The story (and the protocols) behind instant messengers

The history of the instant messengers, from IRC to Pidgin

Download the whole article as PDF

Write a full post in response to this!


There was a time when geeks were the only ones who used instant messengers. Not so now. Almost everyone, from high school students to Congressmen, have instant messaging accounts. Businesses use instant messengers like Lotus Sametime or Novell GroupWise within their companies. How did instant messengers get this far?

In the beginning…

One of the first chatting protocols was a chat room network protocol known as Internet Relay Chat, or IRC. IRC was started in Finland in 1988 by Jarkko “WiZ” Oikarinen. Although there were other chat room protocols available, IRC gained popularity during the Soviet Coup of 1991, when a group of Soviet government leaders attempted to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev. While doing this, there was a media blackout. During this blackout, IRC was the only way to know what was happening in the Soviet Union until order was restored. Following the blackout, people started using IRC for other matters, such as technical support chat rooms.

The “Big Four” and Jabber

Today, things have come a long way from IRC. Nowadays, there are four major instant messaging clients known as the “Big Four” (ICQ, AIM, Windows Live Messenger, and Yahoo! Messenger). They support features such as microphones, webcams, file transfers, skins, and much more. Each have their own protocols (though some work with each other). But the Big Four aren’t the only options for instant messaging. There’s also a VoIP client that thinks it is a chatting program, an open protocol with many of its own clients, and Google’s approach.

ICQ: The mother of them all

In 1996, the first major peer-to-peer instant messenger was born. Four Israelis, Yair Goldfinger, Arik Vardi, Sefi Vigiser and Amnon Amir, came together to form a company called Mirabilis. Their first product was a program called ICQ, a play on the phrase “I Seek You”. Unlike IRC, ICQ took the approach of letting users connect directly to each other through servers, instead of being forced to use a chat room. This novel idea quickly became popular. Soon, big companies started paying attention. One of these was America Online. In 1998, they announced that they had acquired Mirabilis for the sum of US$240 million. In 2002, AOL Time Warner announced that ICQ had received a United States patent for instant messaging. But ICQ was doomed for failure. Since many people already had AOL screen names, they were more inclined to use AIM then ICQ. Also, by this time, Yahoo! and Microsoft had announced their own instant messengers, drawing users from their own extensive user bases. ICQ started losing market share quickly. By 2006, they had only 4 million active users (compared to Windows Live Messenger’s 27.2 million, this is a tiny amount).

ICQ was the first. Does that mean it is the best? It has quite a few cool features, such as multi-user chats, SMS messaging, file transfers, games, and audio and video chat. However, there are quite a few downsides to ICQ. First of all, ICQ is stuck with extremely annoying ads, making the interface extremely cluttered. In addition, only Windows users can use the latest official client (6.0). Mac users are stuck with version 3.4.23, while GNU/Linux users don’t even have an official client.

AOL Instant Messenger (AIM): One of the more popular

When ICQ started taking off, people were starting to realize that there was a market for instant messengers. America Online (also known as AOL) was one of these. In 1997, they announced the release of the AOL Instant Messenger, or AIM. Like ICQ, AIM quickly took off. In 1998, AOL announced the acquisition of ICQ, giving them a huge market share in the instant messenger market. In 2003, that share went even higher after Apple Inc. (then Apple Computer) announced iChat AV, a new instant messenger program that would be included in Macintosh OS X 10.3 and using AIM’s OSCAR protocol. And in 2006, AOL announced that users of AIM could now receive calls from landline phones for free using AOL’s AIM Phoneline.

So is AIM worth using? Actually, it is probably the instant messenger that users will want to stay away from the most. It has even more ads than the rest of the Big Four clients. Even worse, it bundles software that users don’t necessarily want and can’t always get rid of, such as the Viewpoint Media Player (which sends usage information to Viewpoint), the Plaxo Address Book (which at one time spammed its users), and Wild Tangent software (labeled by some security applications as spyware). Plus, it tries to change the user’s browser homepage and add desktop icons to things that people don’t need. Additionally, the Mac and GNU/Linux versions are outdated. All in all, a very unenjoyable experience.

Yahoo! Messenger: Yahoo! joins in the fun

The same year AOL bought ICQ, Yahoo! announced the release of Yahoo! Pager (soon to be renamed to Yahoo! Messenger). Since Yahoo! already had a lot of users, it wasn’t long before AOL began to realize that they didn’t have the corner on the market that they thought they did. Soon, Yahoo! Messenger was a huge rival to AIM.

Yahoo! Messenger helped even the instant messenger playing field. Unfortunately, today’s version of Yahoo! Messenger is crippled with numerous annoyances. Like AIM, it tries to install extra software that users don’t need (like the Yahoo! Toolbar), and tries to change the user’s browser homepage to http://www.yahoo.com/. It is also hampered by its annoying ads. It does have some nice features like interoperability with Windows Live Messenger. However, like ICQ, it is also short on platform support (the Macintosh and GNU/Linux versions don’t even have microphone support).

Windows Live Messenger (formerly MSN Messenger) and Windows Messenger

(Microsoft decided that “if Yahoo! and AOL can do it, we can too”.)

