To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
Apple's iChat is integrated with one of the largest IM networks in the world. Last time I checked more people use AIM and ICQ than use Google's chat program.
The problem with Messenger protocols is not which gets used the most in the world, but which gets used in your country (and hence, gets used by your friends). In The Netherlands, for instance, MSN has a 99.99% marketshare, and chatting is not called instant messaging or something similar, no, it's called "MSN'ing". I kid you not. AIM, ICQ, Y! are all non-existant here.
And to reply to someone else's post:
Thing is, these days there are _very_ meny people who just don't care what is the network/protocol behind their IM software, since they use IM clients which can connect to some, more or all of the existing IM networks (a lot of quality clientes exist for this purpose, for a lot of OSes).
In The Netherlands, I have yet to encounter anyone outside of myself using anything other than the default MSN client.
Member since:2005-12-31
In The Netherlands, for instance, MSN has a 99.99% marketshare, and chatting is not called instant messaging or something similar, no, it's called "MSN'ing". I kid you not. AIM, ICQ, Y! are all non-existant here.
Which is also true for Norway, and as you say - probably most other european countries as well.
Member since:2006-07-30
That's very strange. Do you rely on statistics or are you just judging by peronal experience?
Everybody I know uses ICQ and some of them also use Skype. Nearly nobody uses MSN, though I do know some guys who don't know what it is or how to switch it off permanently 
Since I'm from Germany I suppose market share figures should be somehow similar.
Do you have any links to statistics about the market share of MSN?
Otherwise your impression may be just as biased as mine.
Member since:2006-10-10
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2005-07-03
In The Netherlands, I have yet to encounter anyone outside of myself using anything other than the default MSN client.
I still use ICQ (besides MSN, Yahoo & Jabber) and I'm from the Netherlands, as long as I still have friends on a certain protocol, why abandon it? I only use the default MSN client at work, at home I use Miranda-IM (under Windows) & Gaim (under Linux). And I know plenty of ppl here who use different clients (Trillian being the most prominent one among friends who don't use MSN). Maybe you just don't know that many ppl? 
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:2006-01-17
I've been using most instant messaging platforms since their individual respective inceptions.
People care about networks - sorry that this doesn't fit in to the "everybody wants standards" mentality but it is very much the truth. In my experience people choose the network their friends are on and I base that on a multitude of experiences with a variety of users met under an even wider variety of circumstances.
I am familiar with multi-protocol clients. I've used Fire, then Proteus, then AdiumX, and then back to Proteus. Their support for most network features is dismal at best and is always behind the proprietary clients in terms of feature availability.
As for Google's video service - I'll admit I don't know too much about it as I've never used it extensively. Same goes for YouTube. At first YT had a cool factor but it has since been doused in stupidity and is no longer worth much of my time. Aside from that isn't flash supported on some handsets? Doesn't YT use flash for playback? Doesn't that mean some handsets already provide that service?
It's not new or unique like a combination of the best of breed digital audio device with your cell phone. It doesn't really bring anything new to the table.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Some people should think before they open their mouths.
Last time I checked more people use AIM and ICQ than use Google's chat program.
Thing is, these days there are _very_ meny people who just don't care what is the network/protocol behind their IM software, since they use IM clients which can connect to some, more or all of the existing IM networks (a lot of quality clientes exist for this purpose, for a lot of OSes). The number of users thus doesn't really show real preference, it mostly shows how many AOL users there have been, and how many other people just registered a nick to be present on the network to be accessible by these people who just wouldn't want to use another.
Didn't Google already have a video service?
Yupp. But how exactly do you think they were similar ? Because they both made videos accessible ? Well, I guess that was it and nothing more. Besides, Google most certainly didn't buy YouTube because of the service - they have bright enough coders - but because of the userbase. Which makes sense, given.