I’m a little late to the train on this one, but Google Talk (Google’s “voice chat” service) supports iChat natively. Nice. I guess if you aren’t going to release a Mac client for your internet service, the next best option is to make your service work with an application that every Mac user already has.
NB: I’m happy to offer gmail invitations — which are required for Google Talk — to the intersection of my readership and the set of all people worldwide who does not yet have a gmail account. (Since the cardinality of the latter set is certainly quite small and probably even smaller than that of the former, I am not liable to run out of invites.)
Actually, the “make your service work with what users already have approach” is almost certainly preferable to the “give them a new application to make the service work approach”. Think about how much nonsense we deal with because some application (or technique, or consumer electronics device) only does 70% of what we want and full capability is only available via a hacked-together patchwork of tools?
I say “hacked-together” because our digital tools (unlike their physical equivalents) are rarely designed to cooperate; each was designed by someone who believes that it is providing a 100% solution. (Some tools, notably software tools in the Unix world, have been designed to do one thing well and play nicely with other tools, but this principle is less frequently observed in the desktop-application and consumer-electronics markets.) As a result, a “solution” to the entire set of needs, which has been cobbled together not from capable primitives but from one or more insufficient “solutions,” is liable to be inconvenient, incapable, or both.
I’ve noticed the hacking-together-poorly problem to be particularly pronounced in the home-theatre arena. Think simply of input switching for a system; imagine you have a satellite or cable set-top box, a DVD player, a VCR, and a couple of video game consoles. (This isn’t a particularly esoteric setup, I believe.) In all probability, you’ll have several different types of video outputs (component, s-video, composite, and perhaps even RF) and several types of audio outputs (analog RCA, digital coax or optical). You will want a simple means to timeshare your television and speakers between these devices, and you will want the process of switching between them to be as painless as possible.
Unfortunately, “as painless as possible” is a foolish dream. The receiver will offer some switching mechanism and the television monitor will as well — but it is almost certain that neither will be adequate to solve the whole problem. The television will likely not handle the digital audio formats; the receiver will either not have a sufficient number of inputs or it will not have a sufficient number of the right kinds of inputs. What to do? At this point, you have to add a third-party switch. So now, you have to keep track of three states when you want to switch: the input selectors on the television, the receiver, and the switch. The switch also probably won’t handle your digital signals (unless you have a really expensive switch!), so you will either have to use multiple digital inputs on your receiver (flipping separate buttons to change audio and video), or resign yourself to being out of luck and reverting to 2-channel analog.
re: “really expensive”: I’d be happy to be wrong about this, but it appears switches that handle digital audio signals are expensive enough that one should probably consider purchasing a new receiver with more inputs before purchasing such a switch
The question is, why is this the case? Of course, there are two possible answers: money and money. But how expensive can it be to add another set of S-Video, optical, or coax inputs to the back of a receiver? Depending on how well the complexity of the switching circuit scales with additional inputs, I can’t imagine that the cost would be that much greater than the cost of extra jacks. (Even in “finished product” configurations, those are cheap.)
Sure, the commodity consumer-electronics market is cutthroat and cost-driven, but is there really no demand for a receiver (or television) with a sane number of inputs? Where is the outrage? Most importantly, why do people put up with manufacturers providing 70% of the functionality that reasonable consumers might need without providing any means either to expand the capabilities of a device or to enable a device to cooperate with others?
What one really needs in this situation is a modular stereo. You connect the inputs, switches, outputs, surround decoder, and power amp, adding and removing components and I/O as you need them. There’s a solution for home-theatre — I’ll leave tackling the problems of software as an exercise to the reader.