Right on the heels of Yahoo dropping corporate IM, InfoWorld is reporting that AOL has decided to do the same thing.
Heh.
At least we were first.
By a day.
What's that saying about imitation? :-)
Posted by jzawodn at June 21, 2004 10:30 AM
I think it sucks. Enterprise IM has to have a place somewhere. We can't simple leave this market to Microsoft and IBM.
why don't businesses just use jabber. most of the open source clients have encrypted chat anyway - and that's protocol independent using (G)PG(P).
"why don't businesses just use jabber. most of the open source clients have encrypted chat anyway - and that's protocol independent using (G)PG(P)."
errr.. because most of them have a severe case of pointy-headed management?
Or... because many of them have reporting, logging, and tracking requirements that'd make encrypted chat illegal?
iChat via Rendezvous works wonders within a group on the same subnet. Encryption is another matter.
In our own small business I never "got" the need for Enterprise IM. It seems targeted at control freaks -- people who need to control who their users can send/receive IMs from, control their users screen names, log the text of all IMs or other Draconian measures.
We (and our vendors and customers) use the standard Yahoo Messenger extensively and are very happy with it. As we add Macs to our mix we are moving toward AIM, due to its better integration with OS X.
Perhaps larger companies weren't willing to allow IM, even in its more limited ("more powerful") Enterprise form. Or maybe the benefits of IM evaporated when shackled by all that Enterprise "power".
Re: control freaks - see Elliot Spitzer vs. Martha Stewart. All communications between brokers and clients have to be logged per SEC requirements. (At least electronic, not sure about face to face.)
I'm not a big fan of IM. Just wanted to point out an example of where technology intersects with the law in a pretty serious way.