# Why iChat?



## georgelien (May 7, 2002)

Isn't Fire, "an Multiplatform Instant Messenger client that can handle similtaneous connections to AIM, ICQ, Yahoo , IRC, MSN and Jabber IM," already out for MacOS X?

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/internet_utilities/fire.html

Why did Apple team up with AOL to bring us iChat, an Instant Messenger client that can handle only iChat and AIM members?

What do you think?


----------



## Valrus (May 7, 2002)

To be perfectly honest, I was wondering the same thing. The interface looks kinda silly too.

Hopefully they'll surprise us with something. 

-the valrus


----------



## georgelien (May 7, 2002)

My guess is it was a trade agreement made between AOL and Apple.  A pact made between the two companies to fight against their common enemy,  M$. 

Regards,
George Lien


----------



## dlookus (May 7, 2002)

Don't forget that apps like Fire and Adium are not exactly sanctioned by AOL to us their protocol. AOL has been fighting with companies like that for a while now.


----------



## rinse (May 7, 2002)

I believe there will be some good integration with Quicktime 6 that will allow for video conferencing in this little baby. 

Not to mention the fact that it is integrated with the mail.app and adressbook.app... it makes sense for apple tomake this type of app.

Why rely on a third party app like AIM or Fire, when this functionality is included with a  standard install of MacOSX?


----------



## Koelling (May 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by rinse _
> *Why rely on a third party app like AIM or Fire, when this functionality is included with a  standard install of MacOSX? *


Because from what I can tell from the pictures, iChat looks like crap.


----------



## georgelien (May 7, 2002)

rinse,

I agree.  I see video conference capability coming with this product.

Regards,
George Lien


----------



## julguribye (May 7, 2002)

too bad all my friends use MSN...


----------



## voice- (May 7, 2002)

julgu: Mine too, they have to litterally beg me to log on if they wanna talk to me. It's working, 3 moved over to AIM already...

As for Fire, Fire is not stable at all, I'm looking forward to iChat


----------



## Valrus (May 7, 2002)

Yeah. If it supported as many different services as Fire.app, there's no question that I would use it. As is, though, I dunno...

I have faith though. And if it turns out that Chat isn't the best thing _ever_, Fire is still pretty good.

By the way, while we're on the topic of integration, shouldn't Apple then make a web browser too? 

-the valrus


----------



## satanicpoptart (May 7, 2002)

fire has no file transfer no image connect and alot of things dont work on it. same with audium. ichat will inable all the cool stuf like that. it looks like crap but there is probaly a fix for that in the preferences


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (May 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by satanicpoptart _
> *fire has no file transfer no image connect and alot of things dont work on it. *



we know that don't we poptart?


----------



## ablack6596 (May 7, 2002)

I wouldn't be surprised if AOL is paying Apple to make it.
   1. XP comes with MSN and starts it up every time you turn on your computer. - This way AOL will have an OS to put there IM Sefvice on.
   2. AOL could stop making their version of AIM and tell people to use iChat meaning they don't need programmers, technical support people or anyone else to pay to keep the Mac verison of AIM up to date and working.
   3.  I think there was a three but I forgot it.


----------



## chemistry_geek (May 7, 2002)

The interface makes iChat look like a toy, or at least colored hard candy.  I can't believe the interface made it this far in development.  I would never use that unless I could turn-off that feature/annoyance.  Plus, that fancy/ugly interface looks expensive, computationally, on slow hardware.  It looks very reminiscent of "Bubble Help" from Mac OS 7.5 - ack!  I think the current Mac OS X version of AIM is very good, wouldn't change too much in it.


----------



## fryke (May 7, 2002)

I still don't understand how both AIM and MSN Messenger found any friends. *sigh* ... ICQ rules ever since it came to exist. I don't think I'll use AIM or MSN ever. I *might* try iChat because it's by Apple, but otherwise... And furthermore, all *my* friends are ICQ.


