<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Talk</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.randomsynapses.org/google-talk/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.randomsynapses.org/google-talk/</link>
	<description>Small pieces of the buzzing ideas in my head.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:14:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Titel</title>
		<link>http://www.randomsynapses.org/google-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-1113</link>
		<dc:creator>Titel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:35:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomsynapses.org/2005-08-25/google-talk/#comment-1113</guid>
		<description>Well, putting side by side all instant messengers, Google Talk stands out. It sets an example of good principles of software usability, user interface and excellent features for its computing resources requirements. Maybe Yahoo and MSN will learn from this and rethink their messengers. ICQ is a lost cause. That's the whole point.

Yes, I agree that it is annoying to have so many different private messaging networks. As an end-user, it annoys me to have contacts on different networks. If I want to access all services provided by a network, I must use its own messenger, but that requires me to run several messengers at the same time. Alternatively, I could run a client that simultaneously connects to all networks I want, but this will provide only basic functionality on each network because network owners will not disclose the full specifications on the communication protocol. Jabber is an exciting improvement in this direction -- the more networks use it, the higher compatibility will be between clients, and more functionality provided to users. Google played smart and not only created an excellent messenger, but also an open network, inviting third party messengers to log on. If you were a programmer and wanted to create an instant messenger or improve one, tell me: would you be willing to put your efforts in guessing Yahoo's or MSN's protocol which can change in any moment, making your work useless, or would you choose the advantages of an open source communication?

The major instant messengers have a major problem now. They have a new competitor that can implement all of their advantages through a new messenger. Third party messengers that used to provide limited functionality on private networks now have the opportunity to fully use Google's messaging network and flourish. Soon enough, people sick of those bloated messengers from MSN, Yahoo and AOL/ICQ will have sufficient alternatives to pick from, with voice chat, graphic emoticons, webcam and all the other features they want, thanks to Google's messaging network. And you can bet they will switch, sooner or later!

I have many friends on Yahoo Messenger, but I use that program only because so far there are no other messengers to match its features. I need to stay in touch with them as much as they need to stay in touch with me. However, that doesn't mean that, for the sake of my friends, I must use some garbage messenger and be annoyed with it using 50 megabytes of RAM just for idling, when there's a better messenger available with the same features. So I will switch to a better messenger the moment it becomes available, and I expect many friends to follow suit. Those who don't... tough luck, they can e-mail me instead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, putting side by side all instant messengers, Google Talk stands out. It sets an example of good principles of software usability, user interface and excellent features for its computing resources requirements. Maybe Yahoo and MSN will learn from this and rethink their messengers. ICQ is a lost cause. That&#8217;s the whole point.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree that it is annoying to have so many different private messaging networks. As an end-user, it annoys me to have contacts on different networks. If I want to access all services provided by a network, I must use its own messenger, but that requires me to run several messengers at the same time. Alternatively, I could run a client that simultaneously connects to all networks I want, but this will provide only basic functionality on each network because network owners will not disclose the full specifications on the communication protocol. Jabber is an exciting improvement in this direction &#8212; the more networks use it, the higher compatibility will be between clients, and more functionality provided to users. Google played smart and not only created an excellent messenger, but also an open network, inviting third party messengers to log on. If you were a programmer and wanted to create an instant messenger or improve one, tell me: would you be willing to put your efforts in guessing Yahoo&#8217;s or MSN&#8217;s protocol which can change in any moment, making your work useless, or would you choose the advantages of an open source communication?</p>
<p>The major instant messengers have a major problem now. They have a new competitor that can implement all of their advantages through a new messenger. Third party messengers that used to provide limited functionality on private networks now have the opportunity to fully use Google&#8217;s messaging network and flourish. Soon enough, people sick of those bloated messengers from MSN, Yahoo and AOL/ICQ will have sufficient alternatives to pick from, with voice chat, graphic emoticons, webcam and all the other features they want, thanks to Google&#8217;s messaging network. And you can bet they will switch, sooner or later!</p>
<p>I have many friends on Yahoo Messenger, but I use that program only because so far there are no other messengers to match its features. I need to stay in touch with them as much as they need to stay in touch with me. However, that doesn&#8217;t mean that, for the sake of my friends, I must use some garbage messenger and be annoyed with it using 50 megabytes of RAM just for idling, when there&#8217;s a better messenger available with the same features. So I will switch to a better messenger the moment it becomes available, and I expect many friends to follow suit. Those who don&#8217;t&#8230; tough luck, they can e-mail me instead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon G</title>
		<link>http://www.randomsynapses.org/google-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-1111</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:20:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomsynapses.org/2005-08-25/google-talk/#comment-1111</guid>
		<description>Yes, Google Talk may be sweet and all, but what's the point if 98.465% of my friends use MSN, and 1.352% use ICQ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, Google Talk may be sweet and all, but what&#8217;s the point if 98.465% of my friends use MSN, and 1.352% use ICQ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: google talk</title>
		<link>http://www.randomsynapses.org/google-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-1110</link>
		<dc:creator>google talk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:37:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomsynapses.org/2005-08-25/google-talk/#comment-1110</guid>
		<description>[...] Titel i-a făcut un review aici. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Titel i-a făcut un review aici. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lucian</title>
		<link>http://www.randomsynapses.org/google-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-1109</link>
		<dc:creator>Lucian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomsynapses.org/2005-08-25/google-talk/#comment-1109</guid>
		<description>Us, linux users are looking forward to a native linux version of this messenger. Hope Google won't follow Yahoo!'s path here and completely ignore us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Us, linux users are looking forward to a native linux version of this messenger. Hope Google won&#8217;t follow Yahoo!&#8217;s path here and completely ignore us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Titel</title>
		<link>http://www.randomsynapses.org/google-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-1107</link>
		<dc:creator>Titel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomsynapses.org/2005-08-25/google-talk/#comment-1107</guid>
		<description>What if you like Google Talk, will you kiss it instead? :D

