Google Forgets The Wow With New IM Client
from the something's-not-quite-right dept
Rumors of a Google instant messenger launch turned out to be true tonight with the launch of Google Talk. After playing with Google Talk for a bit, most find that Google Talk lacks the "Google Wow" factor of previous Google product launches. Google Talk is missing any sort of search, doesn't save conversation histories, and requires a GMail account (which is frustrating since that means your friend list is limited to friends with GMail and the 30 you invite). Sure, Google Talk supports the open Jabber standard; and while it is commendable that Google is making a stand here for interoperability, none of the "big three" widely used IM clients support Jabber, so it's really not that big of a deal. With GMail and Google Maps, Google took a supposedly mature product arena and completely changed the rules. GMail challenged Yahoo to lift its arcane space limitations, and Google Maps ushered in a new era of AJAXian web development. Google Talk replicates what is already out there, and not very well. Yes, Google Talk supports voice, but there's nothing really new or exciting about it. Hell, Google Talk doesn't even have smileys. Update by Mike: The folks at Silicon Beat note that as part of this launch, Google is opening up Gmail so it's no longer invite-only, which solves one small point made above.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
GoogleTalk Fails to Wow
I read The Google post by Dennis just about two hours after downloading and having a few conversations with folks online, as well as making the following post over at The Mobile Technology Weblog.
Although I agree in principal with what Dennis has said, that Google has put up a fairly uninspiring let's go so far as to call it "vanilla" IM/Voice Client, I think that this blandness is intentional. While I for one am tired of the excessive exuberance associated with anything Google, a phenomenon I am calling the GoogleGrip (as in gripped in the throes of madness), I would never make the mistake of underestimating the intelligence of the folks at Google. I think they've very intentionally left this IM client as much like a plain sheet of paper as they can. Why?
Lash Ups. I think they fully expect the developer community to go nuts. I can imagine how integration of Google Maps or Google Earth with this client will lead to some amazing localization tools. What about a virtual trace route from 10,000 feet? How about "your friends at night" an application that localizes based upon IP addresses where each of you friends happen to be at any given time.
Are all of these applications going to be useful? Probably not. Possible? Perhaps. Entertaining? Absolutely.
Google is, if nothing else, a company comprised of tremendously creative folks. If they've done something that seems to smack of sameness or a lack of there characteristic "colorful" approach, I'd have to bet there's a reason.
-Oliver Starr "stitch" The Mobile Technology Weblog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expect more from Google Talk
My prediction is that we'll soon see an online, searchable chat log as either part of google desktop or gmail. Also, they recently announced a very promising new translation technology which they've yet to release to the public. It would be really swell of them to turn that bad boy on for chatting. Also, Jabber servers are (with a little bit of extra code) capable of connecting users to the "big three" chat services transparently to the user. Check out jabber.com.au for an example of this.
My point, really, is that I think Google is just getting their client out there and much more goodness is yet to come. Much of the really cool functionality (like history and translation) can be done on the server side, so they don't have to worry about upgrades there. Also, they've already shown with Google Desktop and the Gmail Notifier that they can deliver really small, self upgrading applications. There's no reason to believe the Google Talk application will not just upgrade itself when they're ready to really turn on the juice with this thing.
Google knows as well as anybody that nobody wants yet another IM client. We'll see something cool from this yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's an IM client
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's an IM client
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I too lament the lack of some basic things like file transfer and so on, but the promise of the future is awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lack of "Smilies"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Casino Ratings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gambling reviews
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Smileys? Who cares about Smileys, rather glad it doesn't have them, just pointless extra fluff that offers no real value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on!
If you want to see a "platform", look no further than Skype - much more interesting extensibility. If you want a good heads-down IM client, go with the big three.
I do like a bunch of what GOOG does - but neither sidebar nor Google Talk does the trick for me.
Heck, they had a year to take Hello and build off the whole sharing metpahor it creatively implemented.
No soup for you, Larry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rumors look more promising...
Interesting facts to NOT forget:
1. Google releases small, and, much to the suprise of everyone, featureless IM client.
2. Skype recently turned down a 3 BILLION dollar offer to sell to CNET.
3. Google just sold 4 BILLION dollars worth of stock.
What do you think people?
Why wouldn't Google want to incorporate Skype technology with their new IM client along with all the other additions that will be made by them and the community. This is the beginning of reinventing the way we communicate; courtesy of Google.
Why wouldn't Skype hold out for Google? Skype is a business much like Google who are in it for the technology and they want to see something great done with their creation. Maybe the deal is already done and been kept on the DL. Who knows.
In addition, Google doesn't currently have any non-ad-based revenue. Skype has skype-in and skype-out which will make revenue for Google if they buy them out. It is important for Google to create new/different types of revenue in the future to justify such a high stock value. Ads can only go so far...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've got to admit..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've got to admit..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Talk
Second I like the fact that the contact list is generated from your Gmail contact list (the start of one repository for everything). It also servers the role of gmail notifier (In the settings there is a checkbox)
Intergration with Maps would be very neat, although the question is usefullness. I also agree that this is the best UI for chat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About Time
It is about time someone made something plain and simple. I welcome it with open arms.
say NO to bloatware and yes to vanilla!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AIM is the defacto standard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AIM is the defacto standard
If i use googles client i'll just be talking to myself.
