to message someone on the AIM network. Grow up and connect with the rest of the world. You don't see Microsoft trying to keep their instant messenger separate from the rest of the world... And they are supposed to be the big bad monopoly... So, shouldn't they be the ones trying to monopolize on the instant messaging market?

I agree with you regarding AOL's recklessness when giving out the TOC protocol, however:

1) Odigo is not using TOC, they're using a bug in AOL's software (same one that MS used)
2) Irrespective of how AOL acted in the past, if AOL makes it plain that it does not want anyone accessing its property, it is illegal to do so. Its like locking your door and someone coming in through the window.

You're missing the entire point.

Who PAYS for the servers and internet connection that host the AIM service? AOL does. Unless Odigo is willing to chip in money towards the cost of maintaining the AIM services, they really have no right to "leech" off them.

I can agree with this point, only if there was significant proof that MSN, and Odigo were producing massive amounts of extra traffic for AOL and their servers. I would think that most would already have AIM, and just switch to the client with interoperability. This seems to be the case so far, as no other client I have seen--to my knowledge--allows a user to sign up on the AIM service. Somewhere along the line they had to use AIM or AOL to do so, so I would see it that there is the same user base, just fanning out over a broader selection of software.

The alternative AIM clients don't show AOL's ads. If more and more people switched away from AIM, AOL would end up getting less money off advertising. Again, Odigo just needs to pay its fair share.

The only ads I've ever seen on AIM are for AOL's "500 Hours FREE!!!!!".

Giving free hours doesn't make you money, does it? Why would you pay for something inferior (AOL's IM isn't as good as AIM)

Who looks at those ads anyway?? I don't known of the ppl on the AIM network I know does.. So tell me do you jump on the internet and order things from there ads?? No so stop your gripping about the ads and there servers look at IRC servers they are up and anyone with a irc client can connect some *private servers* require you to have a login and pass... plain and simple if other IM's are using the TOC protocol or the bug to logon to the AIM network and AOL does not want it then A. they need to change protocols and fix there s*** so it is not exploitable or B. Just let it be and let evoloution take its course. seems to me you are the closed minded person here along with digitalsin. If you don't like then *YOU* use AIM and *YOU* look at there ads that you think they use to pay for there server. AOL is a HUGE corporation and they are prolly using outdated servers for there aim servers and I have friends that work for AOL they have anought bandwidth internally and externally to connect this whole planet on aim and let everyone chat and exchange messages.

/me steps off his soapbox and throw his $0.02 into the crowd for someone else to use.

-Ainvar

Yes giving free hours does get you money.
1) by selling advertisement space. AOL can sell ad space to advertisers based on the amount of users signed up for the service even though a percentage of those users may be transient.
2) by continuation of service. some people will try the free time and decide to continue using and be charged for it.
3) by purchases. Some people will use the free time and then end up making purchases over AOL which in turn AOL generates revenue.
4) by stock. AOL is able to use the people that they have signed up for service (even the ones using free hours) to report as a user base which in turn garners more capitol from investors and is used as bargaining power in creating alliances.
5) by fraud or mistake. Some people will sign up for service and forget to cancel once they've used up free time. They can go months of paying without paying attention to that fact, for which AOL will not refund their money even though they have not used the service and have not cost AOL anything to maintain as a user.

Notice that while you may only see "250 free hours of AOL" right now, AOL is working diligently to garner interest from advertisers for that 2 inch space. If done correctly they stand to profit substantially from it and other similar advertising spaces. Don't fool yourself into thinking that AOL is not making money off of "free" software. It is. And it will continue to do so just as others have done.

So is what you are saying is that fully registered AIM users should not be allowed to used AOL servers (if they happen to prefer different shaped buttons on their client, or want to choose the colour of their IM's skin?)
Why does AOL allow non-AOL users to download just the IM client if they don't want non-AOL users using their system or bandwith?

Everyone is going on about the business side of it (poor little AOL losing money etc.) but what about what is good for the user.
Personally I think IM has become such a ubiquitous and essential function that it is only a metter of time before it goes the way of e-mail and becomes just another means of communication.

