Microsoft Introduces IM Licensing

prostoalex writes "The MSN Messenger ban of outside clients and cited security issues might be explained by yet another Microsoft move. The company's Internet unit, MSN, contacted third-party providers like Trillian and Odigo with a suggestion to buy access licenses. From the ZDNet article: 'Running an (IM) network is expensive,' said Lisa Gurry, group product manager for MSN at Microsoft. 'We can't sustain multiple other people's businesses, particularly if they charge for certain versions of their software. We're introducing licensing processes for third parties like Trillian.'"

Comments

I think the interests of the Open Source community

[Max Threshold]

...could best be served by simply dropping support for MSN. Who uses it, anyway?

What about non-profits?

[phisheadrew]

Particularly ones who charge eh? What about gaim or any of the other clients that are free? Hopefully none of the developers buy this license, or it will prompt others like AOL or Yahoo to take similar actions. Who's going to foot the bill then? Users!

Re:What about non-profits?

[mericet]

There is no way they are going to give access to open source clients, they cite security and privacy concerns, and that implies client side security.

This is bad security design for sure, but means no open source anyway, period.

Re:What about non-profits?

[zwoelfk]

OK -- I know this will be an unpopular opinion here, but I think this move by Microsoft is a good thing, and shows promise.

First, they are right -- it's their network, and other people are piggy-backing on their servers for free and making bank on it. Why should they allow that? You have plenty of other options if you want to chat outside of Microsoft's servers...

Second, instead of the standard MS practice of just squashing the competition, they are introducing a reasonable (assuming the fee is reasonable) solution -- and have decided it's OK to join forces with third party products, if that's what the users want. I say "Bravo!" to MS in this instance.

If Apple offered licensing to their music service servers for third-party developers, people would be cheering. But if it's MS, it simply must be bad, right?

On top of this, presumably, part of the license fees include the network protocols - Which means less reverse-engineering, and less tail-chasing, which will probably counter-balance the cost of the license itself. And hell, these clients may actually work consistantly now.

I want to encourage MS whenever they do anything even remotely reasonable. To show them they don't have to be anti-competetive, business-stealing, life-destroying bastards to make money.

Z.

Re:What about non-profits?

[BurKaZoiD]

speaking of Yahoo...I just installed RedHat 9 tonight, and couldn't get the Yahoo IM to install correctly. Anyone have any suggestions for a newbie?

Re:What about non-profits?

[asm0deu5]

Yeah, use GAIM instead.

Re:What about non-profits?

[kfg]

". . . they don't have to be anti-competetive, business-stealing, life-destroying bastards to make money."

Unfortunately for your argument you've very succinctly described the very raison d'etre of MSN.

KFG

Re:What about non-profits?

[Linker3000]

Top marks for a sensible comment on the situation.

We'll just have to see what the terms of the Microsoft licence are.

L3K

Re:What about non-profits?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who's going to foot the bill then? Users!"

God forbid people should have to pay for a service they're using!

Re:What about non-profits?

[Anonymous Coward]

But we (well, some of us at least) don't have any options, if we want to chat with people who are using (only) Microsoft servers.

Re:What about non-profits?

[kfg]

Flamebait it may or may not be, but the fact is still that MSN is simply an attempt to propriatize the internet for Microsoft's financial gain. It has no other reason for existence and no other perciavable use.

AOL, bless it's little soul, at least has the excuse that they preexisted the internet and are simply trying to hang on to life in a world that has made an end run around their bread and butter.

I think the head of MS's Office division put it rather succinctly when they went after WP and Lotus:

"We want our fair share of the market and we consider that fair share to be %100."

They feel much the same way about the internet and MSN is their overt attempt to get there.

They're kinda used to getting what they want too, by hook or crook, as it were.

What's their share of the Office Suite market these days?

Mind you that they'll find the internet a bigger piece to try to chew, but they'll give it their best shot.

KFG

Re:What about non-profits?

[DrXym]

Practically anyone who has MS Windows will use the official client, so as far as Microsoft is concerned, the remainder fall into two categories.

1. IM startups trying to capitalise on the MS network with their own offerings (with skins etc.), funded by their own advertising.
2. Open source and grassroots software running on (horrors!) non Microsoft operating systems.

The first group are making money off of Microsoft, while clearly the second group are not, although it could be said they're indirectly adding value to the likes of Red Hat Linux.

