Trillian Users Are A Bunch Of Crybabies
from the uh,-what? dept
David Coursey is getting weirder every day. His latest column suggests that everyone (such as myself) who complained about AOL blocking Trillian’s IM program from accessing AIM should shut up and go away, because we’re all being crybabies. He claims that it’s clear that AOL doesn’t want Trillian accessing AIM, so that’s that. Game over. Trillian should just go away. Um. What? By those standards shouldn’t we stop bugging Microsoft about their weak security because it’s clear that Microsoft doesn’t want to produce secure software? Shouldn’t we give up arguing against the DMCA because it’s clear the government is happy with it? People have a right to protest something they think is stupid – and they certainly have a right to build technology that makes their lives easier. If anything, products like Trillian should help push AOL into finally getting around to working on an open IM standard so that we can stop the multiple IM client madness.
Comments on “Trillian Users Are A Bunch Of Crybabies”
No Subject Given
aol provides the software and the network for free.
In return, they serve ads.
trillian is STEALING MONEY from aol.
The only way trillian should be allowed to access the aim network is if they serve the ads…
Re: No Subject Given
I have a better idea. If they block Trillian entirely, we can all edit out the ads, so we STILL won’t be looking at them. Or let’s all migrate to MSN which doesn’t seem to have it in for Trillian like gAyOL does.
Re: Re: No Subject Given
“gAyOL”…ahaha…good one…oh, wait…I’m not 11 years old. Thats not funny.
Re: Re: Re: gAyOL and the longest thread I've seen on techdirt
Congratz on getting 18 responses to a topic.
I liked gAyOL….but methinks AOHell Time Wanker is a better name. And soon it’ll be AOL Time Warner Disney Microsoft, thus allowing the consumer maximum benefit.
Re: AOL Is A Bunch of Hypocrites
AOL claims to be in favor of an open IM standard…as long as it’s to their specifications. They have demonstrated their descire to be allowed access to other people’s chat networks in the name of interoperability, but refuse to offer the same. Dorks.
Re: Stealing money?
How can Trillian be stealing money from AOL? Am I stealing money from DoubleClick when I disable images in my browser, thus breaking their ads? Am I stealing money from AOL when I decide to use MSN instead of AIM?
You’re a moron. Nobody is stealing anything. AOL’s protocol is wide open, unencrypted, unsecure, and completely accessible, and Trillian is merely taking advantage of that. The fact that Trillian users don’t see AOL’s ads doesn’t mean AOL’s money is being stolen, it just means that they’re not MAKING money. And considering that Trillian is completely free, I don’t see any conflict here.
Trillian is gaining nothing, and AOL is losing nothing (since, if not for Trillian, most users would just switch to a service without ads rather than using AIM).
Re: Re: Stealing money?
Pardon the formatting of my reply. It appears Techdirt’s “Plain Text” option is retarded. Sigh.
- 1 Troll
this entire post is a troll.
your kidding when you posted this, right?: By those standards shouldn’t we stop bugging Microsoft about their weak security because it’s clear that Microsoft doesn’t want to produce secure software? Shouldn’t we give up arguing against the DMCA because it’s clear the government is happy with it? People have a right to protest something they think is stupid – and they certainly have a right to build technology that makes their lives easier. If anything, products like Trillian should help push AOL into finally getting around to working on an open IM standard so that we can stop the multiple IM client madness.
MS sells software. if you choose not to use their OS, their office suite, their browser, et al then feel free to use something else. it is the power of capitalism…use your money to speak your will.
AIM (AOL) provides a free service to the user. the program is free, the server cost is free, the upgrades are free. you own nothing and pay nothing for this product. AIM (AOL) in return for providing you a FREE (as in beer not speech) product has the right to run their organization the way they want. they can block users, they can sell ads, they can be dicks…it’s their money. don’t like it – use something else.
you know, when this was the 1st round (MSN vs AIM) and AIM was blocking MSN, people had a different opinion. now that Trillian (a startup -ooooo how novel an idea) is doing it, it’s David vs. Goliath. get over it. no one tells me how to run my business and no one tells you how to run your site. do as you please.
but you comment was asine.