----------



## dricci (May 7, 2002)

ICQ was my first IM chat. AIM was my second.

ICQ is great.. on windows. It just sucks on Mac, and the latest Windows versions even suck since AOL took over. I started ICQ when it was still independent.

AIM is the future, though. It seems to be more user friendly, I.E. names instead of numbers. MSN is just like a sucky oddball, it wouldn't be accepted normally, but it is becuase Microsoft forces it upon everybody.

I think Apple will do a great job with iChat. We have NO idea about how iChat really looks or what options it has, nobody on this board has seen it other than a tiny screen shot on Apple's page. It's a TINY SCREENSHOT! We don't know if it'll be stuck in that bubble mode or not, I doubt it, though. I wouldn't jump to conlcusions of it just yet.


----------



## dricci (May 7, 2002)

Here's a keynote closeup, provided by MacNN:


----------



## wdw_ (May 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dricci _
> *We have NO idea about how iChat really looks or what options it has, nobody on this board has seen it other than a tiny screen shot on Apple's page.*



There's a full video demo of iChat at News.com.


----------



## Jadey (May 7, 2002)

Why isn't AOL instant messenger compatible with ICQ? Didn't AOL buy ICQ years ago? It would be beneficial to make the 2 work together. I use ICQ only, but I would like to use iChat. The ICQ client for Mac is always so far behind on features compared to ICQ for PC. I think a client made by Apple would get more attention and more features.


----------



## Red Phoenix (May 7, 2002)

ICQ and AIM are in a state of semi-compatibility. That is, The less-featured protocol that AIM uses for its Java client and for third party clients is the same as for the latest ICQ protocol. They are at least similar enough that the Jabber transport is the same for ICQ and AIM. However, they still do not interoperate, probably since the official AIM client uses a different protocol.


----------



## fryke (May 7, 2002)

You can find the iChat/Inkwell part of the keynote here: http://video.cnet.com/cgi-bin/visea...006&ccend=595288&videoID=t050602_1500&query=*',%20'VideoNewsSearch1276',%20'height=460,width=660'

hope the link works as advertised. else: search for ichat on news.com ... (windows media player plugin for osx required.)

Yes, there's file sharing & yes, iChat looks cool from what I saw on the video, although the UI seems to take up a *lot* of screen real estate. Guess we'll see. Ah, the instant finding of buddies on a network looks cool, too, although I won't need that much, I guess, as I already know people that work at my company (we're four persons that use ICQ).

I've just installed the new version of Fire (0.30.b) - and it *seems* to work fine for now, although it still doesn't have file exchange (which I don't need, anyway).


----------



## wdw_ (May 7, 2002)

That link you posted didn't come out right. Here's a correct version.

http://video.cnet.com:80/cgi-bin/vi...overrideCheck=no&cont=mv&hdr=news_vid_hed.gif


----------



## Koelling (May 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ablack6596 _
> * This way AOL will have an OS to put there IM Sefvice on.
> *


I'm not sure if this is justifiable because you don't need an AIM name any more. Your Mac.com name will work. But isn't that going to be a nightmare for the duplicates?

I found proteus the other day to be as enjoyable or more than Fire. It's not as good as Adium for straight up AIM but when I want to talk to ICQ people I use that. If I want to talk to my MSN buddies I make them call me or else they don't get to chat 

I will boycott iChat if they make me use it as it is there with chat bubbles. I will not use it if it keeps the brushed steel borders around the windows. Look to Adium if you want to have a low real estate program. Really, Apple should have paid Adam what's-his-name-of-Adium and had him do it. Because he deserves some recognition and payment for his efforts.


----------



## georgelien (May 7, 2002)

fryke,

I agree.  ICQ was the mother of all these Instant Messaging programs.  AOL developed the AIM soon after the company bought ICQ.  Microsoft, Yahoo and others than soon followed after AIM's success.  While ICQ was populor, AIM actually was the app that made IM the next killer app sinece AOL already had a large installment base.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

voice,

Fire is unstable, how?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ablack6596,

Couldn't agree more.


