Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Trillian Fights Back as AOL Boots its Users

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

February 7, 2002, 9:50 PM

UPDATED Adding yet another chapter to the seemingly endless battle over instant messaging, AOL has begun blocking Trillian users from accessing its servers, effectively cutting off communication between the independent client and AOL's ad-laden software. Trillian does not provide its own messaging platform, but instead combines the most popular services into a single program and eliminates the need to run multiple clients. The standoff began last week and Cerulean Studios -- developer of Trillian -- continues to issue updates immediately bypassing each new block.

Such resistance to outsiders is nothing new to AOL, which played similar games with Microsoft in 1999 and again with Odigo in 2000. Microsoft eventually gave in and focused on improving MSN Messenger, which has now begun to eat away at AOL's controlling market share. Odigo in July 2000 formed IMUnified, a coalition designed to work towards instant messaging interoperability, and continues to tout AOL compatibility in its client.

Trillian has gained notoriety among IM users due to its simple interface and customization features. Using a single window, Trillian can communicate with ICQ, Yahoo! Messenger, MSN Messenger, IRC and until this week - AOL Instant Messenger. Constant updates have made the client more appealing than AOL's, as AIM has changed little in the past three years. And perhaps its biggest draw, Trillian sports no advertising or nag screens.

AOL defends its right to block Trillian, calling the software a hack that endangers the security of AIM. Such talk has sparked a heated debate in the industry, with critics accusing AOL of monopolizing a system that should be open.

A Microsoft spokesperson assured BetaNews they had no plans to follow in AOL's footsteps. "As we've said all along, we believe that the ultimate benefit for consumers is a standard for instant messaging/interoperability among all IM products. MSN continues to work with the IETF and the rest of the industry to make that happen so that consumers can communicate openly and freely with friends and family no matter what instant messaging service they use."

Trillian users have joined together to support the start-up by sending in donations to ensure additional updates. Although it has won in the past, AOL may have met an unexpected adversary with Trillian, as the software is designed and supported by those who ultimately control AOL's fate - the consumers.

Download the latest patch to correct the AIM connectivity issues via FileForum.

Add a Comment (600 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By zhanghenihao

posted Nov 12, 2008 - 4:08 AM

zhanghe is good boy
http://www.wow-powerleveling-wow.com/ wow gold
http://www.powerleveling-wowgold.com/ wow gold

Score: 0

By skellious

edited Dec 15, 2005 - 5:02 PM

i use aol to connect and is it just me, or has aol blocked the entire MSN? for some reason, i cant connect to anything other than the msn homepage, and passport dosent work. coincidence? Ill leave it to you to decide...

Score: 0

By aolseminoles

posted Jul 15, 2002 - 11:55 AM

MSN Explorer is too slow to dialup. aol is fast browsing and dial-up. AOL allows Trillian to get throught to aim server. msn has inviation setup. aim has one thing than msn does is Buddy Icon. Trillian has feature on all im is see member is typing. MSN not good. a place of hacker. Microsoft code secret is out.

Score: 0

By nova897

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 11:03 PM

ok. i am tired of AOLs bulls***. enough is enough. either they allow trillian to work, or i am bombing them. i am sick and tired of AOHELLs bulls***. i HATE aol crap but i use the AIM, sometimes. not often. however i wanna be able to use it. now i got booted off and i have to wait a while to be able to sign on again. btw, tired of those aol ****ing CDs? go to http://www.nomoreaolcds.com and check it out. i'd deliver a bomb to those bas****s. anyone wanna help me? let's kill them once and for all.

Score: 0

By WebMaster@Work

posted Feb 18, 2002 - 1:02 PM

The only think AOL CD's are good for is to keep the boxes for my backup and trow the cd in the trach....

if you have more boxes send them over and I'll use them...

Score: 0

By hellgod

posted Feb 15, 2002 - 11:02 AM

True... ne1 have key's to a 747 we need to fly it into AOL HQ! But Microsoft is gunna own them anyway... cause you cant sue the company who made you as big as you are.. and not get bought, or taken.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 15, 2002 - 3:17 PM

Business 101, AOL is bigger than MSFT.

Score: 0

By ShafuyZ

posted Feb 15, 2002 - 1:42 AM

Dude, you can't say these kinds of things since 9-11. I personally didn't take your threat literally, and hope nobody else did (like AOL, or the FBI).

Score: 0

By nova897

posted Feb 15, 2002 - 2:19 AM

i know... lol. i just don;t like aolhell. i don;t have the kind of money to do that anyway and still i wouldn;t be able to do it if i had. i am not a terrorist. aohell are more terorists than any of us. it's just a monopoly.

Score: 0

By DivineDark

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 6:56 PM

You guys are nazi post deleters!

Score: 0

By jamwheat

posted Feb 14, 2002 - 8:39 AM

Actually, Betanews can do what they want about keeping or removing posts. Did you ever read

"Please Note: BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated."

This is printed right above the box for making your post. If you do not agree, do not post, do not cry about it. This is Betanews' web site, and they have the right to remove offensive posts if they want.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 10:11 PM

Just how many accounts have you made so far fewt? =)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 10:47 PM

OMG Nate, please look at the logs and inform bonehead here that I didn't make that post. Chris, you know I wouldn't have had that light of a tone.