Re: - 1 Troll
I’m not denying that AOL has the right to try to block anyone from accessing AIM. I am saying that (1) it’s a stupid move that only annoys their users and (2) Trillian has the right to keep trying to access AIM. That’s all.
I completely understand the argument as to why AOL is blocking them. I just don’t think Trillian should give up. Just like I didn’t think MSN should have given up. I don’t think anyone is being a “cry baby” for trying to create a program that makes lives easier. I think David Coursey is being a corporate apologist, though. If AOL has the right to run their business the way they want, doesn’t Trillian also have that right?
Don’t I also have the right to say that AOL’s move is likely to piss off more users than it will help them gain? My point is simply that Trillian shouldn’t stop just because AOL wants them to.
And, if you think I thought differently about it when MSN was blocked you obviously haven’t looked at what I wrote back then.
Re: Re: - 1 Troll
The developers of Trillian do not have the right to piggy back on AOL networks and servers. AOL should not need to use technical means to prevent unwanted software from using their system, a simple declaration should be enough.
Re: Re: - 1 Troll
If AOL has the right to run their business the way they want, doesn’t Trillian also have that right?
of course they do. and AOL has every right to monitor and limit the traffic through their servers and has every right to protect their revenue stream.
the truth of the matter is, Trillian wants something for next to nothing. there is no doubt that their exists a problem when users need 7 chat programs to do the work of 1 (i run 3 at work.) but that problem is not AOL’s fault anymore than the solutions is Trillian’s right to use other companies resources.
Don’t I also have the right to say that AOL’s move is likely to piss off more users than it will help them gain?
of course you do. but is this AOL’s fault. you know, outside of the 22 year olds with zero real world business experience, if you ask anyone who runs a major corporation, this is a non-issue. they see it just as it is: AOL right, trillian wrong. somehow b/c trillian has made a nifty product the rules of business go out the window; yeah, and Napster was a great product too…for piggybacking, non-paying losers who would rather steal that pay for something.
face it – the nature of this argument is the same as to why we can’t have only one browser standard. so great, let’s legislate what technology can go into browsers. the government gets so much right anyway.
Re: Re: Re: - 1 Troll
Yeah. You’ll always win an argument by just declaring that “anyone who runs a major corporation” agrees with you and not with me. If you’re going to make ridiculous arguments like that, at least try to support it with some proof.
I stand by my assertion (and I’m not a 22 year old with zero real world business experience). I completely understand why AOL is doing what they’re doing and I’m NOT saying they don’t have the right to do it. I AM saying that it’s a stupid move.
I don’t think that Trillian users are crybabies. They’re USERS of the AIM network, and they’re letting AOL know what they think by building a better system on top of their network.
You seem to be saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that they’re either all 22 year-old losers or that their opinion doesn’t matter. I think you’re wrong. Their opinion does matter, and AOL is just telling them to fuck off. I think that’s a dumb busines strategy.
I’m saying that the rules of business don’t go out the window. It is a BAD BUSINESS MOVE for AOL to do this, because they’re pissing off users. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, but you don’t seem to get that.
Re: Re: Re:2 - 1 Troll
They’re USERS of the AIM network
correct. they are illegal users of the AIM network.
It is a BAD BUSINESS MOVE for AOL to do this, because they’re pissing off users.
no – they aren’t pissing me off…so they maybe pissing some of their users off, but i would imagine that a vast majority of the users of AIM (around 20 million) are not pissed about the trillian flap.
i get what you are saying and i still don’t understand why AOL needs to allow a competitor access to their servers. you ignored the napster comparison, but it is very apt. trillian wants to piggyback its way into a user base. great – they created one cool feature. explain to me why they should be allowed to propigate their program at the expense of AOL?