You miss the point.

My ISP owns their own mail servers. Does that mean that I can only receive email from other clients of my ISP? Of course not!

Another point was also missed. You have to be a REGISTERED AIM member to use these other clients. I have to have a valid email account in order to get email, but I can use whatever program complies to the internet standards for receiving and sending email.

AOL should have left their messaging system completely restricted to AOL in the first place if they did not want people to have a choice about which client to use.

As has been said many time before: AOL is one big hypocrisy.

I don't see your comparison with e-mail a valid one in the least. First, most people _pay_ their ISPs to give them internet access & e-mail. Second, on free e-mail services like Hotmail, you see ads on the screen. You can bet free e-mail services would react similarly if somebody made a program that bypassed their ads.

And AOL is not a hypocrisy for making the decision to block Odigo. Odigo is a _commercial company_ trying to exploit for their own gain the network AOL created and still maintains with _their own money_. If Odigo were made by an "Average Joe", like some Unix AIM clients, then I doubt AOL would see it as a threat.

AOL is just about as gay as netscape. Wait a minute! Maybe that's why AOL bought Nuttscrape. That way you can use a crappy browser, while AOL disconnects you every time you move the mouse.

BTW, this is not news by any stretch of the imaginiation. AOL was doing the same old bulls*** to Microsoft Instant Messenger. I guess AOL has their own gay community and they don't want anyone to intrude on their gayness.

DISCLAIMER: I in no way am homophobic or condone homophobia. I am merely pissed off at lame companies like AOL, Netscape, Sun, etc. being total lameasses. If you don't like my use of the word gay--too bad. If it makes you feel better, replace the word "gay" with your own appropriate expletive.

Congratulations! Your post has been nominated for the Most Immature and Misinformed Post of All Time Award (pronounced mor-on)!

Why is it a select number of people (read: all 13 year old wannabe hackers) insist on bashing AOL for absolutely no reason at all? AOL has EVERY RIGHT to deny anyone and everyone access to THEIR networks whenever they want. Its very simple. If you're accessing their database, you're subject to their terms and conditions. Why on earth is this so hard to comprehend? Your networks\database\information = your property. Odigo is just trying to get some publicity. Don't be a pawn in their little marketing tactics. Odigo is a cool software, don't get me wrong. Its just that it ain't all that and a bag of cookies, and needs some innovation.

My original post did come off as rather immature. I didn't mean to offend any of the loyal AOL users out there (DigitalSin).

It just pisses me off that people rail on Microsoft because they think that they are the big bad guys trying to turn everyone into cyborgs or something. Microsoft is not trying to rule the world. They are trying to make personal computing better for everyone. Let's face it, no matter how much of a market share Microsoft has, if they weren't driven to please customers then they would find themselves losing their market hold fast. The fact that Microsoft is so huge, is testament to their efforts to innovate and provide good software.

What I find ironic, is that companies who attack Microsoft for providing a free service with their software, and supposedly excluding them from the market, will turn around and provide a free messenger with their software and deny anyone else access to it. It's a good thing that AOL didn't invent email, because if they did then everyone would have millions of email addresses, just so they could email their friends on Hotmail, Yahoo, Excite, AOL, etc. and so on.

Are you an AOL employee?

You have to be a REGISTERED AIM user before you can use a different client.

Show me where their Terms & Conditions say that you can't use a different client to access YOUR OWN AIM account.

how come the doj bugs ms? but not AOL?

This is BS.. I hate this because now the Feds are going to come. Any company has every right to keep in control in who uses their service. This is bull.

screw that. thats all fine and good in a limited market, but for a product that will (has) become as popular as email granting open competition is a must. Allowing for a market monopoly to occur is detrimental to consumers and to other businesses.

I completely agree. Instant Messaging should be the next protocol developed cohesively by all the "big players" with interoperability a required "feature." Different players in the marketplace should concentrate on enhancing the usability of their product rather than whether or not it can accept messages from a variety of clients. AOL is nuts to restrict universal usage of IM - regardless of the form.

