| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Pay for corporate IM? Makes no sense | |
|
||
| Time: 14:54 EST/19:54 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Over the last few weeks, Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo announced new offerings addressing the out-of-control market of instant messaging. With all of this hype around “enterprise” instant messaging, when does it really make sense to lay down your dollars and embrace one of these offerings? Probably never, here’s why. What was once the realm of teenage girls chatting with each other, instant messaging has taken over the corporate network like a wildfire, introduced not by the IT manager, but by the employees themselves, to keep in touch with their kids, friends, and close business contacts (usually in that order). Because there is no interoperability in sight for AOL, MSN, and Yahoo, employees typically run all three clients to be able to communicate with contacts that are spread out across these networks. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:18:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/20/2002 4:21:49 PM |
|
IM makes sense for a corporate environment that needs real-time colaboration.
But you need channels that you can subscribe yourself to... people send out a general question, and people subscribed could respond to the question. This isn't revolutionary, and I don't understand why MSN, Yahoo, AOL and such want to make it so dang complicated. |
| #2 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 11/20/2002 4:33:05 PM |
| Many companies don't allow instant messenging, simply because they can't limit it only to business use. These new solutions allow the company to effectively shut off PERSONAL instant messenging, and keep IM use between coworkers. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/20/2002 6:23:01 PM |
|
eagle - Exactly, and I think you can do that.
I don't understand why this is such a big deal. I was using instant messaging in a work environment back in 1992. It was extremely useful. |
| #4 By 415 (68.54.10.120) at 11/20/2002 7:29:59 PM |
|
Soda - I don't think 'NET SEND' is really the same thing as instant messaging... ;-)
I would pay for secure encrypted IM, management, logging, policies, etc. |
| #5 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 11/20/2002 10:41:00 PM |
|
Iron:
Aahh, remembering the good times of finding people w/o a firewall and sending out net send messages to them to freak them out... things like "Neo. We are watching you." "Follow the white rabbit." etc.... |
| #6 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/21/2002 3:29:45 AM |
| Realist, corporate IM can stay in the office. There is no need to use personal IM ID's in the office. While in the office, IM is fabulous. IM works in some situations where email or phone calls don't work too well. |
| #7 By 2960 (68.100.157.191) at 11/21/2002 7:54:09 AM |
|
"If it is secure then why not have a product that costs money."
Maybe because it should be secure in the first place ? TL |
| #8 By 2960 (68.100.157.191) at 11/21/2002 7:57:52 AM |
|
"We already have phone and email. I like the idea of IM as much as having to be on call and wear a pager.
When it comes down to it, constantly being in instant contact with work is a huge negative excpet for times when its really necessary. I have to say overall society would be a lot better off without instant access since really it only benefits the employer and puts more demands on workers. " Being in constant contact is exactly what I HAVE to have. I support several thousand users as well as 100 or so technicians. If I didn't have IM and Email, our long-distance phone bill would be thousands more a month. And with IM I can help several people at once. With the phone, I can only do one at a time. TL |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/21/2002 1:56:54 PM |
|
"Maybe because it should be secure in the first place ?"
You mean as secure as regular email and web traffic are? Oops, they aren't secure either. I don't see why IM should be held to a different standard then they are. |
| #10 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 11/21/2002 2:21:42 PM |
|
"Maybe because it should be secure in the first place ?"
Dont forget, it is free after all. That is, unless you are a mac luser and paid $129 for the latest and greatest iChat. LOL. Apple puts a gui around an existing capability (aol im) and they actually call that a FEATURE. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/21/2002 4:32:34 PM |
|
Uhh, d1psh1t... yes, you, mooresa, iChat actually has the feature that people are requesting: i.e. a separate "buddy list" which discovers area network users and which uses their network identity as their IM id. It wouldn't be too hard to block external IM users.
Bob, is your WAN secure? Then why shouldn't corporate IM be secure? For some reason, now you are the guy in every instance saying: security is impossible therefore wanting it is a ridiculous desire. That's a boneheaded argument. And all of you seem to be missing the point. These companies want to charge corporations as if they are providing them a service. This is baloney; corporate IM should be served from corporate servers, take place over the corporations existing infrastructure, and be administered by its own staff. Are you all paying a monthly fee for email? No. These IM providers are misguided because they began providing the service as an add on to a service they were actually providing--internet access. I want a corporate IM software package--no service, no bandwidth, nothing else--just the software. So why should I pay on a monthly basis? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:18:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
