[Macworld.com]

After a lifetime of avoiding instant-messaging software, Jackie Dove takes iChat out for a spin and discovers you’re either a chatter or you’re not. [more]

[kelake]

I agree that IM imitates life - I'm pretty quiet in person and not that "chatty" with IM either. It's so intrusive that whenever I must get something done it is always off. It's horrible to just get into the flow of work and have someone interrupt with a cute smiley face or a link to some "cool" website. But as far as iChat goes, who uses it? It must be an American phenomenon (with AOL interoperability included) because in this part of the world it is as rare to find someone using iChat as it is to see snow.

[vfx2k4]

I am the polar opposite. Very shy in person but quite the gabber on iChat. There's something nice about seeing your words all laid out in a sentence before you express them.

[lhudd]

My biggest gripe about iChat is its dependence on AOL's network and that there's no windows client. not that I'd like to use windows, but iChat's best feature is iSight video conferencing and It'd be nice to be able to do that with more than 3% of the world's population. I could see my iSight as a fantastic tool for meeting w/ clients all over the globe. So far, none of them own Macs.
I'm sure the reason there's no iChat for windows is AOL. They don't want Apple coming in and making a better version of their mousetrap and killing their ad revenue. Apple should work with Google (as Google has proven to be a somewhat mac-friendly group) to ween themselves from the AIM network. Apple would also go a long way towards diversification if they were to make the iSight cross-platform. I dont't think many folks are switching to mac because of iChat/iSight. Not because it's not a significant app, but because not many know about it.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

But as far as iChat goes, who uses it? It must be an American phenomenon (with AOL interoperability included)

---

Bingo. AOL is heavy favorite in the states.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

My biggest gripe about iChat is its dependence on AOL's network and that there's no windows client.

---

Sure there is. AOL Instant Messenger for Windows. It even includes video chat compatible with iChat.

In reply to:

---

I'm sure the reason there's no iChat for windows is AOL. They don't want Apple coming in and making a better version of their mousetrap and killing their ad revenue.

---

Not really. If that were the case, then they would never have let Apple into their network to begin with. Apple just doesn't have motivation to write a Windows iChat when Windows users can just use the official client to do essentially just as much.

In reply to:

---

Apple should work with Google (as Google has proven to be a somewhat mac-friendly group) to ween themselves from the AIM network.

---

Mac friendly Google? The same ones that that ignored the Mac population with their toolbar until they finally saw the wisdom of offering it for Firefox. Have we seen a Mac version of Google Desktop? Google Talk? How long did it take for a simple Mac Gmail Notifier to get made? Let's not delude ourselves about Google. Besides, their client is a glorified Jabber client. Apple's already implemented Jabber (full, not the half-assed Google version) support into iChat.

[rasterbator]

If you have a gmail account,GoogleTalk works o0n a Macintosh. There are even instructions at the download page for setting this up. Use Adium X if you have a Mac, since it supports most IRCs out there.

[jmincey]

I must say I don't understand the point of this article. If it is simply that IM/chat software is not for everyone, well, on a social or personal level I would agree. But this is hardly a news flash. After all, in the days before computers and the internet, one might likewise observe that writing letters was not for everyone -- some people were reliable and passionate correspondents while for others even to write a thank-you note was very painful.
And so it goes for the telephone and for all forms of communication -- on a social level.
In the workplace it's a different matter. Even if e-mail or the telephone isn't your thing, sometimes your business or job requires it. And so it goes for IM software as well. It's just that many employers have yet to integrate IM in the same way they have with e-mail or group calendaring and so on.
Every form of communication has its strengths and none replaces the other. Email is good for reports or when real-time, on-the-spot responses are not required. Email is good also when one wants a documented "paper trail" (and, yes, I know one can always save transcripts of chat sessions, but for many this is not practical). The telephone is good for interactive communication where face-to-face alternatives are not possible or practical -- and yet where an issue has to be discussed or brainstormed at some depth.
So what is chat software good for? Sometimes I use it when I'm on the phone and I need quick supplemental information from a colleague. For instance, I might type, "Dave, can you get me the serial number on the SQL server?" while I'm on the phone with a tech support department. Or I might use it to keep in touch with some clients -- as in, "Did you receive the proposal I sent and do you have any questions about it?"
Chat software is not suitable for extended real-time conversations because it can be tedious to type incessantly. At the same time, chat software is growing up to permit real-time audio/voice and this is great for one of my nonprofit clients which is not rolling in the cash and yet maintains an office in St Paul, Minnesota, Nairobi, Kenya, and Iasi, Romania. Chat software is a godsend in such cases -- for real-time international contact.
Chat software can be good also when you want a brief, spontaneous, three-way conference in the office but you don't want to call a formal meeting and you don't want to trouble yourself with the phone and be heard by others in your cubicle heaven -- and the round-robin e-mail among three or more people is hard to follow and needlessly inefficient.
People who expect chat software to replace e-mail or the telephone are missing the point. It's simply a new form of communication and it fills a niche quite nicely -- provide one is open to it.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

