Instant messaging clients: Stop the insanity

Instant messaging clients: Stop the insanity

Summary: How many of these darned things do I really need to run?


Skype. AOL IM. Yahoo IM. Google Hangouts. Facebook Chat. Twitter DMs. The number of instant messaging accounts that I have to deal with on a daily basis is absolutely mind numbing.

It's not that I necessarily choose to have all of these accounts; it's because the people who I have to interact with on a daily basis have these accounts, and have their allegiances to specific services.

Things have become a little better over the years. Microsoft shut down MSN Live Messenger recently and folded the Live account stuff into Skype, and Skype now can talk to Lync with some limitations and vice versa.

But I still need to use several distinct IM programs to manage all my accounts.

(Image: Jason Perlow/ZDNet)

On my Windows 8.1 desktop, I use Skype and Lync for dedicated communications on those systems. I have TweetDeck running in the browser for all of my public and private Twitter interactions, and Facebook also runs in the browser for those folks who live exclusively there.

To attempt to catch all the rest, I use Trillian, which is a good multiprotocol IM client that uses a centralized communications network to consolidate (federate) communications, and has a unified logon.

Now, it's certainly possible for Trillian to be used to handle Skype IMs, and for Facebook, and for Twitter as well. There's a few problems with this, though.

The software engineers at Trillian (and those developing other multi-protocol IM clients like IM+, Adium and Pidgin) all work in a best-effort basis to try to reverse engineer or maintain compatibility with published implementations of protocols of all of the competing IM systems.

As such, from time to time, connectivity to these networks breaks, and not all functionality is supported.

The reason why the connectivity breaks is because each of these providers implements changes or new functionality, and, as a result, the third-party implementations of these protocols stop functioning until the fix by each messaging client rolls out, or the open-source community develops a shared library (such as libpurple, which is used by Adium and Pidgin and a few others).

Now, it's understandable why certain information/content providers like Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and Facebook want to maintain their own clients and their own protocols, because there are distinct advantages to integrating these with all of their distinct services and respective platforms.

But there has to be a better way.

Trillian, for example, has been breaking on connectivity with Facebook more often than I like, so I'm forced to use the Facebook web UI when communicating there.

I would also prefer not to use Trillian for Twitter and Facebook integration, because I'd get far too many updates and it's hard to control granularity of what Twitter and Facebook can do within its UI.

The situation becomes even more complex in the mobile space, where the preferred IM client is tied to and is tightly integrated with a specific mobile operating system.

That being said, there has to be some common ground. I'd rather not use multiple IM clients, because it clutters up my screen and you end up having different notifiers coming up in an inconsistent matter.

And using a third-party multiprotocol clients on a mobile device using reverse-engineered or best-effort protocol support is going to make the communications disconnect even more of an issue now that devices far outnumber desktops.

So then the alternative is that you need to have the native client for that platform running in resident memory. Modern mobile operating systems support push notifications, but we know how annoying that can be, as well.

This gets even more annoying when you, say, end up having to use a web UI for a social network like Google+ or Facebook, and then suddenly an IM session pops up in there and gets out of sync or overrides the one in your multiprotocol client.

Trillian and IM+ have the advantage of working on various mobile device OSes, but the key is keeping them running in the background, which chews up resources.

Man, wouldn't a single instant messaging standard be nice? So you could just use one client?

Well, there is. Sort of. The XMPP protocol, previously known as "Jabber", was a good attempt by the IETF at trying to provide cross-platform unified IM communications.

For a long time, Google provided an external gateway for XMPP, but recently dropped support for it on Google Hangouts in May 2013. Facebook Chat supports some of the capabilities of XMPP, but it's not a fully compliant XMPP server.

To be fair, Skype doesn't support XMPP at all, and the native protocol is completely proprietary, so all third-party attempts to communicate with it directly or via a federation service have been either reverse engineered or licensed directly.

Obviously, getting all of the IM services providers to agree on a unified instant messaging protocol just isn't going to happen. But there is another way to deal with this issue.

And no, although it actually is my favorite IM platform and my employer develops it, and it works on such a wide variety of devices, I don't think everyone should abandon everything else in favor of Skype, because that's an unrealistic and totally impractical view of the world.

Ideally, what you really want is a natively implemented IM protocol service that can simply plug into the device's existing integrated messenger and notification system. But such a thing doesn't exist yet.

The way I envision this is that each of the major platform providers agree to a "package" format that contains the libraries and protocols that permit encrypted IM communication to the third-party service.

Optimally, this package format should be easily translatable or portable across the different device OSes, and each of the respective service providers should be responsible for maintaining a repository that allows a platform partner to download the respective package so that it can be automatically updated and integrated into the native device platform messaging application.

The alternative to not doing this is not just device platforms becoming siloed in applications and user bases, but also becoming isolated from each other as each of the respective companies carve out market share and ecosystems.

