In the Feb 17 issue of PC Magazine [with a lead story about how broken the email system is] John Dvorak's column features some boneheaded sniping about instant messaging:

"The always-on notion has led to the creation of numerous IM networks. Some analysts have even predicted the future of business would depend on IM. But why do we need to know when somebody is online? Just to say hi? Direct computer-to-computer links like IM are channels for future problems.

First of all, knowing if someone is online is incredibly beneficial. Not so you can say "Hi," but so you can get an answer to a question, or resolve an issue RIGHT NOW, not at some who-knows-when time in the future when the email is opened and dealt with. And with more sophisticated use of presence and availability you would be able to see that your friend Joe is online, but on the phone (like eDial's telephony-sensitive presence), or that he is online but only on his PDA or phone.

More importantly, IM networks are highly resistent to spam, or spim. Individuals have to confirm their identities to get accounts, and must actively login to gain access to the network. The fire-and-forget model of the Internet email systems encourage spammers becuase the barrriers are so low. The barriers in IM networks are relatievly high. And since I can block strangers and specific individuals from IMing me, I have a great degree of control in IMland that I don't in email.

Enterprises can monitor IM use and turn off features that are potentially dangerous, such as file transfers, if they wish. This is no more prone to harming the enterprise than email, and given the identity verification of IM networks, is less likely to cause trouble.

In the final analysis, Dvorak just doesn't get it. IM adoption is a generational phenomenon, and his statements show that he is strictly '80s in his thinking: stuck in the inbox. Probably thinks blogging is a joke, too.