AFAIK there are 2 international standards that you can use for Instant Messaging: SIMPLE (part of SIP) & XMPP. In practice XMPP is used most often by consumers: Apple already used it, and so did several local portals & providers. Also, there is a whole range of XMPP software available (both open & closed source), so people aren’t forced to “choose” between one or two programs.

Another issue is that the current MSN protocol makes it almost impossible to implement third party servers: you can use any mail adres as your online username… Which shows one of the reasons why XMPP is clearly superior: it’s had the ability of sending messages to other IM-providers (including MSN even!) built-in by design from the beginning…

Asa is correct, I’ve used firefox since 0.4 days (cant remember what it was called back then, Firebird maybe) and it shipped with Google as default search long before it was profitable for Mozilla to so.

Google can surely do more to support open standards and choice for users, but atleast they are more willing than anybody else to do so. Yahoo chat support in MSN was result of a deal between the Yahoo and MSN to support each other’s users.

http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2005/10/12/yahoo-msn-chat-programs-to-talk-to-each-other/

Mircosoft in its heydays *FORCED* OEMs to *REMOVE* competing software. In 2002, a Microsoft Vice-President confirmed in court that they *BAN* computer makers from installing Netscape or any other browser as a alternative to IE. Ditto for Linux. This is a statement made in court,

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/27/214930/249

A couple years ago, Firefox users discovered that MS did a browser detection and used Javascript to misalign MS home page when rendered in Firefox. I dont have patience to search for a link that substantiates this,

So when Microsoft is forced to ask users to choose default options, its similar to a convicted murderer having restrictions on his movement etc. Hmmm except that Microsoft is a like convicted serial killer, rapist and Pedophile all in one.

Your point would be valid if Google forced Mozilla to remove Yahoo as a alternative. Or maybe if Google forced websites to ban other search engine crawlers from their site if they wanted to be included in Google results. Or if Google did not show links to MSN, Yahoo or other sites that potentially compete with Google. Or if they showed some sort of bias in search results. They dont do any of this despite being the dominant player in search engine.

You are completely missing the point. It isn’t about how easy it is to switch search providers. It is about two-faced actions by Google (or others) to push Microsoft to force IE to ask you for a search engine, because choice is important, but they don’t force the very same issue on Firefox. They only want choice when they aren’t the default. That is completely self serving with no actual regard for the user’s wishes.

FYI, AIM is only supported by the web-based version of Google Talk. It isn’t actually integrated into their network. It is a matter of fact that Google developed an IM network that is completely incompatible with any of the other major players networks (AIM, MSN, Yahoo). They are very much part of the fragmentation of IM networks. Why didn’t they just work with AOL or Yahoo (because you know they would work with Microsoft) to create a Google IM that was part of their networks from the beginning? You know Yahoo and particularly AOL would have clamored for those users.

Any time Google isn’t an established player (Android, Google Talk, Gears, OpenSocial, etc)they create their own “open” technology and try to get everyone else to join them. If there is one thing for sure about Google, they are only fans of choice when they aren’t the dominant player in the the space. Things like DoubleClick acquisition just show how much they would prefer to remove choice from their markets.

BTW, I’m no Microsoft shill. I wrote this comment in Firefox, I use Thunderbird, Pidgin (primarily for Google Talk no less), etc. I have distrbuted CDs for OpenOffice.org at an open-source expo. I’m just not blind like many of you.

I actually prefer to use whatever software I really think is best, hence I switched to Office 2007 (from OOo, which itself was better than Office 2003/2000/97), I have been considering switching to Opera, I use Pidgin for IM, Palm Desktop instead of Outlook, the Linux-based DD-WRT instead of Linksys firmware, and Vista instead of XP or Ubuntu (which I actually did install not in a dual boot on my laptop).

# Sure Google is the default search engine, but its dead easy to choose a different provider and by default Firefox ships with Yahoo search too. Nobody forced them to do it. This was the way it was even before Firefox became popular

# User can browse to any search site and add it to his search options with *ONE* click.

# Google supports AIM users too, so your point about GTalk being limited to one protocol is moot.

# Gtalk is based on open Jabber protocol and any client with support for the protocol can connect to Gtalk. Jabber protocol is well established in the open source world with tens of clients supporting it.

I’ve not used Google Earth, so dont know much about it.