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Feb 14, 2002 - 6:30 PM

'bonehead' was kidding. You haven't started using the word nazi yet, closest to it is communism =)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 14, 2002 - 8:47 PM

I'm sorry, that is among the only words that you will NEVER hear from me.

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Feb 14, 2002 - 9:03 PM

eheheheh, I'll make a note, things you will never hear from fewt:

1) I admit I'm wrong
2) nazi

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 14, 2002 - 9:44 PM

I'll admit when I'm wrong, you just need to prove that I am first. :-P

Score: 0

By NeonGenesis

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 6:42 PM

If you asked me if I liked America Online, I would say no. I don't. I have certain issues with them, and do not tend to support them very often. AIM is a different story. As was previously stated by Russ, AIM has remained rather bloat-free, quite in contrast to other services such as MSN, Yahoo, and ICQ (Which, coincedentally, is owned by AOL). The product is supported by the advertisements it displays, and insecure as it may be, they are right when they say that software such as Trillian brings certain security issues into question. AOL designed the service, and maintains it, and it is their right to limit how it is accessed, and if it is accessed at all. I do not have a problem with Trillian supporting IM clients that willingly allow third party software to connect to it's servers, but if AOL doesn't want to be accessable through Trillian, then that is how it should be. If you want to get on AIM, use AIM, and suffer through the ads. I think you can handle the tiny little ad windows in return for free access to one of the most widely used IM services on the net.

Score: 0

By seattlesparks

posted Feb 15, 2002 - 9:56 AM

Sure, AOL's legally in the right. They own the servers; they can restrict whoever they want from them.

But Microsoft owns the Hotmail.com servers, too. They could legally block anyone who's using ad-buster software. They're perfectly legally within their rights to block Netscape and Opera users from accessing Hotmail if they want. Heck, they own the SMTP servers for the MSN.com and Hotmail.com domains; they could chose to block AOL.com addresses from communicating with any of their domains, if they chose. It's their right. They could firewall all AOL dialup customers if they wanted; they have legal grounds to stop 'intrusions' from 'unwanted users' onto their servers.

However, if Microsoft took any of those actions, it would be challenged in court, I guarantee you.

Legal right does not make moral right. Especially when the company in question was told by the FCC to open up AIM to third-party clients without putting horrific restrictions on them, as one of the conditions of the AOL/Time Warner merger; since AOL owned AIM and ICQ there were monopoly concerns. AOL played slick legalese tricks and got out of the condition set on them; their moral ground is already pretty shaky, in my opinion.

But hey, I think it would be fun to watch AOL's response if Microsoft blocked AOL networks from everything they owned. I'll bet you anything AOL would whine unfair practice even though Microsoft owns the servers. Funny how the tune will change when the shoe's on the other foot... ;)

--Rachel

Score: 0

By russjones

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 1:49 PM

Sorry guys, but I have to say that AOL is in the right here. If Trillian wants to offer a service similar to AOL Instant Messenger without ads, that is as user-friendly (or more) than Instant Messenger, and is overall better - go for it. But to piggy back on AOL Instant Messenger's user base gained by the massive amounts of advertising and marketing that AOL did to attract those users, amounts to little more than theft.

The Open Source and Freeware movements need to get a grip. This is about making better products, that can be personally improved and offered to others for free, without the motivations of greed and the intention of monopoly.

IT IS NOT ABOUT PIGGY-BACKING ON NON-OPEN-SOURCE or advertisement paid-for programs.

Im sick and tired of this. Why wont you give it to AOL - they created a program that is comfortable, accessible, widely available, and made it relatively free (aside from the ads youll be - OMG - forced to view).

They have kept the program relatively bloat free - look at ICQ for comparison - and other than protect themselves from people who are trying to steal their earned profits.

Heres an example of what Trillium is doing.

You guys watch tv every now and then, right? well, what if you wrote a program on some fancy machine that recorded all the major channels (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN), cut out their ads and re-broadcast it for free? In the Trillium game, they do the same thing to AOL, it is just that the tv stations are pay-for or ad-based clients and the tv shows are actually the conversations that one could have on their network with their software.

Make an independent product that is better and will make people turn to a third party program, I challenge Trillium.

Russ

Score: 0

By nonsense

posted Feb 17, 2002 - 3:07 PM

OK . . . . but who the **** is Trillium?

Score: 0

By seattlesparks

posted Feb 15, 2002 - 10:13 AM

Russ, the problem is that AOL owning AIM and ICQ - and claiming they are planning to combine them into a single network - was ruled to be a monopoly by the FCC. They ordered AOL to open the AIM protocol and servers to third-party programs...and AOL found a loophole and thumbed their nose at the FCC.

To use your television analogy, imagine if a single company went and bought all of the major television networks and then controlled advertising rates, forced standards changes...basically threw their weight around. Sure, you might still have some independents like UPN, but they'd be getting flattened by this giant behemoth monopoly. That's what AOL is trying to make with their IM services.