Re: Re: Re:3 - 1 Troll
I’m not saying that AOL needs to allow it. They don’t. I’m saying it’s stupid that they’re not allowing it.
As for the Napster comparison, you’re asking the wrong person again, since I still think Napster was a completely legitimate business. Again, there, I understand why the music industry pushed to shut them down, but I think it was a very bad business decision by the music industry.
Finally, where’s your proof that this is “at the expense of AOL”? My point is that if they encouraged others to access AIM they would have the opportunity to do stuff with more users – and potentially get more business out of it.
I think we’re talking in circles here. You’re saying that AOL should be allowed to block others. I completely agree with you. My point is that this is a stupid move – which is not something you seem to be countering. Instead you say over and over again that they should be allowed to block them. Sure, let them go ahead and block them. It’s still a stupid move.
Re: Re: Re:4 - 1 Troll
As for the Napster comparison, you’re asking the wrong person again, since I still think Napster was a completely legitimate business. Again, there, I understand why the music industry pushed to shut them down, but I think it was a very bad business decision by the music industry.
there is no real need to carry on this conversation anymore, since it is painfully obvious from this quote you don’t get it. i would be interested to know where you got your MBA from (or was that just your “friends”?)
it is asine to think that Napster was a completely legitimate business. Napster created a great service, albeit one that facilitated nothing more than stealing. do you also think that people who stand on street corners and sell crack run a completely legitimate business?
AOL is upsetting maybe 7-10% of AIM users. those 7-10% are not the core users AOL is after anyway. these people are users like me, who use AIM because my mom is on it, not because it is some great product (it isn’t, i think the new MSN chat program is heads above the new AIM program.) AOL is very protective of users like my mother though – people who fork out $20 a month for their online service and who might actually view the ads.
the argument that blocking trillian users is a stupid move is only based in the fact that trillian users are users; the truth of the matter is, trillian users are not the base for which AOL is aiming (nice pun, huh?). AOL has every right to block their traffic and from a business standpoint, i think it is a very small calculated risk. the MSN vs AOL debacle did not hurt AOL’s business as far as i can tell. take a peak at their financials before and after. looks to me like AOL is doing fine. they have a business plan and are taking steps to protect and extend that plan.
Re: Re: Re:5 - 1 Troll
I usually find debates where I vehemently disagree with someone the most instructive, because I try to understand what that person is thinking and how they came to their conclusions. I try to go in with an open mind, and am occasionally convinced that I am wrong. That’s what makes them useful.
I try as hard as possible (though I don’t always succeed) to keep such debates focused on the ideas that are being debated and not the person behind the debate. I don’t see how the school at which I received my MBA is at all relevant to the debate. While plenty of people who frequent Techdirt know this information and probably think revealing it might show you up for doubting me, I’m not going to lower the debate by touting my credentials. If you really want to know such information, email me privately and I will tell you. If I revealed it as part of the debate I would feel that I was saying “these are my credentials, and that’s why you should believe me”, which I don’t believe. I think you should believe me based on the strength of my argument – or, if you can, that you should convince me that I am wrong on the strength of your argument.
While it’s not clear if you feel the same about your approach to a debate, I will still continue to explain my point.
I will start with a quick economics lesson. There are obviously more details involved, but this is going to be a long enough post already. Napster created one of the most efficient distribution systems for music ever created. Such a distribution system lowered the costly barriers to distribution and set up a situation where the price of music was being forced down to a competitive level.
Basic economics is pretty clear on the fact that a competitive price is the marginal price to produce another copy. With a digital good, the marginal price is effectively zero – if the good is copied digitally and doesn’t need to be packaged on a CD and with materials. So, all Napster was doing was breaking down that barrier.
The music companies, as benefactors to the barrier, obviously don’t want it to go away. Hence they’re calling music sharing “theft”. This is not at all true. For something to be theft, the original owner can no longer posess the good. This is not true with music sharing.
