True P2P

[johnalexwood]

Just wondering what the general view 'out there' is towards true peer to peer instant messaging. Would it be a desirable feature of an IM service if it were possible? Does the fact that messages go via AOL, Microsoft, Skype, Yahoo etc servers worry anybody? Or does anybody feel (or know for sure) that file transfer speeds are an issue and that things could be speeded up significantly if messages didn't have to go via the corporate servers? If there was a true P2P IM service available, would it be highly favourable over the others? But isn't it only techies who really understand what true P2P means?

[Eagle_Kiwi]

Hi John.
Me, I don't really care.
I'm quite happy with the quality/speed of all the IM programs I use (and that's even on dialup speed!) - and I have no concerns at all about going "thru" Yahoo or MSN or whoever.
To me it's just like a phone call, that goes "thru" the phone company I guess - but all I wanna do is communicate with my frends, and all these ways let me, with ease.

[David]

Originally Posted by Eagle_Kiwi

Hi John.
Me, I don't really care.
I'm quite happy with the quality/speed of all the IM programs I use (and that's even on dialup speed!) - and I have no concerns at all about going "thru" Yahoo or MSN or whoever.
To me it's just like a phone call, that goes "thru" the phone company I guess - but all I wanna do is communicate with my frends, and all these ways let me, with ease.

You're in the minority, it doesn't matter at all for you, because you're slow no matter what. For the rest of us, increased speeds through a P2P or half-P2P IM application would be much better, and in the long run, use less reousrces.

[MrEggsalad]

I'd like it, less crap going to other servers and being seen by who knows what/who. I guess then the problem is you can't be tracked by the government or IM company, what a darn shame it would be if we could privatly IM.

[David]

Originally Posted by MrEggsalad

I'd like it, less crap going to other servers and being seen by who knows what/who. I guess then the problem is you can't be tracked by the government or IM company, what a darn shame it would be if we could privatly IM.

Thats not the point. Things like SecureIM are designed to protect your data in transmission. The same threats exist for any data that is sent over a network.

[johnalexwood]

Thanks for all your replies - keep 'em coming! I'd really appreciate it if you could also do my survey about what IM(s) you use, like and dislike etc - http://freeonlinesurveys.com/renders...h5tmw766191211

Many thanks - JW

[Jeff]

There is already true P2P IM -- you get it with Skype and when you use "direct connect" in AIM -- to name just two off the top of my head.

Personally, I don't care either. I don't care about security (as long as I'm not a terrorist, paranoid, or conducting a financial transaction, why should I?). I've almost never used AIM's direct connect feature. I like and use Skype regularly, and it does not use a central server for routing voice traffic. It works well, and I'm happy.

To me, and I suspect to most IM users, the actual mechanics behind "how" IM traffic is routed is about as important to us as understanding "how" electricity gets from the power plant to our house. As long as the light turns on when we flip the switch, we don't really care.

I'm sure I'm losing geek cred by opening my big mouth, but oh well.

[Jonny Rein]

For me it is the performance benefit that is important. Whenever I use an IM program that proxies my communication I cringe when I see the 2k speed even Skype or Messenger sometimes delivers files with.