If I don't do it, someone else will

August 23, 2005 9:21 PM

Google Talk Connect with their client, or yours. It runs on the first Jabber network with more than two users!
posted by angry modem (77 comments total)

Cool. Text chat and voice chat, but no encryption of the transmissions yet. They expect to have encryption by the actual release.
posted by jsonic at 9:31 PM on August 23, 2005

does it actually call phones?
posted by joelf at 9:33 PM on August 23, 2005

So what happens with this Google Talk?
posted by tellurian at 9:44 PM on August 23, 2005

How is this different from any other kind of voice chat? Thanks for the metadvertisement.
posted by Citizen Premier at 9:47 PM on August 23, 2005

judging by google's example graphic, it is just p2p.

I don't see any place in the application to purchase a dialing plan, or enter a PSTN number.
posted by b1tr0t at 9:47 PM on August 23, 2005

Double
posted by jazon at 9:50 PM on August 23, 2005

So this is better how? I finally after three months got my Mom to video conference with me over iChat, and that was a Jetsons level experience for her. She was holding up the dog, dragging in my Dad . . . but I digress.

There's no video here, as far as I can tell. And it seems to be a Google only protocol*; I already NEED Proteus or Adium to communicate with my various friends who have adhered to Yahoo | AIM | ICQ | MSN over the years, without having multiple chat clients open.

I love all things Google, but this seems like a backward, or at least mediocre offering from them.

*Skimmed the documentation, sorry if I missed reference to uber-protocol compliance.
posted by MarvinTheCat at 9:54 PM on August 23, 2005

Marvin: It's jabber. I'm connected via Adium right now. (No voice chat, but meh)
posted by socratic at 9:55 PM on August 23, 2005

Yeah, no voice chat except between Google Talk clients. And no Mac client! First no Google Earth for Mac, now this? I'm...mildly distraught.
posted by danb at 9:58 PM on August 23, 2005

Lack of a Mac client is distressing. I have a Windows machine, but all the people I'd want to use this with have Powerbooks. Hopefully Google will put out an Apple version soon.
posted by painquale at 10:04 PM on August 23, 2005

danb,

check back in 2009 and count your blessings.

Also, and I swear to god I'm not snarking here, did the linked text in the fpp say "Pepsi Blue" instead of "Google Talk" as I was skimming by earlier?
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:06 PM on August 23, 2005

Socratic: Ok, it's Jabber. That seems even less of a compelling reason to be excited about it. I don't consider Jabber, as a service, having the same mindshare as Yahoo, AIM, MSN, or iChat to create a compelling reason to switch, though the Google brand swings a lot of weight.

I've read some documentation about the superiority of Jabber, and its flexibility for closed chat networks and it appears to be a great product. If Google can swing their brand equity and make a safer, superior product the [open source?] standard, then great. Please include video, so I can show my Mom the growth progress of my puppy, which she cares more about than encryption. And if Google can get my WinXP sister and my Mac OS X Mom and I on the same video chat then I'm buying stock. Well, maybe two shares, if I don't eat this week.

I have faith that whatever they do, they'll do it well. I guess I've just been conditioned to expect something mind-blowing, and convergence of these services would be that. I'll hold [more] judgement for the official-er announcement.
posted by MarvinTheCat at 10:08 PM on August 23, 2005

I have it running thru iChat on OS X.
posted by dobbs at 10:08 PM on August 23, 2005

It runs on the first Jabber network with more than two users!

Sorry, I've used jabber "networks" as you call it, that linked many dozens of users in several companies. Large companies. How about instead we say about the first Jabber server that doesn't interoperate with other jabber servers?

Normally every Jabber server is part of the Jabber network, and users on any jabber server can talk with users on any other, unless you don't provide the connectivity for them to do so. Google has apparently disabled feature. I hope not permanently.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:11 PM on August 23, 2005

Marvin: Yah, I think the issue is that Google has chosen a mature platform that is capable of interacting with other chat services, and (as the documentation on the Google Talk site makes clear) they are throwing down the gauntlet to bring the other chat media into an open network. Google has the brand identity and market leverage to yank thousands upon thousands (millions!) of IM users from other networks if they show a compelling advantage (900k download, no ads, free, cheap, interoperable). This isn't about creating a Google IM. This is about Google leading an open networks campaign.