The music industry realized that they were being forced out of their old way of doing business, and despite being given a gift of an incredible distribution system chose instead to try to reinforce the old barriers that made them fat, rich, and happy. That’s why they try to convince people that music sharing is theft.
If they had any sort of long term vision or creativity in them they would have realized that the more music that is out there listened to more people in an easier more efficient way, the more opportunities they have to make money in other ways. That’s what business is all about: figuring out how to make money off the situations that the world presents you. To some extent they are finally experimenting with these ideas through MusicNet and PressPlay, but they are still be run from the old divisions with the old mindset and instead of making an inexpensive distribution system, they are saddling it with all the old rules and barriers which makes them not at all useful to consumers.
So, sure, I understand why the music industry wanted to keep their old barriers. I just think it’s short sighted and will leave them in more trouble down the road than if they had embraced Napster. You obviously don’t think so – but I don’t quite understand the roots of your argument – since it seems to be focused on me, and not the issue at hand.
The fact is, that with any business, new technologies come along that will make business more challenging for you. The more creative and successful businesses are the ones who figure out how to turn that technology to their advantage – and not deny it and block it out. The technology improves efficiencies and makes life better for consumers. A good business is one that adapts to that – and doesn’t try to shut it out. A short sighted business does try to block it – and in the long run faces more difficulties because of it.
The AOL-Trillian debate is very similar. I believe that allowing other applications to access AIM opens up many more possibilities for AOL to succeed in that space. I think it’s short sighted for the company to simply block out those other users. They are only looking at one facet of the deal: “those users are on *our* network” and aren’t looking at the broader picture: “we have many more users coming to us in different ways – including users we might not get otherwise. How can we *benefit* from that instead of kicking them out?” I don’t doubt that this fits into AOL’s business plan – but I certainly have the right to claim that I don’t agree with their business plan, and think it will be worse for them in the long run. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, but you keep ignoring the fact that I am saying this. Yes, AOL is doing what they think is right. It fits with their business plan, and narrowly focused, it makes sense. If you look at the big picture – as I am trying to explain here, it makes it worse for them in the long run.
That’s the basis of my argument. I can go on defending it in more detail, but I will only do so if you are interested in a real debate about the issues. If you want to make fun of my credentials, then I don’t see much of a point in continuing.
Re: Re: Re:6 - 1 Troll
ok – i can tell you i wondered about your b-school experience b/c you mentioned in this thread that I’m not a 22 year old with zero real world business experience. reading the information on how this site started, i was interested in what b-school you and your friends attended. this info would be purely academic, b/c it would only give a glimpse into why you might think as you do, not a definitive answer to these discussions. no matter – it isn’t as important to me where you went; i should hope it is more important to you.
your logic in your arguments is flawed. let’s examine some of it and then i can tell you why i think as i do:
With a digital good, the marginal price is effectively zero – if the good is copied digitally and doesn’t need to be packaged on a CD and with materials.
actually the marginal price (the additional cost corresponding to an additional unit of output produced, calculated by dividing the price of a marginal input by the marginal product of that input) is not zero as you state. even copying a file digitally incurs a cost, either in labor, network capacity, or lost opportunity of doing something else. nothing is free and marginal cost can never be zero in the real world.
So, all Napster was doing was breaking down that barrier.
dead on. unfortunately, napster was breaking down a barrier imposed by copyright holders and used to insure a revenue stream. this was not an artificial barrier imposed for whim and folly. the technological changes that have swept the music industry are a definte concern to the status quo, but even so, those changes do not implicitly have to be for the benefit of all. as an aside, i have several friends on major label contracts. one such person has a new album in the can and awaiting a march 5th release. meanwhile, said work is already available on Audiogalaxy, kazaa, morpheus etc. who is harmed by this? the record company for one, my friend the artist for another. the facile assumption that the traditional definition of theft is that the original owner can no longer posess the good is simply incorrect in this day and age and the court system has sided with the definition that being denied a revenue stream even without loss of possession is theft.
