Today Yahoo! announced a whole new way to communicate using Messenger. It’s the “all-new Web-based Yahoo! Instant Messenger.” Ohh wait a minute, wasn’t there already a web version of Yahoo! Messenger?

Despite the fact that the official press release (http://yodel.yahoo.com/2007/05/02/yahoo-messenger-hold-the-download) makes this out to be something completely new, a web version of Messenger has been around for years. I of course will be the first to admit that the old version was so bad that I would like to forget about it too. With the bad taste of my previous experience aside, I was egger to try out this new user experience. I was even more excited to see what it had under the hood and if this is the magic and mystical thing that has brought the servers down for the past few months.

After logging in via the standard web password system I was greeted with a split view of my contacts on the left and a window on the right where my messages are displayed. To the top of the contact list is options for easily changing your status. When a new message is received, it is granted its own tab in the right window. The whole experience has a feel of refinement and some really good programming. As with other Web 2.0 applications, I believe Yahoo! is using Ajax.

An interesting new feature is the history. Apparently now all conversation history is saved on the server just like your contact list.



From the press release: “Here’s something I have been waiting to say for a long time… Yahoo! Messenger: Fast, Easy, Beautiful, and now with no download! Again, no download.” I will have to admit it is very nice but I can’t say I will not be installing the next version of Messenger. Although the web version looks pretty it still can not do a lot of the heavy lifting. The two big features that are missing are voice and webcam. Aren’t these two of the biggest features that distinguishes Yahoo! from the other major players? Another thing is this is still in the beta phase and it shows sometimes. While testing it out I had a few messages that were lost in the ether.

I can see some use for this new toy but I will still be signing into my regular PC based application for the foreseeable future. I have on occasions had to use the previous web messenger and I will have to say that this is (at least) 30 times better.

A few closing questions:
• Yahoo! posted previously that May 14 was going to be the day that the servers would stop acting funny. Is this what they were preparing for?
• Since the history is saved on the servers now, will we see a new version of traditional Messenger with the feature also?
• Will a new version of protocol be released for the history?
• And last but not least, what does this mean for security? Will this be another vector for bots and the like?

 

 

 

Reply

Since I posted my original comments I had a chance to do some packet sniffing. Apparently Web Messenger is nothing like I expected. It actually communicates very similarly to the traditional Messenger. I also have to take my previous assumption of Ajax back because it now looks like a Flash based application (.swf).

The communication is done through a HTTP POST method that has the following payload.

<Session ClientHash="xxx" SessionId="xxx-xxx" Channel="ClientPost" ClientCounter="43" ClientSeqno="43" Payload="yes"><Ymsg Command="6" Status="1515563606" Version="102" VendorId="402" SessionId="0">1^$User^$5^$recipiant^$241^$0^$14^$^a[#0B333Cm&lt;font face=&quot;Arial&quot; size=&quot;10&quot; &gt;Test of the system&lt;/font&gt;^$</Ymsg></Session>

On close inspection you can see that this is a YMSG 6 packet (the same of the regular Messenger). It also has the same payload structure such as 1 for current user, 5 for the recipient, and 14 for the message. The only big differences I can see is the Version is 102 and VendorID is 402.

P.S. Another interesting fact is this is not protected by SSL (https).

 

 

 

Reply

"Official" Messenger clients are a BIG headache!!!. I prefer to use the fast, lightweight, multi-protocol, multi-platform and portable: Gaim Messenger.

But when I have an emergency and only a web browser, then I go to https://meebo.com, is THE SAFE Web Multi Messenger Client!!!.

Please don't waste your time using commercial unusable and distracting applications.

Blessings!

Reply

The web messenger does have an eye candy factor about it. I guess they used Flash to have such a cool interface. I also presume that getting back-end things done is easier in flash when compared to the cumbersome java scripting one has to do for AJAX.

There are subtle differences when you compare it to the likes of GTalk and its web based cousin. While GTalk allows you to transparently switch between its web based counterpart, Yahoo! messenger can only be kept signed in at one place. Then there are the similarities - online chat history, which was really needed. Both GTalk and Yahoo! are sticking with their beliefs. Yahoo! has always had a better and a bit bulky interface while Google likes to keep things simple and yet elegant.

I don't know how this would stop the bots, though. The only way out would be major protocol changes. I suppose they will release a new version of the desktop client because a lot of things need to be addressed. Most notably, the growing number of SPAM messages which now-a-days can even be sent to an offline user. The ignore feature just doesn't work as the unwanted messages keep on irritating you. The report as SPAM seems to be just as useless. Earlier, the SPAM messages used to be sent only to the users in a chat room. But now, these wicked bots maintain a contact list and send Instant messages to them every now and then.

Reply

I was afraid when entering the meebo site. Is it safe to give meebo both your msn username and password ? I would expect these kind of instant messenger credentials needing to be secured, and not directly sent to an unknown website ? Or am I slightly paranoiac ?

Reply

I'm with you on this one...I use meebo when I'm really in a pinch, but I change the passwords for my IM accounts when I'm done. I don't necessarily mistrust meebo (since they do have a business at stake if they **** over customers) but I don't completely trust them not to say, use my IM accounts to send spam and get my IM account terminated.

Meebo is great, but understand the risks of using it. You *are* sending your logins and passwords to a server that doesn't even tell you how it stores them.

Reply

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing. It's been years since I've used Yahoo! Messenger but I suppose taking a look at how this one works wouldn't hurt. I guess it's just another way for them to 'stick it to the competition'. I've always had bad experiences with the old Yahoo! Messenger, mainly connectivity problems, so let's see how this one holds up.

Reply

I never used Yahoo! Messenger much. There was a time when I discovered that a few of my friends had it, so I logged on to both MSN Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger daily, but I guess all of us figured out that no one was going to switch from the beloved MSN Messenger to Yahoo! anytime soon, so we all eventually stopped. I still have Yahoo! Messenger on my computer though. I don't use it for messaging, but for radio. Yahoo! Messenger is a pretty awesome messenger except that it just doesn't have a large enough user base. (It's fast, it's pretty, it's animated, and it's full of useful features! =D)

As for web messengers, I've never used any of them before. I generally prefer not to log into messenger on computers other than my own. I have the fear that someone might be logging my keystrokes and, ultimately, my passwords!



That's not too bad. It happened to me quite often a while back with a older version of Windows Live Messenger. It often said that the message could not be sent. >.< I had to restart messenger at least twice a day to get it to work properly. Now, it still happens, but only when at least one of the recipients or myself are set to "appear offline". So, the moral of the story is just not to be so unhappy about those few lost messages with Yahoo! Web Messenger; Windows Live Messenger is an official application while Yahoo! Web Messenger is only a web application; if Windows Live Messenger does the same thing Yahoo! Web Messenger does, I'd say that Windows Live Messenger is way behind in reliability.

Serena

Reply

I’m sure you already know this but as a reminder, MSN and Yahoo! can talk to each other now. I have several friends that are primarily on MSN but they are in my buddy list and we can carry on a conversation at anytime.

Reply

I've recently experienced that version of Yahoo! Messenger. It's not as good as traditional Yahoo! Messenger (desktop version) except that messages can be stored online so that I won't lose any message again. Web Base Y!M is lack of feature. It doesn't support file transferring, photo sharing, and you can't send message to many people in your list at once.

However, Web Messenger is good in case you need your messages later and don't need advanced feature of the desktop version.

Reply