Criticizing Mozilla or Google is not the problem here. Your are plainly lying only with the intention of making Microsoft look good, like a paid shill, or even worse.

Please retract the posting or post a update correcting your errors.

@Paul Ellis: “As for Microsoft, the playing “extra nice with consumers” part doesn’t bother me, the arbitrarily getting screwed by Google does.”

No arbitrarily getting screwed. Being forced to play by different rules after being convicted.

“Google had no presence in IM, so they created/hijacked a new IM protocol … guise of open”

This is a joke, right?

@Tom: Since when has Live Search been more popular than Google?

@Andy Chapman: Opera, Mozilla, Apple and more are working on HTML5.

1) Mozilla’s mission is to do what’s best for the user.

2) If Mozilla had more money, they could have more staff and innovate even more, and that would benefit the user.

3) Asa says Mozilla is refusing to make more money by accepting sub-optimal deals from Google and Yahoo for their search traffic.

It’s a complex situation, no doubt, but this strikes me as odd.

Personally I would love it if Mozilla had a lot more money, and drove even more of the innovation for the open web. HTML4 for example has been static for way too long. Where’s HTML5? Why in 2008 are there no native form controls for data grids and trees? Why is there no standard API for local data storage (i.e. what Google Gears does). It is the absence of innovation in HTML that makes Flash and Silverlight so compelling and leaves a market wide open for them.

As a web developer, i want nothing more than to be able to make compelling web applications with open web technologies, and I wont Mozilla, not Google, to be the leader in this domain.

If you see the trends in management, big companys like micro$oft and Google, are fighthing for a bigger profit growth rhythm, not for keeping profiting.

Mozilla doesn’t have a business model, that depends on specific partner, even if a specific partner represents more profit than other. It depends on users will. And you should keep in mind that users can add search engines, and change preferences, and even source code in Mozilla apps, but that with proprietary browsers users don’t have this level of choice.

All the times that I’ve installed Firefox, he asked, if I wanted to make it my default browser, so I belive that any claim on otherwise to be wrong.

What criteria did you use? I call bullshit. In all likelihood, you never gave any serious consideration to using Live Search at all and, if you even bothered to discuss the possibility, the conversation probably went something like this…

“Use Microsoft for Search? WTF are you smoking, Bob? Their browser competes against Firefox, and IE sucks ass … so I say fuck Microsoft… It’s payback…”

The fact of the matter is that you, as a member of Mozilla, are more interested in promoting your organization (and Google) than you are in promoting real CHOICE. Otherwise, you’d realize that Google is just as bad as the Microsoft of a decade ago, and it’s only getting worse over time.

“A few days ago TechMeme picked up a story at Search Engine Land about how Firefox doesn’t make you choose a search engine. Firefox 3 was recently released, and as always Google is still the default search engine. Sure there are some other search engines you can select but why doesn’t Mozilla give you choice? The answer…after the jump.”

Bullshit.

Please, firefox allows you to add whatever engine you want. If MS wants live in the default they should pay firefox just like google pays firefox. Understand the basic difference between IE pushing a sub-par search engine just because it is all MS. In one google is actually paying mozilla, in the other one it is MS abusing their monopoly yet again.

In my experience, 90% or more of the people on both sides really do believe they are doing the best thing for their market/audience. And the remaining 10% are either like Steve Jobs, Steve Balmer, or Richard Stalman. The last one is arguably the craziest IMO.

@Sean
Asa also forgot to mention that the final year for Microsoft’s settlement with the DOJ was in 2007; it has expired.

(Silverlight is still a non-starter in the real world, but that commingling matters less than the faulty and pejorative attempted mindreading.)

jd/adobe

Though I do like where this discussion ended up. Yes, if Mozilla were a traditional corporation, then we would have maximizing revenue as not just a goal, but our primary mission as an organization. Because we’re not a traditional corporation, but rather a public-benefit organization, we get to have loftier and more user-friendly goals like making the Web a better place — without compromise! :D

I wouldn’t say it’s without compromise… The compromise is that the user experience ala Google is apparently worth more than the increase in revenues ala the search engine chosen by bids.

Whatever Google is paying you, it’s not enough. If they know you’re going to go with them anyway (for user experience, since most FF users prefer Google), then there’s no incentive for them to give you the *best* deal.

I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing, just pointing out the compromise. I guess we’ve come full circle, as now I’m pointing out the difference between your not-for-profit status and that of a typical corporation. :-)