The music industry realized that they were being forced out of their old way of doing business, and despite being given a gift of an incredible distribution system chose instead to try to reinforce the old barriers that made them fat, rich, and happy.
many firms react to change in a market place differently. the tone in this remark is that somehow the music industry, in protecting its market and profit is doing something ignorant. while file sharing services are certainly a boon to music distribution, until a secured copy protection scheme and payment system can be devised, napster was by all means providing works which cost money for free to consumers. your ignorance in understanding that people (real musicians) lost money and control of their art is contemptable.
So, sure, I understand why the music industry wanted to keep their old barriers. I just think it’s short sighted and will leave them in more trouble down the road than if they had embraced Napster. You obviously don’t think so – but I don’t quite understand the roots of your argument….
the root of my argument both towards the matters of AOL/AIM and napster is that despite cool technology making something neat happen and possible opening up opportunities down the road, most large corporations are not nimble enough to scale their changes in weekly cycles. AOL put forth a great amount of money to build a network which can and does service over 20 million users on a daily basis. the idea that they should not protect the investment they made simply because change has happened, is laughable. The more creative and successful businesses are the ones who figure out how to turn that technology to their advantage – and not deny it and block it out. and here is where your experience might actually help: name me ten successful global corporations who don’t manipulate technology so as to protect their advantages all the while allowing them sustained profit….when you can name 10 fortune 100 companies that do that then i will admit i am wrong. until that point, here is the facts as i see them:
1) AOL built their network. they have legitimate concerns for profit and security and are within every right to deny unauthorized access to their networks.
2) Trillian has not paid a dime for their product to run on the servers it uses…talk about a marginal cost approaching zero. trillian devised a product that uses the resources of other companies for trillian’s own success. this is similar to how a virus propigates – with no cost to itself all the while spreading.
3) there is no proof that in the long run AOL is being shortsighted. in the longrun of what? attracting yahoo chat users who pay zero for their product? in the longrun of attracting mIRC users who pay zero for their product? so AOL’s goal should be to attract more users who pay zero for a service that has a real cost (think those servers run for free? what’s a cisco business class router go for these day – $250K?)
my arguments are based on the fact that just because a firm devises a “new” method of something doesn’t mean it is better, right, or marketable. trillian (and napster) have created great products and i cannot argue that their goal might (or was) all along to relase a great new program and then hope to sell out to the company that it stood to lose the most. last time i check, ICQ and winamp both belonged to in-house AOL development…and both were small, small, tiny operations that developed a product and sold out. what made ICQ different is that their product ran unto itself and had value based on it’s own costs. winamp had value in offering AOL something they didn’t have – a media client. how differently would those products have been received had they acted like trillian? who knows – but my guess is, trillian will dry up and blow away within 6 months or will be bought within that time. remember, part of business is playing to your size.
Re: Re: Re:7 - 1 Troll
I didn’t say the marginal cost was zero. I said it was “effectively zero” – which I stand by. None of the “costs” you describe are either significant (and in some cases they aren’t actually a marginal cost at all). Throwing in “opportunity cost” is a total red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m talking about. The fact is that the marginal cost of me downloading a song is effectively zero to everyone involved.
The only situation I can see where it wouldn’t be zero is in the case of whoever owns the server and pays for the bandwidth from which the song is downloaded. However, in many cases this is either a fixed fee, or the marginal cost of a single download is minimal. The fact remains that even if the “maginal cost” is dropped to a few pennies – this new technology should drive the price down – towards that maginal cost.
When will you stop assuming what I’m saying and actually read what I say? YES, Napster broke down the barriers that made the music industry money. OF COURSE they’re going to try to defend them. I am saying that this is NOT A SMART MOVE. They have been given an amazing, efficient distribution system, and instead of trying to take advantage of it, they have done their best to shut it down, based on out-of-date laws.
