By 'Sean R.'July 26, 1999

Microsoft missed the boat on a hot Internet technology. Again. The first time they backtracked and corrected the problem with bundling, coercing ISPs and engaging in heavy online advertising. That time it worked. That time. A certain inferior browser has taken the lion's share of the market.
Well, now the biggest technology headline of late (besides Apple's new iBook, of course) is that Microsoft has released MSN Instant Messenger (the name is easily confused with AOL Instant Messenger) and made it compatible with AOL's product. Since America Online (and its Mirabilis/ICQ subsidiary) control virtually all of the instant messaging market it's no suprise Microsoft wants to use compatability as a ploy for luring users over. The problem is this: AOL blocked Microsoft, so now they're accusing AOL of being against open access.
Shall we analyze? If Microsoft is so for open standards, why don't they make the Office formats standard? Why don't they release the Windows API? How about open sourcing Internet Explorer like Netscape did with Mozilla.org? Which brings me to open source. How do you think Microsoft got the technology to infiltrate AOL's proprietary Instant Messenger service? By viewing the source code that AOL released for it. AOL released the code so that Linux users could get in on the action. As a result, there are several cross-platform, open source clients for AOL's ICQ. I use one of these, mICQ, on my OS/2 machine.
Every time AOL has blocked MSN IM, Microsoft MS has countered by releasing fixes - a cycle completed at least six times now. Microsoft is calling for an "open standard" for instant messengers. Why? Because someone else got there first and Microsoft wants a piece of it. When Microsoft controls something, they don't open it up.
There's another, more practical problem with an "open" instant messaging protocol: Everyone needs to be logged into a server or a network of compatible servers. IRC requires you to use a network of server, and the result is netsplits. This is when one or more servers go down, and the leave the network fragmented. (Interestingly enough, Microsoft Chat supports IRC, but of course in a non-standard way ). When MSN Instant Messenger logs into AOL's server, using AOL's resources and the network it built, AOL gets not a cent. Microsoft can sell ad space on MSN Instant Messenger though. America Online allows non-AOL subscribers to access AIM free of charge, provided you accept a small ad. If there was a free, open instant messenger, who would run the servers? How would they be linked?
What really torqued me today, however, a story on Wired News accusing AOL of being the hypocrite here. They say, since AOL wants access to AT&T's (and others) cable networks they should whole-heartedly open up their network for Microsoft and anyone else. The problem is, the cable providers have a monopoly, while AOL has less than half its market. Ma Bell is at it again, another monopoly. This one high-bandwidth cable and fiberoptics, where the old one was telephonic. AT&T wants to control both the pipeline to the information, and the method of accessing it. AOL, and many other ISPs, just want to be able to sell access. AT&T would still be getting money on the deal, as consumers would still be paying for the "freedom" to use their monopoly. If it wasn't for Microsoft's investment in AT&T, would they be so vocal? Doubtful.
So, it comes down to this: Microsoft is late, again, and is manipulating the media and public into believing that they're on "our side" -- but just you wait until Microsoft gains market control. Then let's see how they feel about open access.

'Sean R.' (more commonly known as iSob) is a computer hobbyist and regular MSBC columnist. He runs a free database development service using FileMaker Pro. Sean can be contacted at sob@mindless.com and his Web site is located at sob.dyn.ez-ip.net.