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 10:19 PM

Do you work for AOL? I have to ask because this:

"making better products, that can be personally improved and offered to others for free, without the motivations of greed and the intention of monopoly."

was just magical! You're right of course. AOL is continually improving AIM out of the goodness of their corporate hearts. They don't care about market share, greed, having a monopoly etc etc. Sarcasm over.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 10:49 PM

Exactly what market do they have a monopoly in? Why are they an evil company? Is it because of that tossing AOL disks out of a plane bit?

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Feb 14, 2002 - 6:35 PM

> Exactly what market do they have a monopoly in?
"intention of monopoly.", And I said "They don't care about ... having a monopoly".

> Why are they an evil company?
Well for starters they are the King and Queen when it comes to SPAM. Secondly, and given your position on Open Source you'd have to agree, they try and make everything AOL-proprietary. Their dialer, their software, you just about name it.

> Is it because of that tossing AOL disks out of a plane bit?
No.

And please, that comment was simply magical. If anyone were to say the same thing but stick 'Microsoft' at the front, e.g.:

Microsoft "is about making better products, that can be personally improved and offered to others for free, without the motivations of greed and the intention of monopoly."

We'd never hear the end of it from you.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 14, 2002 - 8:48 PM

I simply wanted to know why AOL was viewed as an evil company. ;-) We all know why Microsoft is already.

Score: 0

By pplchamp

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 6:42 PM

Can you say...

A VCR with commercial skip?

A rmeote control that allows you to change channels during a commercial break?

How about ReplayTV? Or the many others that are similar that allow you to "pause live tv", "skip commercials", etc.

Ad bypassing has been done in other medias. The net is no different, "Pop up killers", "fake proxy servers to remove ads", etc.

Score: 0

By RedBadger

posted Feb 12, 2002 - 8:41 PM

Personally I don't understand why AOL makes such a big deal over someone being able to chat with their customers. Do they honestly believe that their chat program is the reason why people switch to their service?

The only purpose this serves is to tick off people, and tick off their own customers.

Score: 0

By martok917

posted Feb 12, 2002 - 10:45 AM

AOL should just shut up and quit sueing people that is a was of their money. Especially since they are also sueing Microsoft. LOL aol is lame

Score: 0

By shodgi5656

posted Feb 12, 2002 - 12:04 PM

RIGHT ON!!!! There just making a bad name for themself and no wonder everyone is against them.

Score: 0

By tone76

posted Feb 16, 2002 - 9:31 PM

I always read 'AOL' as an abbreviation for 'a******'. If you try saying is as a word, it sounds like 'A-hole'. Quite appropriate I think. ;)

Score: 0

By LooseChanj

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 12:15 PM

It's not about about advertising $$$. It sure as heck isn't about "security". What it *is* about is ensuring the integrity of the AOL brand. We saw it when msnm first came out. For the first time, AOL was threatened with a "real" alternative to AIM, superior in the sense that you could quit using "AOL" software and still chat with your AOL friends. It's childish paranoia, but AOL knows that if they allow people the choice of not using *their* software, people will realize they don't *have* to, and probably choose something else.

Score: 0

By russjones

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 1:52 PM

If Trillian is so da*n good, why cant they simply convince users of other programs to turn over to use trillian? Thats the issue, that is all that AOL can call Trillian out for.

If the open-source free-software movement would just come up with a product that would legitimately steal away customers rather than illegitimately (as in, have them choose trillian rather than aolim) we wouldnt have to deal with any of this.

come on.

Score: 0

By LooseChanj

posted Feb 15, 2002 - 1:18 AM

>

Trillian *is* that good. In case you hadn't noticed, Trillian supports not only AIM, but MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, and even IRC. And many users of those have also converted to trillian.

>

Ok, now here you're just not making cents. Trillian is not open source. And your differentiating between "legal" and "illegal" means is preposterous. Trillian has *no* service of its own. It is merely a *client*. And how would they go about "legally"? I chose Trillian because it would perform the functions of several other IM apps I used. I've got MSN, ICQ, Yahoo accounts, as well as AIM. Those are valid accounts. If I have a username:password to a system, I'm usually validated. FTP sites don't care what client you use, POP3 server don't either. Why has AOL, in a number of cases, put work into breaking *certain* clients?

I'm too tired for the history lesson, maybe next time.

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 10:31 PM

Trillian *IS* so darn good. It incorporates multiple IM's into the one package - which is brilliant for those people that have contacts on more than one IM. Not only do you not need to run several programs, Trillian also uses up less memory than running each of the IM's separately.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 7:50 PM

Trillian isn't OSS. This is a company that expects to make money somehow off the work of others. None of the OSS clients have been affected. In my OPINION something is wrong with Trillian if AOL can block Trillian so easily, yet the Open Source clients aren't effected.

Score: 0

By pplchamp

posted Feb 14, 2002 - 3:21 AM

How do they "expect" to make money, when all they ask for is "donations"?

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 14, 2002 - 2:22 PM

For now.

Score: 0

By pplchamp

posted Feb 14, 2002 - 5:19 PM

And, you have some evidence that states in the future Trillian will charge for their program?

Or, is this just another one of your opinions.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 14, 2002 - 8:48 PM

I don't remember stating that it was a fact. You assume too much.