My ignorance is “contemptable”? Thanks for keeping this about the ideas being discussed. I’m glad you have friends in the music industry. You must be really special. I have friends in the music industry as well. Amazingly, like all people, they don’t all agree about this. Some of them agree with me, and some with you – which is to be expected. Are my friends who agree with me “contemptable” in their lack of knowledge of their own industry?
I know musicians who have said that Napster was the greatest thing for them. It got them more attention from fans who would never have otherwise known about their music. It didn’t keep them tied down to a certain label – and it made them feel like real musicians again – making money from live shows and direct album sales.
I guess that’s “contemtable”.
Besides, the thing I find most amusing about people like you who blindly support the music industry in all this is you seem to naturally assume that they have a *right* to be making money. They don’t. Any business makes or loses money depending on how they respond to the environment around them. I am saying this is an environmental change that they should deal with. You appear to be saying that this goes against nature – since record companies absolutely have to make money.
You haven’t countered my argument about AOL really. You just say they should protect their investment. I’m saying that with more users on their network they’re not only protecting their investment – they’re opening it up to even greater returns.
You also miss my point with your request for 10 companies… Of course companies try to manipulate technology to their advantage. When did I say they don’t? What I’m saying is that both the music industry and AOL here have the opportunity to manipulate these technologies to their greater advantage if they embrace them, and use them as ways to expand their businesses. You are saying they should stick with their narrow minded view of how to make money and not look to take advantage of the technology handed to them on a silver platter.
I realize that trillian may up and disappear – and if they do, AOL will have blown an opportunity. But someone else will come along, and sooner or later AOL will probably realize that they have a lot more potential to make money off of a larger audience – no matter how they reach the AIM network.
Look, I’m not sure there’s really a point debating this any further. So far you seem to ignore the points I make, insult me, and attempt to draw this down to a personal level.
I have tried to keep an open mind and listen to your points, but you don’t appear to want to do the same. A debate with intelligent people is generally a fun experience for me. This debate with you, however, is neither informative nor fun. If you think I am so contemptible feel free to go somewhere else.
Re: Re: Re:8 - 1 Troll
done!
Re: Re: Re:9 - 1 Troll
This argument may be dead by now, but I feel I have something to offer. It may have already been covered, but there were alot of messages in the thread and I did not read tham all. First of all, AOL was my introduction to the internet. I was glad I used them, but I soon realized that they overcharged for the services they offered. Anything that is available on AOL is available anywhere else online. Chat, communities, IM, etc. And AOL attached itself all over my computer (as does MSN, and neither is right to do so). So I ventured out on my own. But companies with an emerging technology have always been obligated to open that technology up to competition. Even if it means sharing the delivery means with the competition. AT&T had to open up to smaller local and long distance carriers. If they don’t agree to do it on thier own, the government will force them to do so.
I live in Austin, Texas, and we have Time Warner as our cable provider. They also provide Roadrunner cable internet access. It has been around for less than five years and it has been forced to open it’s doors to competition. Guess who it opened it up to. AOL. As in AOL- Time Warner. As in the same friggin’ company. Just to be fair, I do believe that they opened up to Earthlink as well. But I am rambling.
I searched out the idea of a cross platform instant messenger before I even knew it existed. I ended up with Odigo. Worked great with my ICQ, Yahoo, and MSN buddies, but I kept getting kicked off of the AOL network. Obviously, no one is fighting intergration harding than AOL. There was a time when maybe IM was an exclusive technology and that was the time for it to be capatalized upon. But now it has become as common a means of communication as e mail. Can you imagine being an AOL member that could not contact your friends becase their e mail address did not end in @AOL.com? I imagine that wound frustrate you. Now I use Trillian, I support Trillan, hell, I love Trillan. Instant messaging has become a given. AOL has nothing to fear. There will always be people who do not understand the internet enough, even understand thier own computers enough, to ever go with another ISP.