Anyway, they say they're publishing the voice spec, so you could expect a Gaim, Adium, Trillian, Miranda, etc. plugin to speak to the Google Talk voice users.
posted by socratic at 10:14 PM on August 23, 2005

Double
posted by jazon at 11:50 PM CST on August 23 [!]

not really
posted by angry modem at 10:26 PM on August 23, 2005

I love the UI of the windows client -- it's got all the best features of trillian but has a cleaner, simpler look. And it beats the pants off AIM on windows, which is covered in ads.

I also am impressed with the email integration, which is a nice way of treating offline users, by auto-emailing them the message instead. Why don't other IM clients support that?
posted by mathowie at 10:33 PM on August 23, 2005

I love the fact that it's a 900kb download and that there's no cruft.

Still, I'm using trillian atm because, well, I use trillian. :)
posted by socratic at 10:44 PM on August 23, 2005

Is this going to be another invite only thing? 'Cause I'm getting really tired of that. How long has Gmail been in public, invite-only beta anyway?
posted by teece at 10:45 PM on August 23, 2005

teece: here's something interesting from an MSNBC story about the launch:

Google Talk also requires users to have an account with the company’s free Gmail e-mail system. Gmail previously was available only to those invited by a current account holder, but now Google is opening up registration to anyone in the United States.

posted by socratic at 11:00 PM on August 23, 2005

hackley, I saw the Pepsi Blue as well....

If this blows open the whole IM scene, I'm all for it. Otherwise.... meh.
posted by strikhedonia at 11:32 PM on August 23, 2005

I've got it working inside Trillian now, so that's nice.
Haven't tried their client yet, but I have heard from others that it is pretty slick and very responsive.
posted by nightchrome at 11:41 PM on August 23, 2005

This could provide transports to all the other chatnets. That would make it easy to IM with everyone, with one simple, easy to use client.

But at the moment it's just a wankfest since they don't hook to anything else, anywhere.

*snooze*
posted by mosch at 12:05 AM on August 24, 2005

Google continues to creep me out. You got Google talk monitoring who you're chatting with, how often, and for how long...Gmail pulling relevant keywords out of your email...personal search tracking your lookups...

Google is all about advertising. Or rather, they're 98% about advertising. This isn't about open networks or the interweb's dire need for yet another chat client; it's data mining, social networks, and selling you crap.
posted by Loser at 12:12 AM on August 24, 2005

Yeah, you exposed the conspiracy. Way to go, detective.
posted by angry modem at 12:14 AM on August 24, 2005

Here's the thing. I hate AIM. It's a shitty, shitty protocol. I do not enjoy things fucking up when I have over 200 people on my buddy list, or the server crashes, or various clients disagreeing about just WHO is on my buddy list.

The AIM client sucks balls. Yes, I know there's Trillian. Trillian is another bloated beast hog of a client though, just without the ads. Yahoo or MSN? Ha ha. Oh god, those clients suck too. Fuck them.

Google Talk's Windows client is nice, small, doesn't get in my way, it's fast, and doesn't have any ads splattered all over it. You don't have windows? Okay, It's just fucking jabber, so iChat and any bazillion number of clients on Linux speak it as well.

Just give me my IM, minus all the bullshit. Thanks.
posted by Josh Zhixel at 1:24 AM on August 24, 2005

angry modem's assholery aside, it is true that Google is an advertising company now. And me, I don't like advertising.

But I use the search engine, and I use gmail, and I like the maps and the Earth app, and I guess I'll get up with fleas, just like everyone else.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:37 AM on August 24, 2005

Hey. What's this gmail username thing and how do I get one?
posted by tommyc at 3:07 AM on August 24, 2005

Will pay for encryption.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:34 AM on August 24, 2005

Loser: "This isn't about open networks or the interweb's dire need for yet another chat client; it's data mining, social networks, and selling you crap."

Maybe. But I've gotten a lot of out Google so far, and I haven't given them a penny.

If Google's just about increasing its newfound market share, that's fine with me. The rest of us are mostly excited because we got a bunch of cool stuff for free, not because Google is particularly good at 'not being evil.'
posted by koeselitz at 3:43 AM on August 24, 2005

To quote Ninotchka, "no one can be this happy without being punished." (sips champagne delicately)

I'm gonna go way out on a limb. In five years, "Google" will be about as funny a phrase as "AOL-TimeWarner." Or talking sock puppets.