>>
The 'Wow' factor that no one is talking about however is that Google's IM is NOT a closed system like AIM/YIM/MSN. Jabber is nothing new, but to date it has not had much backing. There were an estimated 13.5 million Jabber users in July, that is just under the MSN's 14 mil and Yahoo's 19 mil users. With a marketing push from Google and 6 months time, its not at all unconcievable that the Jabber compatible network combined could move into second place past Yahoo - at the very least it will surpass MSN. At this point Yahoo and MSN will be in a bad spot. Every wanna-be software firm out there (not to mention Google) will be able to write an IM client that can compete in size with their netowrks. Rather than conceed their users to an open social network that has a huge amount of momentum and buzz, they will likely decide to open up their own networks and make them compatible with Jabber. Once that happens and Jabber, Google, Yahoo, MSN and a score of other smaller players are on the same network... the writing will be on the wall for AIM to also switch or be completely displaced in the market.
Users will demand open communications. In the same way that Phone and Email networks could not be restricted to closed networks, IM will be no different. A year from now the competitive IM landscape will be significantly different. Whether Google's client can capture a huge amount of marketshare in this area is not the main story here - the fact is that they will shift the market to be open and anyone not adapting to that will not survive very long. I'm sure the big 3 know this and are simply waiting for it to be forced upon them. By simply obtaining a couple million IM users and by encouraging an open standard, Google wins. This is the reason for the early, barebones launch - the sooner they start this process, the better for them to disrupt their competitors. In 6 months, they can completely undermined the market leaders that have spent 10 years entrenching their position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AIM is the defacto standard
Hmm. We do talk about it the post above, but it's not that "wow". Lots of other products use Jabber. If Google's product doesn't offer something compelling to get people to switch, it won't put any pressure on the others to open up.
Hey, they may get there eventually. It just seems odd that they released this product without having that in it initially, as they normally do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AIM is the defacto standard
I don't understand what's so strange about Google possibly shifting or transforming their business decisions. So they aren't sticking to their traditional way of releasing products. OK. Maybe that's the idea.
The more predictable you are, the easier you are to defeat. And I feel this goes along with everything in the world.
Unlike the MPAA and RIAA, Google is willing to alter the way they provide their services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AIM is the defacto standard
Lots of products may use Jabber, but they are not well known. They are not being advertised on the main pages of the popular web portals and the network is small and fragmented into niche markets. Google can change that simply by exposure. The early release of a simple, clean, fast client will kickstart the process. Having a major player in an open network is the real compelling feature of this client and is something that has been sorely lacking since IM first came on the scene. The 3 established players probably figure they can make more profits now with closed IM systems as long as there are relatively few players... but they also likely know this situation will not last. Once the ball starts rolling to an open network, they will not risk being left behind and will quickly jump on the bandwagon. The reality of the situation is probably that they are confomfortable with this happening as long as they are not the ones that have to go through the grunt work of establishing the open network. The fact that Google is willing to make the commitment to do this, and will likely risk operating this portion of the company at a loss is what is striking to me. Strategically for the Google the undertaking should be worthwhile simply to level the playing field with their competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AIM is the defacto standard
Before today, most people likely had no idea what Jabber was, and even now they likely don't care at all about the underlying technology.
After today, most people still won't have an idea what Jabber is, and they still won't care about the underlying technology. Normal people won't care if it uses Jabber, or whatever else. They'll see it doesn't work like the IM programs they're used to, and they'll wonder why they should start using this instead of AIM, or MSN or Yahoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta And Not Listed.
Just my 2 cents so take it for it's worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Beta And Not Listed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gmail Invites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fooy
Smilies! Haar. I like the blue ":D" MSN & ICQ are invasive and intensive whereas Google as always have kept the design simple. It blends into my Desktop instead of invading it. So far so good in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically badly written lies and guesses
Most find? You mean you think this is right, so you can say 'most find' please do tell what you population of people you are talking about, and what sample you choose, and what methods you used.
> (which is frustrating since that means your
> friend list is limited to friends with GMail and
> the 30 you invite)
No it uses Jabber, you can add any jabber person to it... ass. THey don't say if it is SIP complaint tho...
> . Sure, Google Talk supports the open Jabber
> standard; and while it is commendable that
> Google is making a stand here for
> interoperability, none of the "big three" widely
> used IM clients support Jabber,
Twat! So which is it? it is shit because you cannot add anyone... or it is shit that you can add people from other jabber clients, but not any of the larger ones?
Try and add a fucking msn user to yahoo IM you fucking dumb ass idiot, don't take you general qualms about non-standard IM techs out on googletalk AND slam google for choosing the redundant path of interoperability.
> limitations, and Google Maps ushered in a new
> era of AJAXian web development.
Don't fucking invent new ways of using acronym words.
> Google Talk replicates what is already out
> there, and not very well. Yes, Google Talk
> supports voice, but there's nothing really new
> or exciting about it. Hell, Google Talk doesn't
> even have smileys.
It does have smileys, NON GRAPHICAL ones. Now, I am sure if there was a demand for fun graphical smileys it will come, but I am not 100% sure if they want, or if this is a good time to stop being so minimalist.
ALSO yes I am sure there will be version two, look at picasa 2 and desktop 2.
Google talk (if SIP complaint) is a good thing. I have Skype, Gizmo and Google Talk. The simplcitiy of the interface is fantastic. Yes it needs more, they are listening to developers perhaps to refine it, but you arguments were all either incorrect or redundant.
> Google is opening up Gmail so it's no longer
> invite-only, which solves one small point made
> above.
Again bullshit: they opened up gmail to people registering with mobiles, and the first 'small point' was incorrect anyway.
I only got to this page from a reg link I think, fucking shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Do a proper review next time and with a bit of luck you won't end up being linked from from The Register.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Perhaps because that was what released?
If a movie reviewer doesn't like the movie he's going to review, he should just make his own, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]