Are we facing IM client overload, or, alternatively, a Tower of Babel with instant message communication on competing device operating systems? Talk back and let me know.

Topics: Networking, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mobile OS, PCs, Social Enterprise


Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet, is a technologist with over two decades of experience integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies. Jason is currently a Partner Technology Strategist with Microsoft Corp. His expressed views do not necessarily represent those of his employer.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Ah, stupid error message...

    "Your comment contains words or phrases associated with spam and will not appear on the site until it has been checked by a moderator."

    Grayson Peddie
    • Yes, I've been getting that error a lot

  • Or you just...

    Or you just don't use IM, period. Those individuals can just email you.
    • Email is slow

      Text is the primary method for communicating with me. IM is the secondary functional method for communicating with me. Email is the next level of function. Phone call is the last level of function.
      • re: last level

        So you never even meet people in reality? The phone call is the final stop?
        • That's pretty sad, isn't it?

          Listening to somebody's voice as a last resort. That human interaction has to be debased to this level.

          I rarely text and I don't use IM. Waste of time jumbling all those keys on a keyboard when I can pick up the phone and get an answer verbally. Oh and I still love voice mail.
        • Yes.

          Because when you call me, I have to stop what I'm doing, no matter how important or urgent, to pick up the phone and talk to you. With an IM or email, I can answer you when it's convenient for me.
          • That's silly

            That's what voice mail is for. Press the DnD button and any call goes straight into voice mail. I can talk to you later.

            I don't have to open a computer to communicate. Good grief.
          • Sheesh. Just send me a freaking IM

            or email instead of telling me to hit dnd on my phone, pick up my phone later and listen to your stupid "call me so we can talk about..." voice mail. All because you don't want to use IM or email. And don't even give me the nonsense about having to open a computer. You'll be at you computer already as part if your work or have your smart phone in your hands.
          • I think you're afraid

            I think you're just afraid of hearing a voice on the other end and use a computer as a barrier to personally interact with people.

            You're probably one of those self-absorbed dweebs that couldn't function in life if a smartphone or a computer weren't handy. The kind who whittle away the hours fiddling with the phone instead of actually communicating with the person sitting next to them.

          • re:I think you're afraid

            I agree with baggins_z.

            If what you have to communicate is so important, tell me. IM or email do an admirable job of telling me exactly what it is that you want to say with no small talk needed, no "how are the kids" or anything of that nature.
            You need to tell me a meeting has been moved to a different time? Text it. I'll get the message. Need to ask me a question? Put it in writing. You can even send a picture of your problem if it's possible. That gives me visual clues as to exactly what you're having trouble with.
            If you call me and leave a voicemail to "call me back", it annoys me. Why didn't you just leave a message of what your problem is in the first place? I don't want to have to pick up a phone, go through all the annoying small talk only to have you attempt to explain out loud what you're looking at that you are having trouble with so I can then attempt to explain out loud how to fix it, usually with you interrupting to ask inane questions that, if you'd shut up already, would be explained.
            IM, text and email are the way to go. If you must speak to me, catch me in person.
            The obvious exceptions to the rule are if you're related to me, a close friend or it's your job to call me. In all three of those cases, leave a detailed message. If it's important, I'll call you back. If it's not, I'll call you when I have time and even then, I'd prefer a text even if it's just to set up a time to call.
      • meh on text

        "Text is the primary method for communicating with me."

        Meh on that. Some cell phone company wants to charge me extra for 140 characters? I'd rather have people IM me; I've already got a data plan and Trillian is available for my phone.
        • many plans include texting

          In any case if I text you I guess you'll be paying 20 cents
        • tried hangouts on android?

          It uses internet as the carrier for text messaging rather than the SMS service.
      • sms isn't secure

        So services like imessage is a blessing, especially with all this nsa prism stuff going around now.
  • So give up IM...

    ...and use this exciting technology called, let's see, what is it... oh, yeah, a telephone. What's "mind-numbing" is letting other people run your life like that. Cut the IM cord. If it's important, they'll find a way to get hold of you.
    • Can to curb global warming

      ... let us use yet another new technology, wait for it ... horses!!

      The world is changing and the way we interact with one another is changing. I don't like phoning people, it is a waste of time for me and for them. I much prefer getting a short message that I can read and respond to it when I'm ready.
    • While I agree with you in theory!

      In practice the old fashioned phone call doesn't always work now-a-days! Robot answering machine amd call centers in Asia sometimes make phone calls very tedious and frustrating!
    • Nope. Hate the telephone.

      It is an interrupting technology. I have things to do, and I'll talk to you when it's convenient for me, not when it's convenient for you.
      • Yeah you have things to do

        Like whittle away hours on zdnet self-absorbed and hiding behind technology in order to avoid people. Admit it. The truth will set you free.