AOL needs to give up the corporate ideal of control and give in to the human ideal of sharing. And make a donation to Trillian to if you use it. They are fighting the good fight. And let’s not give in to the idea that the internet can only be provided by corporations. The internet is about the people who provide content, who far outnumber those who provide the technolgy we use to produce it. We can have our way if we demand it.
Michael
No Subject Given
Let’s face it, AOL sucks. They have a pretty lame client that has mostly in-house ads and doesn’t have a lot of the features that other clients (including meta-clients like Trillian) have. They’re the MS of the new, connected world. They have a critical mass of users so they think they can impose their will on the masses, a la Office/Windows (and yes I know that the % market share is vastly different; they are however the market leader). So, their stuff will stink and they’ll squash the innovation of as many competitors (like Trillian) as possible, then buy someone that looks hauntingly familiar on the cheap. Sound familiar???
irc
So I admit, I’m not a big IMer. While I’ve seen lots of poeple using AOL and Yahoo IM programs, I’ve only used IRC myself.
What confuses me a little, though, is why most people don’t use IRC clients and just skip all the MS/AOL/Yahoo corporate bullsh*t.
Re: irc
So I admit, I’m not a big IMer. While I’ve seen lots of poeple using AOL and Yahoo IM programs, I’ve only used IRC myself.
What confuses me a little, though, is why most people don’t use IRC clients and just skip all the MS/AOL/Yahoo corporate bullsh*t.
For one, irc as it stands now is a lot less “user friendly” than the IM clients. It’s pretty old technology, hasn’t been updated much in a long time. It has annoying kids who have nothing better to do than take over channels. True, some networks are somewhat better than others, but they all have their own massive problems. When you just want to have short conversations with a friend, IMing has a lot to offer.
Although nothing beats irc for playing acronym…
No Subject Given
aol provides the software and the network for free.
Sure, AOL gave us the Internet. They may stick up a few servers on it but the Internet is publically and privately funded by many. AOL are piggybacking on *our* network. It certainly isn’t, as bcd suggests, like selling crack to children.
Phillip.
Trillian is not just an aim
They did what everyone who has two or more chat programs have wanted for EVER! Dear god its not like they are reselling aim as a new piece of software! Plus if u hate the GAY aim skin that is provided by default then you have a option if u go with trillian. And wtf, “stealing” from aol. HA… aol has stolen more money from me than trillian will ever “take” from them. I tryed they’re internet. I was down 1/2 the time that i was PAYING for. O and mike guess what… what aim is doing has nthing to do with security!!! I am a sys-adminwith 17 programming languages under my belt, and take it from me what they are doing is the last thing they could be doing to inprove security. I pay money for my screen name!! I belive as a paying customer i deserve to do what ever the fuck i want with my screen name! And guess what i want to use it with trillian.. I think aim should relize that trillian made a better inerface than anything those sad “i been to community collage” programmers will ever be able to produce. Botton line aol timewarner makes enough money to just let this one slide, they lost the battle when trillian became the next mc donalds. Over a million served and the only complant i have heard sooo far about trillian is that its haveing issues with aim. And really whos fault it that.
Re: Trillian is not just an aim
AOL says they are so easy, no wonder its number one. They didn’t say they were loyal to the customers. You use their stuff, with what they want to show you. Not only is it free for you to use, its free for AOL to make more money. You pay somewhere around $19.95 for aol per month plus you pay them more for looking at their ads.
Trillian programmers are just a bunch of those fruitcakes who do what they do to expand the box in which we live. That is their payment, typically. If you would like to help them monetarily, they request a donation to support their fight against collapsing boxes. I guess that happens to the cardboard homes when you do things for free.
joejoe… If you’re a programmer, get away from AOL. Second, Community College has nothing to do with programming skills as the wanting and ability to learn has to do with it. And if you have even one programming language “under” your belt, I suggest you use a spell with it, since it seems you’ll have to find your numerous programming spelling errors.