Personally, I find IM to be communication overkill, but like email, you gotta do it because everyone else expects you to, so an efficient widely adopted open standard is a Good Thing. It's kinda nice for Google to bring back nostalgia for the dot.com bubble froth, though. And privacy died a long time ago.
posted by realcountrymusic at 4:40 AM on August 24, 2005

I love Google, and I love Gmail. Yahoo's Search has made some great inroads on Google's usability and utility crowns lately, especially because they do a better job indexing MeFi. This is a neat app, definitely in the tradition of minimalism. But I don't even use my AIM account. And my cell phone is paid-by-work and at least a little more portable. I don't think this is a bad idea, or a bad service, but I won't be getting much use out of it.

As for "GOOGLE JUST WANTS YOUR DATA", they can have it. I don't care if they sleep with printouts of my emails. As long as they don't sell it -- which they say they won't -- I don't mind if they use my data to make my experience nicer. I'm signed up for Google Search History and personalized searches, and I sleep very well at night.
posted by Plutor at 4:43 AM on August 24, 2005

I keep getting "cannot authenticate server" - what am I doing wrong?
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:25 AM on August 24, 2005

Will pay for encryption

Seconded.

I mean, if they're just going to go releasing YAIM (Yet Another Instant Messenger) they could at least get some geek/mafia points by including some damned encryption in the thing.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:30 AM on August 24, 2005

If anyone has an expectation of privacy when they communicate by non-encrypted means they haven't been awake for the past decade. It never has been particularly difficult to intercept email, and other communication, the net was designed with survivablity in mind, not privacy.

I digitally sign my email because otherwise no one has a guarantee that it actually came from me. If you don't encrypt your mail you should work on the assumption that anything you write will be read by the entire planet. I won't say privacy is dead, because it isn't, but you've got to work for it. Personally I've never sent any information by email that I thought was worth encrypting.

I used to be creeped out by Google's datamining, but really its no different from what goes on all the time. They're becoming a central location for a lot of what I do online, which makes the datamining easier, but anything they're doing could be duplicated with sufficient effort/money by other agencies. If I ever do something I want to keep private I'll encrypt it heavily, otherwise I assume that the whole world is watching.
posted by sotonohito at 5:38 AM on August 24, 2005

CunningLinguist: without knowing what client program you are using its kinda hard to diagnose your problem. If you are using gaim, you must use the advanced options and put "talk.google.com" in the "connect server" box, but you also have to have "gmail.com" in the "server" box. If you're using their client I've got no idea what might be going wrong. Have you carefully followed the instructions for your client?
posted by sotonohito at 5:42 AM on August 24, 2005

I downloaded their program but can't get it to work. I'm not savvy enough about clients but maybe I'll try downloading gaim.
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:55 AM on August 24, 2005

Or just go back to aim, where all my buddies tend to be anyway. Phooey.
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:56 AM on August 24, 2005

The Jesse Helms, Civil_Disobedient: their instructions for setting up in third-party clients all tell you to use TLS or SSL if the client supports it. I assume that the official Windows client does this automatically.
posted by ubernostrum at 6:03 AM on August 24, 2005

I am perhaps a simple man, but I think it's great. Easy voice chat over an instant messaging service. Like iChat AV (minus the V, for now) for Windows.

And as some above have noted, when enough people start using the service, the other services will have to incorporate free voice chat as well (see Hotmail and Yahoo's e-mail storage), and that's a good thing.
posted by AgentRocket at 6:06 AM on August 24, 2005

I'm just happy that I found an IM client that my proxy at work will accept.
posted by grey_flap at 6:14 AM on August 24, 2005

Other services already have free voice chat. They've had it for years and years. ICQ, AIM, Yahoo IM, and MSN each had free voice chat even way back in 2001 if not earlier.
posted by riffola at 6:20 AM on August 24, 2005

Socratic... this is, indeed, brilliant. Google's leverage of existing, open networks is something a coup -- the infrastructure has been sitting there, waiting to be picked up and brought into wider usage. (I mean, how many of us have set up a jabber server only to discover that none of our friends will switch from AOL/MSN/Yahoo?)

