One expects many things from the Wall Street Journal, but reporting on new web sites before they become mainstream is not among them. Yet, it was through an article in the WSJ Online that led me to a site which has become an integral part of my daily computing life - Meebo. It was in 2005, during ad:tech the WSJ Online ran a story about Meebo (cached page). For those that don't know Meebo, the now three-plus year old article still summarizes it well. Meebo lets "anyone with an Internet connection send instant messages via major services, [AIM, YIM, MSN, GChat, etc.] without needing to download the messaging software to their PCs.
Meebo is to instant messaging what Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, or Gmail (among the leaders) are to email. Instead of needing to be at your own computer to check email, you simply need a web browser. It's such a simple concept and one we take for granted, but that same simplicity had yet to make its way to instant messaging. Some of the major chat clients offered web based versions, but they were clunky, slow, and not fully featured. And, if you had more than one client, you would need to have more than one window open and flip back and forth.
Just as not everyone has the same email extension, not everyone uses the same instant messaging client, and people routinely would download, and use simultaneously, multiple chat programs. Doing that is just enough of a hassle that it made Trillian such a success. But Trillian was also a download, which added a slight but significant restraint on the use of instant messaging; you had to use a machine that was yours or one that had Trillian or that you could install it with relative comfort. Not so with Meebo. And, it's not just that Meebo created arguably the first web based aggregator, it's that they did it so slickly as to make you not miss a download. That was the key. They gave users no reason to switch back.
Three plus years since reading that article, I continue to use instant messaging daily and Meebo. I've watched as they increase the product suite and look for ways to monetize what they created. Theirs is a classic dilemma - a great product but one that was created and funded on a potential acquisition happening not on it becoming a profitable, stand alone business. Had times not turned so difficult globally, they would probably have been acquired by now. The question, though, was always, by whom. The logical choices are those that Meebo works with. In my opinion, it won't be AOL, Yahoo, or MSN (luckily for Meebo). That leaves a few others - Google, MySpace, and Facebook.
Perhaps it is because I don't fully understand Twitter or its power that I don't fully understand the appeal or value of a Twitter acquisition by Facebook. It hasn't become essential yet, although the sites that create functionality for Twitter have, as I use Twitter much more than I would were it not for them. Instant messaging on the other hand, I get and can't live without. While, it's decidedly old school, I think that many of the younger generation use it as well. It hasn't been completely replaced by social networking. If that were the case, then social networks wouldn't focus on offering their own versions. In other words, instant messaging and social networking are not mutually exclusive. They are both forms of communication, with instant messaging being more vertical than Facebook which is more horizontal and inclusive of instant messaging.
In my opinion, if Facebook wants to enhance its position, it needs to improve its vertical tools that enable communication, and none is better than instant messaging. In other words, pick up Meebo, who can do what the current Facebook cannot - extend its use when not on Facebook but who without Facebook doesn't offer Facebook users much incentive to use its service. Additionally, Facebook would, as a result, create more active users among those that might use other chat programs and have a Facebook account but not use it that much. Now, I'm sure there are some nice holes in this, a definite late night pondering, but any time I find myself switching back and forth between two sites, there seems value in making them one.
Digg 
