| 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 |
 |
Microsoft, Rivals Offer Web Services Cooperation | |
|
||
| Time: 03:11 EST/08:11 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
The Liberty Alliance, a consortium of technology companies created to develop standards for allowing consumers to use one username and password to access multiple services online, announced new members on Tuesday and a desire to have rival Microsoft Corp. MSFT.O join the fold. But a manager at Microsoft, which has developed its own so-called "single sign-on" system called Passport, declined, promising to make it so the two efforts will be interoperable. "We do work with the Liberty Alliance," Brian Arbogast vice president of the .NET core services platform group at Microsoft said during a panel discussion at the RSA Conference. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:33:42 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/20/2002 11:13:17 AM |
| From what I understand, the "Liberty Alliance" is competition for Passport, not a web service platform in general. |
| #2 By 1295 (216.84.211.227) at 2/20/2002 1:59:46 PM |
|
#5 That is the most irrelevant argument i've hear about this
How does giving people access to your procotola on and Instant Messenger service relate even remotely to giving people access to your "Server Number 3". Its completely diffferent... how is is a "security problem" they can only use the methods etc. that aol has exposed and nothing less... There are plenty of programs that access aol's IM service and AOL doesn't actively block those... hell I have a VB app that i wrote that will do it. AOL simply blocks Microsoft's access out of spite and nothing else. They have no other basis. |
| #3 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/20/2002 2:08:31 PM |
|
#5 It's a well known fact that AOL has no security. This is why few believe their claims that their lack of interoperability is purely a security issue. No other ISP has had annual hacker takeovers. Not to mention the fact that, in general, instant messaging is an insecure communications medium (I know about various encrytion supporting add-ons and clients, but I said, "in general").
AOL simply can't take competition. The other IM clients that allow/allowed access to AIM users used AOL's protocol to connect. Users of the other clients even have to go through the trouble of obtaining an AIM account. The only people that would do this are AIM users that also want to communicate with people using other services without having to run multiple clients, or people that don't want AIM on their system, but need to communicate AIM users. It's perfectly legit, especially because AOL is hypocritical. They block the more well-known clients from accessing AIM but let other, lesser-known clients continue to access the service. AOL simply wants to control everything. They hardly pay attention to the work of other companies on an IM interoperability standard. But when the standard is implemented by all but them, they will eventually release a compatible client an run a few commercials about how AOL is making it easier for their users to communicate with their friends and family by innovating and supporting standards all because they care about their customers. It's like how Steve Case screamed about opening the cable lines to everyone for broadband until he bought a significant portion of the cable lines (through the AOL-TW deal) and did a quick about-face on his previous position. |
| #4 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/20/2002 9:19:49 PM |
|
#8 - Well, I think AOL has every right to insist that those that want to access their IM services utilize their client. It is *their* network, and *their* servers that is supporting the client medium.
Obviously they don't want to lose ad revenue by people using unauthorized clients (aka clients without ads who's revenue go to AOL), and that is why they are spending their time blocking the most "costly" alternative clients. I love Trillian, and I HATE AIM. I mean HATE IT. I don't care that it comes from AOL, I care that it STEALS FOCUS!!! #@!^@!. I HATE THAT. I can't get this across strongly enough. If I could, I would find the developers and verbally bash them until they cried to their mothers. HATE IT. BUT, I can't blame AOL for blocking access... as much as I would love to. HATE AIM HATE HATE HATE AIM. |
| #5 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/21/2002 12:00:21 AM |
|
But you would think AOL gets enough ad revenue from the pop-ups that greet most users whenever they log on. If not from there, then there's email spam and the selling of their users' info. Most AOL users don't know how to turn the crap off, and even if they did, it still doesn't stop the selling of their info, nor having a network, client, IM client, and connection method so insecure that it's a favorite "hacker" target.
Protecting ad revenue is one thing, but doing it at the expense of your users' security while claiming you are denying others access for security reasons is despicable and vintage AOL. They probably have more ads than any of the real ISPs out there, yet they still remain the highest priced service. They collect so much money, but do very, very little to improve their service. With all of the litigation going on, someone should start a class action suit against AOL for, among many other things, advertising that they are the internet. AOL is one company that you could actually prove harms consumers and not just "competitors." Also, if anyone happens to use AOL with a personal firewall, you may be vulnerable to attack, and should check security sites. |
| #6 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/21/2002 12:58:10 AM |
|
#10 - I'm just trying to be consistant. I don't buy the "you would think [INSERT HATED COMPANY HERE] gets enough ad revenue from [INSERT POPULAR PRODUCT HERE]" argument.
Using that argument, why not limit people to $100,000 a year max salary, like Nader once suggested? You would think those people would be happy making 100k a year! Right? Baloney. One of the primary "American values" is individualism, and the idea that you deserve exactly what you merit, no more, no less. Simply because a company (or individual) is rich does not justify stealing from them. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/21/2002 11:04:16 AM |
|
I think AOL has every right to insist that only their client works with their service.
But then they also don't have the right to bitch about the same type of action from Microsoft. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.254.231.11) at 2/21/2002 3:27:02 PM |
| #12/13 AOL has the right do whatever is legal just as Microsoft does. Neither company is obligated, however, to do much of anything for the other. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:33:42 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