The really great thing about Google's embrace of an open protocol is that there's absolutely nothing stopping the other entities from adding interoperability to their networks. One imagines that the yahoos of the world will have to add that capability, finally bringing all the IM systems onto a single network...

For all you encryption lovin' folks, the nice thing about open protocols is that anyone can build a client on top of them. PSI is the only one I've played with, but it's pretty good and runs on all platforms.
posted by ph00dz at 6:49 AM on August 24, 2005

This is a little creepy:

"Google recently announced that it would not talk to any reporter from CNETNews.com, a technology news Web site, until July 2006, after a reporter for the site wrote an article raising privacy questions about the information Google collects about individuals."
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:51 AM on August 24, 2005

Why is it that my McAffee is finding a virus on this thing? I'm getting popups that it's finding Exploit-MhtRedir.gen inside GoogleDesktop....

Anyone have anything similar happen, or is my system just fubar?
posted by WetherMan at 7:54 AM on August 24, 2005

When I use iChat at work I have to change the port to 80 or it won't work. But whether I use port 5223 or 80 I get the same "Could not connect to server: talk.gmail.com" error. Am I SOL?
posted by ssmith at 8:11 AM on August 24, 2005

ssmith: talk.google.com
posted by gazole at 8:25 AM on August 24, 2005

Hilarious quote from CL's link:

Bill Gates certainly sees similarities between Google and his own company. This spring, in an interview with Fortune, Mr. Gates, Microsoft's chairman, said that Google was "more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with."

Uh, yeah. MS bought or boosted every product or idea they ever had that was worth having, starting with MS-DOS. To this day, I.E.'s user-agent starts with the claim that it's "Mozilla ... (compatible)"

It's like the moment in the movie when the villain says to the young hero "y'know, you remind me of me."
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:30 AM on August 24, 2005

Why is Google Talk any better than Skype? And why would anyone switch, especially if they've already built up a list of Skype contacts?
posted by gfrobe at 9:18 AM on August 24, 2005

Although I am loathe to disagree with Mr Wonderchicken, am I the only one wondering if this is the just the thin edge of a very impressive wedge?

1. Roll out IM, making your gmail address and IM location virtually interoperable;
2. Roll out free US-wide WiFi, meaning you can now chat anywhere with a laptop;
3. With the advent of a cheap, WiFi-enabled cellphone, people could replace their cellphone/landline numbers with their gmail/IM coordinates.
4. PROFIT*


* How they would profit is beyond the ken of my tiny brain; something to do with ads targeted by location and demographics?
posted by docgonzo at 9:28 AM on August 24, 2005

Why, oh why, does Google hate the Mac so? I mean, even MS makes Mac products. At least Adium will work with this, but would it have killed them to include a Mac client?
posted by tommasz at 10:25 AM on August 24, 2005

I dunno. I like the look of it and can see some benefits - but the problem is that for it to be useful to me I basically would have to wage my own marketing campaign to get all my friends to switch over. Which I very much doubt they will - most are far too wedded to their AOL/AIM/Yahoo accounts. So I'm stuck running AIM and Yahoo both all the time.
posted by dnash at 10:42 AM on August 24, 2005

You should try a multi-protocol client, like Trillian, GAIM, Miranda IM, etc. I'm sure Google Talk will support this in the future, and it makes sense as it's easier to get people to convert one by one rather than force a whole network of contacts to switch services, but for now you're stuck with chatting with Google users only.
posted by Goblindegook at 11:20 AM on August 24, 2005

Goblindegook - thanks for getting me to check out Trillian again. I tried it before - the free version anyway - and didn't see the benefit since it lacked the ability to use the video chat on Yahoo, which I use somewhat frequently. But it seems since then Trillian has added voice and video features, at least to the pro version. So I think I'll give that a try again.
posted by dnash at 11:34 AM on August 24, 2005

I have no idea why I should use this. Because it's Google and therefor "cool"?

So yeah, what gfrobe said.
posted by mr.marx at 12:43 PM on August 24, 2005

Hey. What's this gmail username thing and how do I get one?

