In the fast lane: instant messaging
by Charles Bermant
Special to The Seattle Times
The argument between Microsoft and America Online about
instant messaging is not without irony. Accused monopolist
Microsoft cries foul as AOL refuses to license its software to all
comers, creating "little" instant messaging systems instead of a
single, oversized connected entity.
The result is that the instant-messaging universe - that is, those
who send messages back and forth to each other virtually as they
type on their PCs - has been Balkanized, with people unable to
"talk" with each other unless they use the same software.
But it might not matter. Users who are waiting for the dust to
settle before committing to a single system may be missing the
point. Instant-messaging systems are rapidly catching on, and for
good reason: The free software that makes them possible is easy
to install and simple to replace. Shifting instant-messaging
allegiances is not nearly as difficult as changing operating systems
or even upgrading your e-mail software.
"Instant messaging is like a CB radio," says Walter Taucher,
president of Corporate Computer in Seattle. "It's like an online
teletype."
Instant messaging, in fact, is a communications hybrid of familiar
things. Like e-mail, messages are text-based and travel over the
wire, but the addressing system is less public and there's no easy
capacity to archive or even save messages. Like the telephone, it
stays on all the time and offers instant response. Like online chat,
it allows instant swapping of messages, although under a more
exclusive umbrella: Anyone can enter a chat room, but the only
people who can send you an instant message are those you invite.
Joining up is remarkably easy. There are perhaps dozens of
smaller services, but the top four are ICQ at icq.com,
AOL/Netscape (AOL members log on directly; the rest of the
world looks to netscape.com ), Yahoo! Messenger at
messenger.yahoo.com and the Microsoft Network at
messenger.msn.com
All of these services work everywhere across the Internet, but not
necessarily with each other. That is to say, you don't need to be
an AOL member to communicate through its system, but
someone logged in to one service may not be able to talk with
someone from another.
This, incidentally, is the crux of the dispute between Microsoft and
AOL. Microsoft is attempting to allow its users to communicate
with those who use AOL's software, but AOL continues to erect
electronic barriers preventing this from happening, asserting that it
considers the attempts to be unwanted incursions into its system.
Last week, Microsoft said it was releasing a protocol that would
enable users of other instant-messaging services to communicate
with those who use Microsoft's program.
Work or fooling around?
If there's one thing that's clear, it's that children love instant
messaging, although when they are on the computer you never
know whether they are doing their homework or just fooling
around.
This work/fooling around dichotomy is central to the
instant-messaging concept. Having another communications
pipeline on the desktop that is a way to connect mostly with
friends doesn't exactly scream "productivity enhancement." But so
what?
Bosses don't always care if a normally useful employee takes a
"Mr. Showbiz" Web pit stop on the way to checking off the daily
to-do list, and they may take a similarly benign attitude toward
instant messages that don't pertain to the job description.
On the other hand, this can actually benefit the boss. Instant
messages are turning out to be a great way to share the little
for-want-of-a-nail details that employees need to complete the
latest big project.
"It's a great communications tool," says Charlene Li, a senior
analyst at Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass. "It is starting
to supplant e-mail in some places. It's not as cumbersome as
e-mail, and is also replacing the telephone for some short
conversations."
She adds that instant messaging is primarily a social tool at this
point, but businesses are joining in. For instance, all the members
of a team can create a conversational structure and swap details
about a project as they occur.
Li maintains that the four major services are fundamentally the
same. "There's nothing preventing you from downloading and
installing all four clients," she says. "But people tend to join the
services where their family and friends already belong."
She says instant messaging represents "a tremendous advertising
revenue stream," which AOL is (justifiably) reluctant to share.
Instant messaging is already a popular business tool.
Establishing conventions
Conventions on instant messaging are just coming into their own.
Rob Frankel, a Los Angeles-based independent branding
consultant, uses instant messaging to keep a line open to
colleagues throughout the world. "About 80 percent of my
business comes from the Web," he says. "I keep a line open, and
people have instant access to me. It's cheaper and more reliable
than using the phone."
Dave Murphy, president of ITrain in Elkridge, Md., works the
same way, adding that he uses the technology to communicate
with some relatives who are reluctant to incur long-distance
telephone charges. He leaves his messaging client open at home
or at work, making him available to anyone who has the number.
Appropriate messages, he thinks, fall between relatively narrow
boundaries: Trivial messages are useless, while more complicated
issues need to be addressed personally or in a detailed e-mail
message.
"It's best to confirm something you said before," he said. "But if
you need a documented feedback loop, that's when it starts to
break down."
Spam is more annoying in the instant-messaging environment than
with regular e-mail. It's bad enough getting a solicitation in a
standard e-mail box, but instant-messaging spam is more like
receiving a sales call on your unlisted phone. Frankel advises
users to guard their instant-messaging ID carefully and never reply
to an instant-message request from someone you don't know.
(In this respect, it's probably best to make the
introduction/request through standard e-mail before attempting to
contact an instant-messaging box. Otherwise, you could be
perceived as a spammer.)
Are standards necessary?
Rules of behavior among instant-messaging users are in flux. In
many ways the situation is similar to e-mail, which easily tolerates
sentence fragments, disjointed grammar and poor spelling.
There is also the wall of familiarity. "I use it to communicate with
acquaintances, people that I already know," Murphy says. "I don't
like getting messages from people that I don't know; that's a bit
too personal."
Says Frankel, "The rules are the same as with e-mail. You don't
want to use all caps and 'shout.' And if someone has activated a
'do not disturb' icon, you really do want to leave them alone."
The key perceptual difference between instant messaging and
e-mail, Li says, centers on active vs. passive. People leave their
e-mail on all the time, and new messages often appear in the
mailbox accompanied by a a tone. The user then has to switch to
the e-mail client, open the message and respond.
An instant message, on the other hand, is immediate. It arrives. It
appears on the desktop, no matter what you're doing. In this
sense, it can be intrusive, maybe even annoying, to recipients who
may not be in the mood to hear from you just at that moment.
On the other hand, it's also easy for those same recipients to
manage: They simply write a fast answer, click "send" and get on
with their day.
Although instant-messaging programs are far less versatile than
standard e-mail clients, they do allow the sending and receiving of
attachments. The "got that file/here it is" sequence requires fewer
keystrokes than the equivalent action through e-mail. At the same
time, those who live and die by e-mail will find the
instant-messaging experience half-empty. There are no folders or
archives, and in order to even save an instant message you need
to cut and paste the text into another program.
In some cases this will be an advantage. Let's try an experiment:
Check your "Inbox" and "Sent Mail" folders. See how many
messages are short answers with reply text attached. You are
saving these for a reason? Multiply this by millions and see how
much disk space could be saved if everyone used instant
messaging for short, inconsequential communication.
At this point, joining the instant-messaging crowd is beneficial and
moderately easy. Everyone will be able to find little things that
help them through their daily online life. Still, computing old-timers
will compare this to the early online days, when people who had
e-mail on MCI Mail, AOL or CompuServe couldn't talk to each
other. (Even older-timers will compare this to the Tower of
Babel.) It's bound to get easier when we all speak the same
language.
Or not. Maybe this whole "standards" battle is inconsequential.
Today, anyone can download the software, recruit a few friends
and start an instant conversational thread within minutes. This
could be one place where standards aren't really necessary. In
like manner, not everyone in the world speaks English, and many
of them are surviving quite nicely.
Charles Bermant writes Inbox, a weekly column about e-mail
that appears in the Personal Technology section.
Copyright © 1999 Seattle Times Company
|