Now the instant messenger wars were on in earnest. And Microsoft didn’t help calm them. In 1999, they announced the release of MSN Messenger, using the .NET Messenger Service protocol (again, a proprietary protocol). In 2000, Microsoft announced some groundbreaking features. Version 3 of MSN Messenger offered VoIP support. Now, users could call anyone who had MSN Messenger (a feature not many other instant messengers included). They could also call landlines for a fee using Net2Phone. Then, in 2001, Microsoft announced that they would bundle Windows Messenger, a MSN Messenger-compatible program, with Windows XP. In 2006, Microsoft re-named MSN Messenger “Windows Live Messenger”, following the re-branding of most of their MSN products to their new Windows Live product line.

Microsoft has a huge advantage over their competitors since every single copy of Windows XP sold comes with Windows Messenger. Therefore, every Windows XP user can chat using the .NET Messenger Service protocol. Unfortunately, Windows Live Messenger struggles from much the same problems that Yahoo! does: platform support. There’s no GNU/Linux version, and the OS X version doesn’t support key features like audio/video chatting. The cluttered interface doesn’t help either.

Jabber: Finally, an open protocol

The year 2000 marked a new milestone: an open protocol. There were several unique characteristics about this particular protocol. Unlike the other protocols, Jabber was free software. It also had the idea of de-centeralizing the servers by allowing anyone to host their own server. Additionally, Jabber let its users connect to almost any protocol via transports, so users could use a Jabber client to chat with users using AIM. Finally, Jabber didn’t offer an official Jabber client, opening the field for numerous new instant messengers. These all combined to make Jabber a viable alternative to the Big Four’s protocols.

Don't miss out on the other pages!
1234next ›last »

Write a full post in response to this!

Similar articles

0

Do you like this post?
Vote for it!

Copyright information

This article is made available under the "Attribution-Sharealike" Creative Commons License 3.0 available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.Figure 1 is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation. Taken by Nrbelex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nrbelex) Figure 2 is licensed under Creative Commons License 2.0 by Lordcolus. Figure 3 is under the same license as the article by Andrew Min.

Biography

Andrew Min: Definition: Andrew Min (n): a non-denominational, Bible-believing, evangelical Christian. (n): a Kubuntu Linux lover (n): a hard core geek (n): a journalist for several online publications (see them all at http://www.andrewmin.com/ )

rooy's picture

libjingle

Submitted by rooy on Tue, 2007-06-05 20:27.

Vote!
0

Great summary, I like history lessons.

According to this page http://wiki.jabber.org/index.php/Jingle_(XEP-0166), there's at least two things named Jingle, which are XEP-0166 and Google's libjingle. There might be confusion when talking about the name.

And I see from http://code.google.com/apis/talk/libjingle/license.html that Google's libjingle is free software, so other clients can implement it. Probably with a different filename than XEP-0166 implementation.

Anders Jackson's picture

There is one more solution to multi protocoll clients

Submitted by Anders Jackson on Wed, 2007-06-06 23:15.

Vote!
0

First, a good article.

You could also use a server side gateway to connect to other IM services. And Jabber support that, which they call Transport. It works as well (or even better) than the multi protocol clients I tried (which usally is quite bad when it comes to Jabber).
My experience is that they support many protocols, but not very good. Jabber-only clients usally supports Jabber much better. And it is just a matter of register at a Transport service at a jabber server, for instance Jabber and ICQ, to be able you connect to other IM services. There are lots of gateways out there that give you that service for free.
One more thing with Jabber which makes it a better choise, in my opinion, is that there are more services than just chat that is comming along in Jabber. Like connections between different web services and your IM account. The other propritary protocols are much harder to use for this kind of services. Just ask about that (which is a cool application by the way).

Yes, and you can be logged into same account from many computers at the same time. Try that with MSN and your account on the other machine will be logged out (except through a Jabber Gateway).

And I forgot, I use Gajim, http://gajim.org/, as it is an excellent Jabber client which has a very god integration with Gnome. And I chat with MSN, ICQ and IRC with that one. And yes, you can rename contacts and put many contacts togethere under one name.

CyberCod's picture

You seem to have left Qnext

Submitted by CyberCod (not verified) on Wed, 2007-06-06 01:46.

Vote!
0

You seem to have left Qnext out of your little article there, its a java-based multi-messenger, connects to the big four, plus IRC, as well as their own protocol. Don't quote me but I think it has webcam support via their own protocol, and its available for Win, Mac and *nix. It also has built in remote desktop control (windows only) and peer to peer (ie no filesize limits) file transfers, photosharing, user-hosted chat, and some simple games. Being Java based, most of it works the same regardless of which OS it is on. You should check it out.

www.qnext.com

mattflaschen's picture

Kopete

Submitted by mattflaschen on Wed, 2007-06-06 02:51.

Vote!
0

Good article. I like Kopete, but I'm not picky since I don't use audio or video. However, Kopete does let you assign names to buddies (right-click, "Rename contact").

MindReader's picture

The Future of IM on Linux

Submitted by MindReader (not verified) on Sat, 2007-06-09 00:41.

Vote!
0

Things look good for the future of IM on Linux. Most projects seem to be moving toward using and contributing to the Telepathy project which provides an set of connection managers that can be used via Dbus.

Check it out:
http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/wiki/

Andrew Min's picture

Thanks

Submitted by Andrew Min on Wed, 2007-06-20 19:10.

Vote!
0

Thanks for the heads up! It does indeed look promising.

--
Andrew Min

Anonymous visitor's picture

Nice. Thanks.

Submitted by Anonymous visitor (not verified) on Thu, 2007-07-19 17:12.

Vote!
0

Nice. Thanks.