It should be obvious that I like minimalistic, functional designs... After all, I tried to make my blog's appearance that way. Some people can't imagine chatting without graphical smilies. &lt;acronym title="Internet Relay Chat"&gt;IRC&lt;/acronym&gt;, one of the oldest chat environments, is text-only as well, and that's not stopping hundreds of thousands of people from using it daily. Besides, I always said that chatting requires only a simple client, 10 fingers and a brain, not fancy applications with automatic messages, colorful text or animated images. Google Talk fits my needs much better than the other instant messengers I've used.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What if you like Google Talk, will you kiss it instead? <img src='http://www.randomsynapses.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>It should be obvious that I like minimalistic, functional designs&#8230; After all, I tried to make my blog&#8217;s appearance that way. Some people can&#8217;t imagine chatting without graphical smilies. <acronym title="Internet Relay Chat">IRC</acronym>, one of the oldest chat environments, is text-only as well, and that&#8217;s not stopping hundreds of thousands of people from using it daily. Besides, I always said that chatting requires only a simple client, 10 fingers and a brain, not fancy applications with automatic messages, colorful text or animated images. Google Talk fits my needs much better than the other instant messengers I&#8217;ve used.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DeusX</title>
		<link>http://www.randomsynapses.org/google-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-1106</link>
		<dc:creator>DeusX</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:51:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomsynapses.org/2005-08-25/google-talk/#comment-1106</guid>
		<description>I'll try it out today and I'll kick your butt if I don't like it. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll try it out today and I&#8217;ll kick your butt if I don&#8217;t like it. <img src='http://www.randomsynapses.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jason</title>
		<link>http://www.randomsynapses.org/google-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-1105</link>
		<dc:creator>jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:15:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.randomsynapses.org/2005-08-25/google-talk/#comment-1105</guid>
		<description>I think it rocks. I'm using trillian and am checking out google talk. i have to say the interface is very nice. of course, trillian was better then AIM/MSN/Yahoo by a long shot. But, Google Talk? I like it even better. Simple. Low memory. Tight programming. It's a blast!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it rocks. I&#8217;m using trillian and am checking out google talk. i have to say the interface is very nice. of course, trillian was better then AIM/MSN/Yahoo by a long shot. But, Google Talk? I like it even better. Simple. Low memory. Tight programming. It&#8217;s a blast!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