I think that Instant Messaging should definatly be open to anyone to develop for with total interoperability. Think about it... Phone companies cant block your access to calling people on other phone companies can they? So why should AOL be able to prevent Odigo from creating software to communicate with AIM users? AOL is just scared of competition.

I agree with all that has been said about the right of a company to restrict access to its respect technology. Now, you are probably thinking, How can he agree to all this? It's nothing more than a shouting fight! Well, to start, I reoffer the application of a different service: email. Would it be right for a company to restrict its email network, so that only its customers could recieve email from each other? That's a rhetorical question, let it bump around in your head for a minute ... *shudders in the thought*. I can see, although not quite understand, AOL's complaint. The problem: users are NOT using the AIM client to use the AIM services. Now, what are the ramifications of that truth? That is, what is AOL losing by people not using their AIM client? The client is freeware, so they are not subjected to a financial loss, in that respect. In fact, why does AOL care at all about their AIM client? Is it because they are attemping to build a huge database, for the purpose of approaching companies and saying, "We have X number of users online on average, a minimum of Y customers, and at the following peak times we have Z number of users. For a fee, you can purchase air time during these different hours." I suppose then an argument that avoiding these banners would compromise the company could hold ... maybe.

Before I go further, I feel it would be helpful to analyze the AIM customers. First, there are people like myself who only have AIM to communicate with those foolish enough to still have AOL as their service provider and have failed to download a superior Instant Message program, such as ICQ. (A brief sidenote: ICQ is far superior to AIM in terms of practically and common usage. First, it does not force a message box upon you following the first message. Secondly, it offers Offline messaging. Rather than sending an email saying, "Ok, we'll do lunch at 2:30" one can simply drop a message to someone on ICQ. It's a nice incorporation of Instant Messaging and the advantage of email - the other person does not have to be there at the time. Also, with more Status modes, ways to deal with incoming events, real-time chatting, and ActiveLists, ICQ has far more to offer.) Secondly, there are people that have AIM because they switched from AOL and still wish to keep their contacts. Maybe they feel an affinity towards the type of Instant Message, as it was what they knew. Thirdly, there are people new to the Internet that hear about the AIM service and wish to be connected to the large number of users. The more I think about this, the less I can rationalize obtaining the AIM software if you don't already have AOL contacts. I hypothesize a very few number of people talk directly to AIM users. I have one person on my list that uses AIM simply because he is on a Macintosh and the ICQ client is not well developed for his platform. However, when much better alternative abound, it would seem that the minority of users are AIM -- AIM. If they are AIM to AIM, it is rare that either person was intended to connect to other AIM users, it's because the AIM users both have AOL contacts. These are not facts, but conclusions I have reached after a little reasoning.

What does all that mean? If the vast majority of the users employ the AIM software for discourse with AOL members, how many users can the "500 Free Hours!" attract? When the vast majority of users have AOL contacts, the AOL services should be enough to entice new users. I believe it would be hard to convice a verteran of the Internet to use AOL for an ISP. It is great for low-power users, who are not interested in connection speed or the possibilities that are abundant on the web, but rather are comfortable in the community-oriented AOL setting. With technology increasing and faster connections being more readily available, dialup in general is losing the race. File sizes of 100mb are an unreasonable download on a dialup, and overpoweringly painful on AOL (especially when you are disconnected after a few minutes of idle time - who wants to sit and watch a 100mb download, just to click "Remain connected"?).

Now, finally, to my point. AOL: Give the majority of your AIM users a break, don't tie us to your poor software. I had been hoping for a while that ICQ would somehow allow conversation with AOL users. It did not come to pass. However, Odigo is allowing users to communicate with members of three services, all in one program. I find that remarkable. More power to Odigo, let all the services combine, and then let the best software reign.

Side rant on AIM:
AIM - AOL Instant Messenger; how about being able to obtain AOL-users' profiles? You may argue profiles a benefit only for the AOL community, but when the only reason I am using the software is stay in touch with the AOL users (poor souls), I should at least be able to read their profiles. Weak argument? Maybe. Great annoyance? Definitely.

More later.