Score: 0

By seattlesparks

posted Feb 15, 2002 - 4:17 PM

Scott and Kevin have been pretty up-front about their plans for Trillian, from what I've seen? Scott's said they plan to always keep it free and empty of ads...but that if things settle down, they've considered licensing branded custom-versions of Trillian to ISPs for their users and such. Much like AT&T's IMAnywhere thing, only using Trillian.

And yah. Webservers allow multiple browsers to connect, POP3/IMAP servers allow multiple mail clients to connect, FTP servers allow multiple FTP clients to connect...why is it so wrong if any of them wanted to block a client, but yet totally right for AOL? That's what I don't understand...when Microsoft blocked Netscape from Hotmail (supposedly unintentionally), people were screaming bloody murder. NO one justified Microsoft's legal right to do so, despite the fact that Microsoft owns the Hotmail network and servers just like AOL owns the AIM one. Yet when AOL blocks Trillian, the AOL supporters appear.

It just seems to me like 'Microsoft' in a situation immediately makes the company the bad-guy, whereas if you put 'AOL' into the same situation some people would change their tune. Human nature's weird. :/

--Rachel

Score: 0

By ShafuyZ

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 4:01 PM

I agree 100%. But I do believe ad money is a non-significant reason for their stubbornness in fighting Trillian.

But yeah, AIM-paranoia is, in fact, what made AOL lose $150million when they bought ICQ. All ICQ was (in the beginning) -- it was a Buddy List clone program for all Internet users, not just AOL users. AOL could have made AIM available ISP-wide when ICQ started gaining momentum, but obviously wanted users to be forced to use AOL-ISP if they wanna instant-chat to their little "buddies" on AOL (and everyone knew someone on AOL then, ... actually now too). Eventually they realized that their AOL users may actually use ICQ instead of AIM due to more features and just friends outside of AOL, so they 1. opened AIM. 2. bought ICQ.

But this time they're gonna lose no matter WHAT they do. The Napster saga proves this. "Software-loyalty" is as nonexistent as green horses. Napster died, Morpheus lives. If enough of your buddies on MSN Messenger, you'll install the proggie yourself or use Trillian to talk to them, your ICQ buddies, and your Yahoo buddies...

AOL is counting on their users stupidity, and unwillingness to try "something new". What Trillian needs to do is cater to those stupid masses and give them retarded features that'll attract them. Like maybe animated gif emoticons, built-in Text-to-speech and other crap that would make the morons willing to try Trillian.

Score: 0

By BrownRing

posted Feb 13, 2002 - 11:10 AM

God forbid, no! Last thing be need is Trillian to become a bloatware. Just look what happened to ICQ, they added some brainded features and soon enough AOL bought them. Trillian developers sould realize that usability and reliability are what makes a program great, not "branding" or loads of useless bells and whistles.

Score: 0

By jtb1965

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 12:43 AM

Because I am not using the offical AOL Web Browser I can not access any of their sites! Yeah Right! Why do that with the IM client?

Score: 0

By ShafuyZ

posted Feb 10, 2002 - 8:15 PM

All they need to do is use encryption with their product, and if Trillian breaks it or attempts to circumvent it, the Millennium Digital Act will make them criminals.

Then again, AOL isn't supposed to be encrypting those msgs, since they promised to use the universal IM protocol, as a condition for their Time Warner merge...so slim chances of that.

Legally, I doubt what they're doing will be considered as hacking. The AIM user explicitly gives the user+password. It may be ABUSE of resources, but that's tough to argue, since one email msg with an attachment of a nude pic of my anus to an AOL user will take up more "resources" than me IM'ing to that user for hmmm about 50 years straight. ;)

So AOL can go to hell. I think I will call them (to protest) and record the conversation. If I post it on the web (the audio) I hope it'll get other ppl to do the same in order to let AOL know that WE ARE NOT gonna give up so easily (like MS did).

Score: 0

By jennel

posted Feb 10, 2002 - 7:02 PM

I've been reading the comments here about the use of AOL's servers without their client but what about when you use a client to logon to IRC? I like the idea of having a choice about what client I want to use and not have ads thrown at me all the time. Trillian offers the ability to logon to multiple chat accounts simultanously and comes with all the features for each client. AOL will only be isolating themselves if they leave their users with few options.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 10, 2002 - 8:38 PM

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see AOL bless the effort that's being put into the Trillian application. However I feel it's arrogant to assume that it's OK to connect to AOL's servers with a non AOL supported client without so much as asking if it's ok. It's like half these guys would walk into your house because the doors were unlocked thinking it's ok. My point (and I have infact made it over and over) is that the servers belong to AOL, if AOL changes the protocol, maybe Cerulean Studios should stop, take the hint, and ask AOL's permission to build their app to work with the AIM servers. I don't see any of the other applications breaking, makes you wonder why. I think everyone here that sides with Trillian does so, only because they feel AOL is a bad company. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Score: 0

By ditoa

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 2:17 PM

my god fewt i agree with you! (thats a first lol)

i think that the makers of Trillian could of at least ASKED AOL if they could connect. As for the user talking about accessing this website?! Well sorry but that is the most stupid point i have EVER heard, a website (unless otherwise stated) is for public access, AOL's servers are private access and can only be accessed by users who are members (have username and password) and use the AOL Client's, I think AOL are perfectly within there right to block the users and i think Trillian are acting like children rushing to get a new patch out every day to bypass it again, if AOL want to block let them block, at the end of the day all it will do is force more and more users to not use AOL at all! (we are talking the very long run tho :P)