Regards,
George Lien


----------



## hazmat (May 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *I still don't understand how both AIM and MSN Messenger found any friends. *sigh* ... ICQ rules ever since it came to exist. I don't think I'll use AIM or MSN ever. I *might* try iChat because it's by Apple, but otherwise... And furthermore, all *my* friends are ICQ. *



You know why, in AIM's case?  Because it's one less thing you have to teach AOL people.  It's already included.  It's like pulling teeth to get the typical AOL user to do ANYTHING on the computer.


----------



## fryke (May 10, 2002)

ah well... i also still like two basic instant messaging and chat applications that we haven't touched in this thread yet: E-Mail and Talk. The UN*X command 'talk' lets you chat to a 'buddy' LIVE via the command line (split window).


----------



## Paragon (May 10, 2002)

What's that symbol right next to the loudspeaker symbol at the top of the screen in the iChat picture dricci found? Is it an iChat symbol?


----------



## fryke (May 10, 2002)

Yes, I've read about that menu and seen screenshots of it at work. It lets you access iChat from every app you're in.


----------



## lonny (May 10, 2002)

Surely looks like a baloon icon.

Actually, after seeing that you can turn off ballons, I start to like the idea of having something like iChat 

But.. what about the videoconferencing app that was rumored some time ago? Would it be like iChat on steroids?

We need voice over IP technology!


----------



## hazmat (May 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *ah well... i also still like two basic instant messaging and chat applications that we haven't touched in this thread yet: E-Mail and Talk. The UN*X command 'talk' lets you chat to a 'buddy' LIVE via the command line (split window). *



'Talk' is one thing I don't miss.   Having to watch sloppy typers constantly backspacing to correct mistakes and such.  I much preferred the 'send' command which was very much like the IM type chat, only seeing the other person's text once they send it.


----------



## googolplex (May 10, 2002)

Oh boohoo brushed metal, baloons, etc. Lets just wait until we get to try it to make our judgements!

I do wish that it would support MSN because a lot of my (stupid) friends use that.

There really needs to be a standard IM protocol for people to use. We don't have systems of email where you can only send emails to certain people who use certain email programs. Why should we have all sorts of IM protocols!!!


----------



## julguribye (May 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by googolplex _
> *Oh boohoo brushed metal, baloons, etc. Lets just wait until we get to try it to make our judgements!
> 
> I do wish that it would support MSN because a lot of my (stupid) friends use that.
> ...



It's all about money.


----------



## nkuvu (May 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by googolplex _
> *There really needs to be a standard IM protocol for people to use. We don't have systems of email where you can only send emails to certain people who use certain email programs. Why should we have all sorts of IM protocols!!! *


It _is_ all about money, as julguribye said.  But isn't this the idea behind Fire?  I'm not suggesting that Fire is a decent replacement (I've heard of people having problems with it, but haven't experienced them myself (though I don't use IM much (but it works fine for MSN and ICQ (when I use it (Woo hoo, multiple nested parens!  (Gotta love programming in Lisp/Scheme  )))))) but the general idea behind Fire, being able to read just about any IM protocol...


----------



## googolplex (May 10, 2002)

Reading all the protocols isn't the same. There should be a standard protocol!


----------



## nkuvu (May 10, 2002)

A standard is only as good as the number of people who use it.  Look at HTML, for example.  There _is_ a standard there, but a majority of the people on the web don't code for it...

But I see what you're saying and I agree with you.


----------



## BBenve (May 10, 2002)

"Oh boohoo brushed metal, baloons, etc. Lets just wait until we get to try it to make our judgements! "

You could NOT be any more right.... i totally agree after.....3 hours now of iChat.. i LOVE it as it is..... and as someone pointed out.. you can take off the aqua effect... TRY it before you Judge it... a book is not judged y it's cover... why should iChat be judged by it's icon??


