Lee Finck is ready to give up on IM. He has all the right to. To me and to many other people passionate about software, it is painful to see the lack of technological progress in IM space. It is painful to see so many souls locked up in Socialist Republic of AOL behind the Iron Curtain of proprietary protocols.

That said, I don't believe that the absence of open protocol is the primary reason why there's no IM-based killer app yet, apart plain-text IM itself. Declaring that IM is in dead-end because of absence of interoperability is like saying that software is in dead-end because we have several OS on the market!

First off, the protocol issue is not unsurmountable. Look no further than Trillian for proof. If Trillian managed to unify access to all popular IM platforms, why others can't? Secondly, if someone has a great idea on how to use IM to solve a real problem, why wait for everyone to be on the same network? Why not target one single IM platform? MSN Messenger is open enough. Yes, IM interoperability will help successful application more successful. But it will not turn mediocre software into a overnight hit. Groove is of course a good example of a successful application that will greatly benefit from unified IM. But inversely, if Groove fails, no one can blame the falure on the fact that IM world isn't unified.

It is not how AOL doesn't give a damn I'm frustrated about. It is near complete absence of commercial applications that innovate around IM to solve real problems that I'm puzzled about. Maybe I'm just too impatient...