Score: 0

By jennel

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 10:32 PM

Yeah right.. please ASK?? Did you really think AOL was going to open their doors and say sure.. c'mon right in guys. No! AOL is a hog that just wants to keep all the money coming their way. The only reason they don't want their users using a different client is because they want the advertising profits. I like the comment that compared it to using a different web browser. AOL should not (IMO) make it so it's users cannot connect using other options.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 12, 2002 - 4:21 AM

If that were the case, all of the other non-AOL AIM clients would have been effected don't ya think?

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 9:32 PM

"AOL's servers are private access and can only be accessed by users who are members (have username and password)..."

correct so far

"...and use the AOL Client's"

and where did you get that from? Where does is say what client you can and cannot use to access AOL's servers?

Since you don't like the web browser comment made by someone, I'll give you a much better one. Think of a private USENET server, one you have to pay for, and when you do you receive a login and password so that you can access their server. Are you only allowed to access their server with a special client or can you connect to it using any client you want? And shouldn't you be able to connect using any client you want?

Score: 0

By mian

posted Feb 12, 2002 - 7:17 PM

if you was paying for access to the private news server then yes you should have more rights over what news client you use to connect but otherwise it's entirely upto the service provider, they are the ones providing the service, paying for the massive amount of news data and the space required.

noone pays to use the AIM service, it isn't your right to get access, it's a privellege. their client provides income via advertising to support the servers.. just because AOL is a huge company that has profits coming in elsewhere everyone seems to think that should cover the server costs, it would be different if they were a sole AIM company and no other income to cover the servers.

i can relate because i run the Napigator service, and pay thousands of dollars per month for bandwidth for a free service for the users. the income to pay for the bandwidth comes from the advertising in the client (which doesn't even cut it now, thats how bad advertising is at moment). unlike AOL we have somewhat opened up our service to 3rd party developers to integrate with their own Napster clients however what if someone comes along and makes an exact clone of my client with no advertising, using my server list which comes from my bandwidth. should i not be pissed off because they are leeching my bandwidth, bragging how their client is better because it's ad free, and the only reason it's ad free is because they are using my servers and bandwidth coming out of my pocket instead of their own?

the situation is exactly the same with websites and ad blockers, everyone only thinks about their rights.. i have the right to ad free browsing, how dare they use my bandwidth. what about how dare you use the webmasters bandwidth without contributing a cent and disrespecting their rights to support their service via advertising. i think $15 for a drivein movie is too much, does that give me the right to not pay.. the only right it gives me is to not use the service in question and respect the owners wishes even if i disagree with them.

Score: 0

By seattlesparks

posted Feb 15, 2002 - 4:46 PM

AOL sees little ad revenue from AIM, I'm sure.

I'll go a step further, however. I would have no problem with AIM's actions /if AOL had not been told to open their IM protocol/. Instead, they found a legal loophole to keep it closed.

If the government had not already said 'by owning AIM and ICQ both, you have a dangerous monopoly on the IM world...you need to open up AIM' and had AOL thumb its collective corporate nose at them, I would actually say AOL had every right...even if it was inconvenient for me. But because AOL defied a ruling along those lines, I consider the burden of moral and ethical justification on THEM, not on Trillian users.

Admittedly, I am only human. After getting tired of having to have three IM clients open and sucking RAM, perhaps I am biased in my views on this situation given that Trillian really was a godsend. ;)

But AOL ignored the Cerulean Studios folks - and, I think, the Cerulean folks' attempts to contact them - until Trillian was making news. From what I know, I think Scott and Kevin made a good-faith effort to work with AOL... Honestly, there was a discussion on the beta channel on IRC for the concept of giving the code for SecureIM, the encrypted AIM message option Trillian has, to AOL for the AIM client in exchange for peaceful coexistance with Trillian. LONG before the blocking. AOL didn't deign to acknowledge Trillian's existance until it was making news, from what I know. And then they showed they wanted to play Microsoft's game. :)

fewt, you seem like an intelligent person (even if you have an amazing talent for posting well-worded and well-thought-out posts which are guaranteed to be flamebait on a forum like this). I pose to you a question:

You say in another post that if Microsoft wants to block Netscape browsers from Hotmail, you'll object but they have every right - you'd just use it against them in arguments. Yet the (perhaps mistaken) impression I get from many of your posts here is that while you think in the Microsoft/Hotmail situation, Microsoft is the one morally in the wrong...in this situation, you think Trillian is. I'm curious why the difference? Is it just because of a personal grudge against MS, and you're trying to give AOL the benefit of the doubt which you wouldn't accord MS, or what?

This isn't a troll-post, I'm genuinely curious. :)

--Rachel

Score: 0

By seattlesparks

posted Feb 15, 2002 - 4:57 PM

Hrm...the end of that was slightly incoherent. Never try to post on a web forum while talking on the phone to arrange where to pick up an out-of-town friend who's arriving. :)

What I meant to say is, fewt...you seem to make an effort to write well-thought-out and well-worded arguments but from a viewpoint which will be controversial, and often containing elements which are guaranteed to provoke a flamebait response. You don't seem unintelligent, so I'm curious why there is this perceived dichotomy in your MS and AOL views.