----------



## dricci (May 10, 2002)

I, for one, can't wait to try the new iChat. I'm excited on how it's integrated with mail and address book, that'll probably look really cool.

Any idea if iChat will run on 10.1.4 or is it specifically compiled for 10.2?


----------



## nkuvu (May 10, 2002)

WoLF mentioned in another post booting into 10.2 to use iChat.  Make your own conclusions...


----------



## Krevinek (May 10, 2002)

Chances are that it will work with 10.1.4, but I am a little curious as to why you would be trying to run it on 10.1.4 when you will have 10.2 to play with. Any specific reasons you could give?


----------



## dricci (May 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Krevinek _
> *Chances are that it will work with 10.1.4, but I am a little curious as to why you would be trying to run it on 10.1.4 when you will have 10.2 to play with. Any specific reasons you could give? *



Well, it'll probably be easier to download a leaked iChat than an entire leaked Jaguar CD set.


----------



## Krevinek (May 10, 2002)

Your more likely to find a Jag leak than iChat leak.


----------



## dricci (May 10, 2002)

I wonder if you can transplant the 10.2 dock.app to 10.1.4 

That seems like it'd be possible.

Anybody want to try?


----------



## Red Phoenix (May 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by googolplex _
> *Reading all the protocols isn't the same. There should be a standard protocol! *



Well there is, but unfortunately not enough people use it right now: Jabber. It is an open protocol and the server can have "transports" installed so that you can connect to AIM, ICQ, Yahoo!, and MSN through the server and you can then use any Jabber client. The server installs on MacOS X through Fink, but there are no transports yet. Mac users are also limited by the fact that Fire's implementation of Jabber sucks, Proteus's is only moderately better, and of the two native Jabber clients available, JabberFoX  is pretty basic right now and Psi  ends up using most of the processor by the eight hour mark (I like to leave my client running at night). But still, you can run your own Jabber server, and people have already started to do some amazing things with it.


----------



## googolplex (May 12, 2002)

Yes, Jabber is really cool, but it doesn't have any corporate backing so nobody uses it. Which is too bad. Its too bad apple isn't using it for iChat.


----------



## Red Phoenix (May 12, 2002)

Actually, Jabber does have a bit of corporate backing. A lot of the server development is done by the company that runs Jabber.com. They make their money with that and selling company branded Jabber clients. It's really too bad that Apple picked AIM over Jabber. It would have really given it a huge push. With any luck though, iChat will have some kind of plugin support for other chat protocols, and it can be added in.


----------



## vanguard (May 12, 2002)

In case anybody is curious about Fire's partial AIM support it's because there are two AIM protocols.

One is called TOC, the other is called Oscar (I think).  AOL let's people use the TOC protocol on any client.  However, it's a lessor protocol that doesn't support direct connections or any of the things that a would require one (file transfer, voice, etc.).

Trillian has reverse engineered Oscar but their service sometimes drops as AOL figures out ways to kill trillian connections without hurting their own customers.  I'm guessing that it's getting harder and harder to do that because trillian has been working well for months.

When Steve said that AOL let them "into the tent" it sounds like they are letting them use the Oscar protocol.  The fact that they have file transfers further supports this guess.

Anyway, there's a little info for you.

Vanguard

PS  My guess is that they aren't going to support other protocols because that might hurt their relationship with AOL.


----------



## dricci (May 12, 2002)

TOC can handle filetransfer (just look at ICQ, the current AOL versions use TOC.)

However, TOC cannot connect to or message the new @mac.com names, thus putting a big disadvantage to just about every Mac AIM clone out there now.


----------



## xaqintosh (May 12, 2002)

1. I actually think iChat looks and functions really cool, what is it that everyone is so upset about?

2. Is it just me, or is it that every time AOL buys software, they don't use it (Netscape and ICQ)? I think they buy these purely to get rid of the competition.


----------

