Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Re: Amy Wohl on Instant Messaging
Author: Ryan Tate Posted: 8/2/1999; 11:23:58 AM Topic: Amy Wohl on Instant Messaging Msg #: 9014 (In response to 9009) Prev/Next: 9013 / 9015
The inefficiency of those squabbles bother me, but I can't see a public policy debate doing any better to keep up with the latest definition of "big server".i agree here, and i really wonder if something as serious as a tax is really called for in the IM realm.
what's the upside for the user in open-standards IM? is this just open standards for the sake of ... open standards?
saying Open Standards Are Good, Period is one thing for a private company to do in determining what products to pursue. it is quite another in the case of a government deciding whether to extend coercive bureacracy. the government has an obligation to really think things out.
as an occaisional IM user, and former occaisional IRC user, i have no problem with AOL controlling this space. the software runs on my 68k mac, which is rare these days, it is free, it is easy-to-use, it doesn't censor my speech. it is feature-rich. so what if it isn't standards-based?
this isn't like the old telco monopoly. if aol stagnates or censors or gets buggy, i can switch very easily to a competitor. if the competitors disappear in a year, they will quickly rise again if aol drops the ball.
a tax for open-standards IM would be a bad precedent.
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:51:39 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.