Here's one route.. There used to be a couple of dumping grounds for unused invites, but they've changed their sites..
posted by hypersloth at 1:47 PM on August 24, 2005

I am surprised Google did not include video. Voice chat has been around for years and is not exactly new. The beta appears to offer a lot less than any existing IM clients and any of the universal ones. I hope they will be adding a lot more to it soon.
posted by robliberal at 3:31 PM on August 24, 2005

So far, it seems to work really nicely. No friggin' emoticons, you get a little editable preview if you paste in a block of text, has a very minimalist appearance... all around, I'm pleased.
posted by notmydesk at 4:04 PM on August 24, 2005

OK, so how do I use Google Talk with multiple accounts?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:38 PM on August 24, 2005

Hey. What's this gmail username thing and how do I get one?

I think Google's opened up registration and that now you just have to sign up for a Google account.
posted by bitpart at 5:44 PM on August 24, 2005

Hey. What's this gmail username thing and how do I get one?

Hey tommyc, if you (or anyone else) needs a gmail invite, I've got like 25 of them that are collecting dust. Send an e-mail to the address in my profile and I'll send you one.
posted by x_3mta3 at 6:06 PM on August 24, 2005

On preview, what bitpart said.
posted by x_3mta3 at 6:07 PM on August 24, 2005

Anyone? Multiple accounts?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:27 PM on August 24, 2005

So far, I like this thing. I was using AIM, but the incessant popups were eating my soul.

My only gripe is no icons. I like icons. Hrmph.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:43 PM on August 24, 2005

Civil_Disobedient: With the official client? I don't know. Any third-party client should do it. I can log two accounts in using Adium for OS X. Try Gaim if you have Windows.
posted by bitpart at 7:11 PM on August 24, 2005

arrgh Thats my tipping point .. Google IS my home page and they have been great .with easy to use interfaces. but this is an indication of them trying to co-opt. monopolize every cool network service.
Like when they bought out DejaNews etc..They better be careful it doesn't back fire and they don't start to get percieved like Microsoft since the early 90's. ..wanting to be the embedded end all and be-all to everyone on everything. Nobody wants One end all and be-all .. not even if its Google. Their stock aint as hot as ppl think either , - C
posted by celerystick at 7:16 PM on August 24, 2005

I wish they would account for multiple identities in these apps of theirs -- ie multiple email boxes in gmail. At the very least, I'd like different configurations for my apps depending on whether I'm at home or at work, and an easy way to swap the identifying email identity at either place.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:24 PM on August 24, 2005

I chuckled at "Google Talk is not a telephony service and cannot be used for emergency dialing", and have two questions:

Is telephony service any different from telephone service?

Is this, really, when you look at it objectively, any different from either telephony service or telephone service? (without, obviously, the emergency dialing).

No, really. What does this do that a telephone can't?
posted by yhbc at 7:57 PM on August 24, 2005

Call 911.
posted by bitpart at 8:06 PM on August 24, 2005

Google is headed for a fall.
posted by caddis at 8:08 PM on August 24, 2005

no file transfer, nothing new, nothing exciting, nothing to set it apart, nothing nothing nothing... when it is integrated into GAIM ill use it for those "just in case" ppl you meet, like grandmas and dealers
posted by Satapher at 9:07 PM on August 24, 2005

With the official client? I don't know. Any third-party client should do it.

That's kinda my problem. I don't like GAIM, don't like AIM, absolutely abhor MSM... I was really looking forward to a light-weight IM client that tied directly into my gmail account, but if there's no way to have multiple accounts, then no thanks.

And what's this about no file transfer? That teh sux0rs 1mmensely.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:18 PM on August 24, 2005

Interesting way to stream music from home to yourself at work ...
posted by 31d1 at 9:35 PM on August 24, 2005

If anyone really needs a Gmail account - mail me: [e-mail]
posted by homodigitalis at 10:17 AM on August 25, 2005

Civil_Disobedient: You can run multiple instances of Google Talk.
posted by bitpart at 12:06 PM on August 25, 2005

bitpart: Thanks for the info. That's not quite what I was hoping for (built-in multiple accounts) but looks like a decent work-around for the time being.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:36 PM on August 25, 2005

Thanks for the gmail info guys, I couldn't find anything on Google's own site ;-( ! They're keeping it well hidden!
posted by tommyc at 1:09 AM on August 31, 2005