Sign In
Create Account
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe on Youtube
For those of you who know about meebo, I was wondering why the other IM networks (yahoo, AIM etc) haven't blocked it. Wouldn't it be a loss for them if users shifted to using meebo rather than their own clients ?
10 replies to this topic
Back to top|
|
|
#2
Guest_Jordan_*
Posted 13 May 2009 - 04:15 AM
Guest_Jordan_*
Guest_Jordan_*
-
- Guests
I can't imagine why they would block it. They don't make any money from their clients and there are no ads in the clients. It is more like a brand, IMO. If they blocked Meebo they would have to block Zohoo Chat, Pidgin, Adium, and a plethora of other clients as well.
#3
Posted 13 May 2009 - 05:17 AM
BlaineSch
-
- Members
-
- 2,448 posts
Writes binary right handed and hex left handed
I think it also helps promote other sites - all those sites I have never heard of before that they offer chat for I was actually looking up just to see whats up with them. I like their idea I just wish they supported IRC so I wouldnt have to download anything.
#4
Posted 13 May 2009 - 05:55 AM
ged25
-
- Members
-
- 51 posts
Learning Programmer
But Yahoo! Messenger supports ads right and I heard that few years ago they blocked Trillian which I think is similiar to meebo (I am not entirely sure cause I haven't used trillian). The less popular IM networks could probably use the publicity though.
#5
Posted 13 May 2009 - 05:57 AM
BlaineSch
-
- Members
-
- 2,448 posts
Writes binary right handed and hex left handed
I downloaded Trillian simply because Meebo doesn't support IRC :P but it has Yahoo! on there and I still use it. If they did block it then it did not last very long.
#6
Posted 13 May 2009 - 06:51 AM
ged25
-
- Members
-
- 51 posts
Learning Programmer
From what I heard they blocked trillian few times but trillian came up with patches for it. It made sense though. They were making money off yahoo IM network. I guess I'm finding it difficult to figure out how it could benefit them.
#7
Guest_Jordan_*
Posted 13 May 2009 - 07:46 AM
Guest_Jordan_*
Guest_Jordan_*
-
- Guests
I don't see how they could effectively block any client. Clients can imitate any other client simple enough and adhere to any protocol limitations an IM server could imply.
#8
Posted 13 May 2009 - 08:36 AM
WingedPanther
-
- Moderators
-
- 16,831 posts
A spammer's worst nightmare
Yahoo and AOL have both been in wars to block other IM clients from using their networks. Trillian and GAIM (now pidgin) where the two biggest in the struggle. The reality is that it probably became pointless. The programmers for the third-party clients talk to each other. You have a small group of people working on the AIM client, for example, and hundreds working on the others. Worse, in the case of pidgin you are likely to have a LOT of people who have the resources and interest to figure out why their client stopped working. How long would you want to continue that fight?
#9
Posted 13 May 2009 - 08:43 AM
John
-
- Moderators
-
- 6,321 posts
Writes binary right handed and hex left handed
I know, not so long ago, Facebook blocked Meebo. I'm not sure if they settled their dispute yet.
#10
Guest_Jordan_*
Posted 13 May 2009 - 09:47 AM
Guest_Jordan_*
Guest_Jordan_*
-
- Guests
Well put WP, that should be a blog ( :P @ Amr). What are/were the reasons behind those companies wanting to block other clients? Ads? Uniform standards? What about Operating Systems where their client doesn't work like BSD, Linux, etc?
Posted via CodeCall Mobile
Posted via CodeCall Mobile
#11
Posted 13 May 2009 - 10:09 AM
WingedPanther
-
- Moderators
-
- 16,831 posts
A spammer's worst nightmare
Well, I know that the AIM client used to (and may still) put ads, a stock ticker, etc in their client. Of course, all that junk is exactly why I didn't want their client. They also had a web-client that was cross-browser compatible, so no issues there with other platforms.
Yahoo's client used to have little games and stuff in it that people could play while chatting. Having people "unable" to play the games might have reduced the perceived value of their client. I can't recall if it had ads or not. It also put the Yahoo toolbar on your browser unless you explicitly opted out (which I always did).
Ultimately, the central servers cost money, and I think they wanted to serve ads to pay for them. Using a non-advertising client meant they were more limited and had people "stealing" a service.
I looked at it as streamlining my experience. I go to websites for news, etc. I don't want it in my browser. To me, Microsoft's client is the worst, with the stupid thing auto-launching itself, etc. I also had issues with having two ID's per service (2 MSN, 2 Yahoo, and 2 AIM at one point, plus an ICQ for good measure). Having four clients open and only half my IDs turned on was obnoxious. Pidgin gives me one client with all my accounts integrated. They never were able to bring me that.
Yahoo's client used to have little games and stuff in it that people could play while chatting. Having people "unable" to play the games might have reduced the perceived value of their client. I can't recall if it had ads or not. It also put the Yahoo toolbar on your browser unless you explicitly opted out (which I always did).
Ultimately, the central servers cost money, and I think they wanted to serve ads to pay for them. Using a non-advertising client meant they were more limited and had people "stealing" a service.
I looked at it as streamlining my experience. I go to websites for news, etc. I don't want it in my browser. To me, Microsoft's client is the worst, with the stupid thing auto-launching itself, etc. I also had issues with having two ID's per service (2 MSN, 2 Yahoo, and 2 AIM at one point, plus an ICQ for good measure). Having four clients open and only half my IDs turned on was obnoxious. Pidgin gives me one client with all my accounts integrated. They never were able to bring me that.
