Hello gents. I would really like some help sorting the whole issue of instant messengers. This may be a goofy inquiry for those who use them daily but it is most confusing to me. How and why are there SO many of them? And for crap's sake WHY can they not see what the vhs~beta and HD-DVD~BluRay debacles caused for entertainment?
I wanted Google to dominate the messenger market when it came out so we could use the messenger client of our choice and still "talk" to everybody. Supposedly open standards and all that. What a pipe dream. None of them actually interoperate with full features. We have been using MSN Live Messenger for a couple of years now and it supports audio and video calling out of the chute. It does have its aggravations though. CONSTANT pop ups telling you you have more spam(Hotmail Inbox) and there the goofy ads as well. We have friends and family on several different services to include Yahoo, Skype, and AIM.
I wanted to use something like Trillian or Pidgin to consolidate the services and even though it meant I would have had to get accounts for each, they would have been somewhat transparent in the Trillian interface. Not to be. You lose the video chat function of MSN when using it through Trillian.
What really dumbfounded me was Google. They have at least three chat/talk programs and their feature set is confusing at the least. Lets see if I get this right.
Google Talk. Downloaded, installed and run as a client software. This one evidently does NOT support video chat. It may do voice but I don't know.
Google Talk browser plugin. Flash based, it works through a browser so is supported by multiple OS's like Windows, Linux, OSX. I don't think it does video either.
Gmail. It has text chat built in. It is also the ONLY one of Google's services to do audio and video chats. As long as you download yet another browser plugin. The "voice and video plugin". And you have to use its features from the Gmail interface. It does not translate over to the client app. I think this also facilitates video chat in iGoogle and Orkut(whatever Orkut is). Okay, I kind of know what it is but you get the point.
And last there is Google Voice though it is not really a messenger service but a phone number consolidation service. It has some functionality with the above services I think but in a remote manner.
Now does anyone else find this confusing? I was looking to Google in hopes of them kicking some big shins to bring some sense to the madness of messengers but to me, they have worsened things. I like the ability to a/v chat and now they even have a soft phone dialer you can use to call any number in the U.S. or Canada for free. At least until the end of this year. But again, you are forced to use it through the Gmail interface. I just don't like having the whole email interface up in front of me all the time when doing something like this. It is confusing trying to see which direction they are going here. Are they trying to coerce everyone into using Gmail as a communications interface? If so, why the other products? If we use the other products, why are they handicapped so badly? Wasn't one of Google's claims when the came out with Talk that they used open source XMPP/Jabber protocols so as to alleviate the constant clashing of proprietary messenger systems? Here we are, five years later and their client still does not support webcams!
I suppose I ask all this because we are trying to migrate to one service. Should we just up and jump ship to Skype? They already offer a/v messages and phone calling to boot. Stick with MSN? These are not earth shaking decisions we need to make. I am just trying to avoid more confusion. And to add to that confusion, Google bought Gizmo5 last year. A VOIP company that uses SIP for communications. How will that all pan out when they relaunch the service? I hope it brings a consolidated interface that lets you use the features you want, and to be able to ignore the rest. Finger crossed. In the meantime, I would like your suggestions. I really need to keep video calling as a feature.
Regards, Todd
I wanted Google to dominate the messenger market when it came out so we could use the messenger client of our choice and still "talk" to everybody. Supposedly open standards and all that. What a pipe dream. None of them actually interoperate with full features. We have been using MSN Live Messenger for a couple of years now and it supports audio and video calling out of the chute. It does have its aggravations though. CONSTANT pop ups telling you you have more spam(Hotmail Inbox) and there the goofy ads as well. We have friends and family on several different services to include Yahoo, Skype, and AIM.
I wanted to use something like Trillian or Pidgin to consolidate the services and even though it meant I would have had to get accounts for each, they would have been somewhat transparent in the Trillian interface. Not to be. You lose the video chat function of MSN when using it through Trillian.
What really dumbfounded me was Google. They have at least three chat/talk programs and their feature set is confusing at the least. Lets see if I get this right.
Google Talk. Downloaded, installed and run as a client software. This one evidently does NOT support video chat. It may do voice but I don't know.
Google Talk browser plugin. Flash based, it works through a browser so is supported by multiple OS's like Windows, Linux, OSX. I don't think it does video either.
Gmail. It has text chat built in. It is also the ONLY one of Google's services to do audio and video chats. As long as you download yet another browser plugin. The "voice and video plugin". And you have to use its features from the Gmail interface. It does not translate over to the client app. I think this also facilitates video chat in iGoogle and Orkut(whatever Orkut is). Okay, I kind of know what it is but you get the point.
And last there is Google Voice though it is not really a messenger service but a phone number consolidation service. It has some functionality with the above services I think but in a remote manner.
Now does anyone else find this confusing? I was looking to Google in hopes of them kicking some big shins to bring some sense to the madness of messengers but to me, they have worsened things. I like the ability to a/v chat and now they even have a soft phone dialer you can use to call any number in the U.S. or Canada for free. At least until the end of this year. But again, you are forced to use it through the Gmail interface. I just don't like having the whole email interface up in front of me all the time when doing something like this. It is confusing trying to see which direction they are going here. Are they trying to coerce everyone into using Gmail as a communications interface? If so, why the other products? If we use the other products, why are they handicapped so badly? Wasn't one of Google's claims when the came out with Talk that they used open source XMPP/Jabber protocols so as to alleviate the constant clashing of proprietary messenger systems? Here we are, five years later and their client still does not support webcams!
I suppose I ask all this because we are trying to migrate to one service. Should we just up and jump ship to Skype? They already offer a/v messages and phone calling to boot. Stick with MSN? These are not earth shaking decisions we need to make. I am just trying to avoid more confusion. And to add to that confusion, Google bought Gizmo5 last year. A VOIP company that uses SIP for communications. How will that all pan out when they relaunch the service? I hope it brings a consolidated interface that lets you use the features you want, and to be able to ignore the rest. Finger crossed. In the meantime, I would like your suggestions. I really need to keep video calling as a feature.
Regards, Todd
The other is ten. She especially misses mom when she is gone. 