I just realized it read like 'well-worded and well-thought-out' posts were flamebait in and of themselves. :)

--Rachel

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 15, 2002 - 6:43 PM

"fewt, you seem like an intelligent person (even if you have an amazing talent for posting well-worded and well-thought-out posts which are guaranteed to be flamebait on a forum like this). I pose to you a question:"

WOW, Thx ;-)

"You say in another post that if Microsoft wants to block Netscape browsers from Hotmail, you'll object but they have every right - you'd just use it against them in arguments. Yet the (perhaps mistaken) impression I get from many of your posts here is that while you think in the Microsoft/Hotmail situation, Microsoft is the one morally in the wrong...in this situation, you think Trillian is."

Absolutely, if AOL and Cerulean Studios roles were reversed I would label gladly AOL the bad guy. I wouldn't label Microsoft as an entirely bad company, I however strongly disagree with the methods they have used to shift their company around for the past few years.

" I'm curious why the difference? Is it just because of a personal grudge against MS, and you're trying to give AOL the benefit of the doubt which you wouldn't accord MS, or what?"

I have no personal grudge against Microsoft, I understand that they are a company and like to make money like everyone else. I do have a grudge over some of their actions. I would gladly give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt if I felt they deserved it. (Like the blank password in SQL 7, sure it's HUGE but anyone could have made it.)

"This isn't a troll-post, I'm genuinely curious. :) "

Is all good, I'd answer it if it was a troll, however I almost missed it, as I haven't paid much *REAL* attention to this article since it grew past 200 messages ( haha ).

" What I meant to say is, fewt...you seem to make an effort to write well-thought-out and well-worded arguments but from a viewpoint which will be controversial, and often containing elements which are guaranteed to provoke a flamebait response. You don't seem unintelligent, so I'm curious why there is this perceived dichotomy in your MS and AOL views."

Actually, I simply post my opinion on things the way I see them. I don't try to hide behind the fact that I may get flamed for my point of view. I don't often go out of my way to word anything to intentionally provoke a flamewar, that's just part of me being me. ;-)

"I just realized it read like 'well-worded and well-thought-out' posts were flamebait in and of themselves. :)"

They can be without the author ever realizing it. ;-)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 3:05 PM

:-)

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 12:42 AM

Was it arrogant of you to not ask Betanews if it was ok for you to connect to their website with whatever you choice of browser is? They never gave you permission did they? Did you just ASSUME it was OK?

You say things like "maybe they should stop" and "take the hint". AOL could end all of this by changing the USage Agreement to prohibit non-AOL client software. Until they do, it's all just bluster on their part.

If AOL chooses to not follow proper channels in order to reach their goals (changing the UA), then why shoudl anyone give any credence to their bluster in the news?

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 1:01 AM

I'm sorry? If they changed their webcode so my browser didn't work properly, I'd simply change browsers. It's really that simple. I'd also send a message to them informing them that their code was broken. If they replied that they didn't support my browser, well hey I could and would respect that. That's *THE* major difference between maturity and immaturity my friend.

Score: 0

By jamwheat

posted Feb 12, 2002 - 9:37 AM

Fewt, you say "If they changed their webcode so my browser didn't work properly, I'd simply change browsers"

I don't see you doing that, considering I think you were one of the main ones wanting to crucify MS when other browsers for a short time wouldn't access the MSN home page? MS got blasted for supposedly setting things that only their MSN.com site only supporting IE?
Sounds like the same thing AOL is doing, and yet those trying to get to AIM with other software are in the wrong?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 12, 2002 - 12:08 PM

I recall commenting on it, sure I blasted them for it, but I also remember stating that it was Microsoft's right to do so. If Microsoft only allowed MSN client to connect to their servers, I'd have no problem with that. If Microsoft only allowed IE to go to Microsoft.com, so be it. Actually it would just give me another item to use against it at the conference table. ;-)

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 1:46 AM

So you change browsers every time you go to a site that doesn't respond? I highly doubt it.

The other big difference is "If they replied that they didn't support my browser" AOL has not communicated (officially, or properly) to ANY of their users that they do not want connections via Trillian.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 8:03 AM

You once again overlooked a very important fact. I did not say that I would wait for them to herd me like a sheep. I would contact them.

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 10:55 AM

That's a personal choice for you.

Not a legal, moral, or ethical requirement for AIM users who use Trillian howwver, so irrelevant to this case.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 4:04 PM

That's the ethical and moral choice, I'm sorry if you feel that morals and ethics aren't required in your decisionmaking process. Perhaps you are a lawyer afterall, then again if you were, you would provide solid links to hard evidence instead of expecting us to believe your word as fact.

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 4:12 PM

I have a lot of trouble accepting a moral and ethical argument from the person who just two days ago defended his use of profanity in this forum despite the fact the BEtaNEws specifically says "Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated."

I'll listen to your comments on morals and ethics when you demonstrate some.