If you have a gmail account,GoogleTalk works o0n a Macintosh.

---

Yes, yes, that's the text chat only. Considering Google Talk's main feature is its voice chat and the text chat is mostly an afterthought, using a Jabber client doesn't give you real connectivity.

[thurstonhowell]

There's more to the picture than "imitation of life." Like vfx2k4, I'm not particularly chatty in real-life. When I chat virtually, I'm different. However, I'm not one to small talk with a significant other through a chat window. I use it primarily as a means of solving problems, both for myself and for my buddies (the chat-specific kind of "buddies"). For example, if I have a networking problem in the office, I ask one or more of my networking-savvy buddies for a solution. There are people who call on me for my expertise in other areas. Quick and specific answers to questions.
I occasionally have chat-savvy clients who I can communicate and share files with. As you can imagine, iChat can be a tremendous tool in this area. I also collaborate with people on subjects ranging from marketing ideas, money, stories, brainstorming, etc. In fact, I do very little small-talk, meaning I don't really "chat" so much.
So i think it's more than just the kind of person one is in real life. There are people like me who use iChat for utilitarian tasks as opposed to plain-and-simple "chatting with friends." What I get out of iChat has little to do with how chatty I am. I think what it comes down to is, whether you're a loudmouth or a quiet person in real life, it's really how iChat serves your needs that determines its usefulness. If you find that you don't dig on the chat thing, you may not have tapped into its potential...or thought to tap into its potential. It's hard to know what you're missing if you don't know what it is that you're missing. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[lkalliance]

iChat has been a wonderful addition to this household. I use it to quickly communicate with people back at the home office. My six-year-old daughter uses it (with parental controls enabled) to do video chats with her grandparents in California. I use it to video-chat with my brothers and friends (all Windows users) in far-flung states.
The only thing I don't like to do is to chat with someone else that is here in the house. My wife and I each work from home, and that's the point where I feel it's antisocial, no matter HOW convenient it is. It's like I'm saying, "It's more important to not have to get up and walk to the other end of the house than it is to talk with you personally." So I draw that line. Still, it's a good way for her to get my attention if I'm on the phone or if I've closed my office door (i.e. "Do not disturb!").
I heartily second Jeff's thoughts, too: it's not a replacement for anything. It's another tool in the effort to communicate efficiently. It is a shame that Apple isn't making iChat for Windows, though the reasons as d00d points out are evident. The AOL chat client is more limited in video.

[Philip Michaels]

In reply to:

---

I must say I don't understand the point of this article.

---

It's a blog entry that describes how someone personally interacts -- or doesn't, as the case may be -- with a particular technology. And hopefully, that engenders discussion from our readers on how they use -- or don't use -- that particular technology. Looking at the number of responses on Friday evening less than two hours after the blog entry was posted, I'd say it was successful in engendering that discussion, wouldn't you?
I mean, you wrote an eight-paragraph response, so maybe it's not so pointless after all.

[jblack]

Text typing doesn't interest me. iChat with the iSight camera has been my reason for re-investing in Mac hardware. Effortless face to face video iChatting to family across the country, and across the world (Canada to South Korea) is wonderful, and a lot less effort than typing /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[jmincey]

In reply to:

---

It's a blog entry that describes how someone personally interacts -- or doesn't, as the case may be -- with a particular technology. And hopefully, that engenders discussion from our readers on how they use -- or don't use -- that particular technology.

---

Ah, I see your point. And not everything has to be "news" anyway. There is value in perspectives and, as you say, the discussions that flow therefrom.