Perhaps by complying with BetaNews's wishes and not using any foul language or personal attacks from this point forward.

THAT would give you some credibility.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 12, 2002 - 6:02 AM

I wasn't aware that I'd lose my credibility by standing firm by my belief in the 1st amendment.

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Feb 12, 2002 - 12:34 PM

Uh, BetaNews owns this server and can put whatever usage restrictions they want on it.

It is not a protected public forum and free speech alaims under the first amendment do not apply.

But it's interesting that YOU are now the one claiming that you can do anything you want on a server that you do not own.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 12, 2002 - 12:44 PM

Funny, I said below that you would bring that up. ++$score{'Fewt'};

Score: 0

By shodgi5656

posted Feb 10, 2002 - 12:02 PM

I made a link to Trillian from my site....

Goto http://members.rogers.com/shodgi5656 & click on Links.

Show AOL that we're going to win this war....link up with Trillian and be heard.

Score: 0

By xwtx

posted Feb 10, 2002 - 4:06 PM

agreed. the more users, the better. i've thrown some links up on my homepage as well. :)

Score: 0

By shockwave63

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 11:03 PM

I am kinda foggy on who is doin what as far as I/M. goes but dont you have to have a valid aim account to put it into trillian? and if that is the case if you do have a valid account how are you (stealing bandwidth or what ever) you are still using your valid account with aim just not using thier software basically . please correct me if I am wrong like I said not real sure but this just kinda made me wonder
Joe

Score: 0

By pplchamp

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 11:43 PM

You are correct, you have to have an AIM name and password to logon to AIM thru Trillian.

Score: 0

By CharredPC

posted Feb 10, 2002 - 11:13 AM

Having a login/pw (account) with AOL for IM service means exactly squat. Your membership brings them no money. Your usage of their service costs them money. No, I'm not siding with them, but I'm explaining their point of view. They (in theory) require the revenue from the advertising that they build into their own software in order to pay for the servers. A good example- ICQ. An ad-supported messaging service that wouldn't still be around if they hadn't made it that way. Granted, AOL The Conglomerate Giant doesn't "need" any more income from ads; but do you really expect them to allow use of their servers for "free?"

Score: 0

By Baggio

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 9:03 PM

They (in theory) require the revenue from the advertising that they build into their own software in order to pay for the servers. A good example- ICQ. An ad-supported messaging service that wouldn't still be around if they hadn't made it that way.

And that is in large part why I don't use ICQ anymore. ICQ98 and prior versions were fast, and to the point. They provided a way of talking to friends and family. Now for me, the choice comes down to using Trillian, and maintaining some contact with my friends on the old service, or abandoning everyone, and moving to MSN. For many reasons I still prefer Trillian, but if AOL keeps blocking me, I'll have no reason to stick with Trillian. This isn't going to convert me to a AIM deciple, it's only going to piss me off.

Score: 0

By smith288

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 9:50 PM

As of 2-9-02 9:50 pm eastern time, AOL blocks them again. Who has more stamina? Trillian, Trillian users or AOL??? I will keep updating trillian...doesnt bother me. I think trilian should ad a small updater that just downloads a component or something.

Score: 0

By pplchamp

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 11:45 PM

They are only releasing patches now, it is basically a new aim.dll file that will overwrite the other.

Score: 0

By verbatim

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 9:52 PM

Keep in mind that each time this happens, not everyone is blocked. Mine still works fine.

Score: 0

By CharredPC

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 2:34 PM

AOL wants you to use AIM, not Trillian, not any other 3rd party software, the same reason they fight against ad-buster programs; they can't spam you with ads on Trillian. They can't have constant "Try AOL Now" or paid adverts blinking, flashing, and annoying the heck out of us (and putting $ in AOL's pockets). I use AIM, but I use it in conjunction with DeadAIM- a simple program that removes the annoying ads and banners. It's a compromise between using a nice prog like Trillian, and actually being able to reliably log onto AOL's IM servers. If Trillian allowed AOL to stick all their banners and ads in their software, I'm betting AOL would be fine with them.

Score: 0

By xeio

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 5:50 AM

In your OS's hosts file:

# death to aim ads
0.0.0.0 ads.web.aol.com
0.0.0.0 todayvip6.aim.com
0.0.0.0 ads.msn.com
0.0.0.0 aim.com
0.0.0.0 affiliate.aol.com
0.0.0.0 bucp-r01.blue.aol.com
0.0.0.0 bucp-r02.blue.aol.com
0.0.0.0 bucp-r03.blue.aol.com
0.0.0.0 bucp-r04.blue.aol.com
0.0.0.0 free.aol.com
0.0.0.0 hometown-art.aol.com
0.0.0.0 ads.icq.com
0.0.0.0 aimtoday.aol.com
0.0.0.0 bucp1-vip-m.blue.aol.com

Can anyone else add to this crap list? I hate AOL's crap flooding crap spamming garbage crap. Death to ads.

Score: 0

By xeio

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 5:59 AM

By the way, I did in fact write to AOL, and complain. They do listen.

My argument was this.. Open standards are "the way," the Tao of computing. Computers are useless without open standards. gopher://, ftp://, http:// and so to be , message:// , the open standard will conquer proprietary trash. Has anyone seen what the poor people that use AOL are subjected to? Even the dialer is proprietary, and the connection essentially sucks. AOL is the lowest common denominator, worst of breed ad-spam-pit, and the reign of "terror" can only last so long.

I cant believe that people pay for an ISP that has a goofy non-RFC compliant dialer/PPP protocol. This on top of fake home pages and attempts to corner various spaces on the open internet.

Score: 0

By bmh67wa

posted Feb 10, 2002 - 1:55 PM

AOL isn't the only company who is blocking third-party chat software. Yahoo has been partially blocking others from using voice chat in clients other than it's own Messenger software for quite some time. Check out this site: http://nowayinhell.net/~.../yahelite/yahelite.html for the full story on what their users have been going through. The bottom line? AIM, ICQ, Yahoo!, and MSN Messenger are FREE. What right are we, as non-paying users, expressing when we try to tell them how we want them to run their FREE service. I hate AOL. Don't get me wrong. But, in this case I fell that they have every right to block whatever they want. Rather than looking at it from the users view, look at this situation as if YOU were the software designer and supplier of the server. How would you like it if someone stole your work and server space without your permission? At least there should be an agreement made between AOL and the makers of Trillian so that this dispute can end. Trillian is a good idea (as was Odigo) and the future of IM's and compatability should be addressed but done so with consent.

Score: 0

By overthreat

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 7:21 PM

Blocking Trillian prevents Trillian users from communicating with AOL users...so what about the poor AOL users who want to communicate with Trillian users??? Isn't AOL shooting themselves in the foot? If I was forced to use AOL and didn't manage to hang myself first, I'd use Trillian over IM anyway...it's simply a better designed and more functional client. Imagine if users of AOL could only surf on web servers that they actually owned...oh how limited their lives would be...then again, I'd doubt they'd know any difference.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 7:29 PM

Uhhhh AIM users aren't required to be AOL ISP customers.

Score: 0

By pplchamp

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 11:46 PM

Uhm, that's not what he said. There's this simpel thing, it's called "reading".

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 11:53 PM

Oh? How did you read

"Imagine if users of AOL could only surf on web servers that they actually owned...oh how limited their lives would be...then again, I'd doubt they'd know any difference."

then? I didn't realize that AIM clients were web browsers.

Score: 0

By jamwheat

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 10:13 AM

Like it says "users of AOL ", not Users of AIM. Maybe that's where you got confused.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 11:15 AM

I must have read it wrong the first time through, thanks.

Score: 0

By shodgi5656

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 12:57 PM

Can I say something here...The internet is open to everyone and NOT controled by one person....and that what AOL is trying to do.

Make your voice heard!!
Link your wedsite to the Trillian homepage.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 1:55 PM

AOL's AIM servers are *NOT* the internet. I would think AOL would be allow to control their own property if they so choose.

Score: 0

By Cool-Gui

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 3:36 PM

As much as I hate to admit it, I agree. I have use Trillian religiously for about a year and a half and I love it... I have contacts on all of the big 4 IM providers, and Trillian gives me a nice app to do what I want with others... IM, not all the other bloat. But when it comes down to things, really, since AIM is hosted by AOL and it's their servers, they have the right to change their server software anytime they want for any reason. It's just up to the users to make the change their minds, and the only users they listen to are real AOL users, probably about .00001% of them use trillian, if that, so everyone is probably out of luck as far as getting cooperation from AOL. Let's just hope that the Trillian creators are able to keep up with AOL and eventually they will give in. :)

Score: 0

By DJMarc

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 12:23 PM

is a joke! IM is as secure as EMAIL... AOL/TW's claim its protecting its user security is bogus! Its plain text communication.. instant email. There needs to be a standard and AOL, while in the right in protecting the usage of its infrastructure, is wrong when it clamis its due to security.. advertising is irrelevant since largely this is advertising for AOL/TW products... no revenue to be lost. Boycotting AOL/TW products is silly too, its a multi-billion dollar company and isn't going to notice a million or so people suddenly not buying the products. The way to fight AOL is to help Trillian in any way you can, post a mirror of the software, make financial support, or just spread the gospel of Trillian... tell your friends, hell, tell your enemies, the more who use it and use it successfully the harder it will be for AOL to ignore and shut them out. Its more effective to flaunt the ability to connect than it is to boycott the company preventing the connection. If it becomes too time consuming and troublesome to block Trillian, and costs too many programmer man-hours that could better be spent elsewhere, they will eventually stop. Scott and Kevin at Trillian are doing a superb job of keeping up with AOL's jiggering with the protocols... they released 3 patches on Friday alone!

The thing to remember is, its not about theft of bandwidth or security of users... its all about a popular alternative client (which until a week or so ago AOL was barely aware of) that does AIM's job better than AIM... its a matter of pride. We have permission to use the AIM servers by virtue of signing up for the service. The choice of client should be ours, not AOL/TW's.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Feb 9, 2002 - 12:33 PM

It is all about stealing time on AOL's IM farm, period.

Score: 0

By DJMarc

posted Feb 11, 2002 - 3:35 PM

OK Fewt.. explain to me how I am STEALING ti