So it seems pretty obvious what MS is trying to do here. Kill the IMs and lump the open sourcers in too for good measure. Open source IM projects by definition are not likely to be able to pay, but MS does it under the guise of being fair and reasonable. It's funny that MS were the most vocal complainers when AOL told them to take a hike for pretty much the same thing.

Now, let's see how reasonable MS is prepared to be about this. If their stance is these third party apps are denying them revenue, how about suggesting that in order to use the network they must display MS adverts somewhere in the client and pay in that way? Although that would be disagreeable for open sourcers, it's better than being locked out altogether and it means you continue to benefit from their IM network even if it means a small increase of screen space.

Now, MS could turn around and say "open source allows people to remove the advert!", which is true. But even if someone produced a patch to hack the advert out, how many users would bother with it, and how many would use the one built and shipped with Red Hat, Suse etc? A few maybe, but the vast majority wouldn't be bothered as long as the ad was not obnoxious and perhaps used space that was blank anyway (e.g. the end of a toolbar). By way of comparison Netscape 7.x sticks adverts in its AIM client and the .jar files are easily modified to remove it yet how many people have bothered?

Still, I don't hold out much hope. This looks like an opening salvo for Microsoft to fuck over the Linux crowd good and proper. With that in mind, perhaps the Linux distributors, Jabber and other interested parties should get their act together and offer a viable alternative. You can bet it will still need advertising funding, but at least it wouldn't be going into Microsoft's pockets.

Re:What about non-profits?

[Tyreth]

Second, instead of the standard MS practice of just squashing the competition, they are introducing a reasonable (assuming the fee is reasonable) solution -- and have decided it's OK to join forces with third party products, if that's what the users want. I say "Bravo!" to MS in this instance.

Isn't that a little premature? This seems like normal behaviour. Start off with a small fee (is it small?), then once they're locked in, pump up the price, eliminating unwanted competition and bleeding cash from the rest.

As they say, put a frog in hot water and it leaps right out, put it in cold and boil slowly and it will die.

Re:What about non-profits?

[pVoid]

Be objective:

They have a point. This is the exact same reason why you can't directly forward your yahoo mail to your personal account. They make money by you visiting the page. Not by supplying you the service (contrary to popular dot-com belief).

But my question is: how did ICQ ever survive then? was it just another dot-com before it got bought?

Re:What about non-profits?

[walt-sjc]

Point of fact, AOL did not exist before the internet. They existed before the HTTP protocol, but not the internet.

Re:What about non-profits?

[sniggly]

ICQ was pre-dot-com and was started by hobbyists. You can see their old pages through http://www.waybackmachine.org/ - they used advertising.

Also see this article

Re:What about non-profits?

[stm2]

Ok, you are right, so he could say "before the Internet as we know" Most people know the Internet as "the web".

Re:What about non-profits?

[IamTheRealMike]

You have plenty of other options if you want to chat outside of Microsoft's servers...

.... but not if I want to continue talking to friends and family over the net.

Or what. Do you really think that they will *all* start to use another chat program and network, just because I don't use Windows? I'm sure somebody will make a sharp comment about true friends here, but remember - they have their own friends I've never met who also use MSN Messenger, and they have their friends... it spreads out, and the inertia is massive.

So painting this as the workings of a free market is simply naive in my opinion. It's not a free market, I'm not free to go elsewhere if I want to talk to my friends (which is the service they provide). I can and will break into their network if they lock me out.

Re:What about non-profits?

[davie]

Was the internet around in 1984 when America OnLine (then called Quantam Computer Services) was running a C64 BBS and getting ready to roll out PC-Link? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Re:What about non-profits?

[LMCBoy]

This looks like an opening salvo for Microsoft to fuck over the Linux crowd good and proper.

Come on. It's their network. Why should MS pay for other IM clients to use their servers, if they don't want to? It would be nice if they did, but refusing to do so hardly amounts to "fucking over" the non-MS clients. In fact, it might prove to be a bad move for them, if it pushes their customers onto other networks that aren't restricted in this way (AIM, Yahoo, and ...dare I say... Jabber).

With that in mind, perhaps the Linux distributors, Jabber and other interested parties should get their act together and offer a viable alternative.

Agreed. Though I think the viable alternatives exist already.

Re:What about non-profits?

[kfg]

I knew someone was going to call me on that one as soon as I hit the submit button. It is Slashdot, after all.

I'm familiar with the long history of the internet and first came into contact with ARPANET some 30 years ago through my university.

However, when I left uni I lost access. As a private individual at that time it wasn't possible for me to get a Unix shell account.

Thus I eventually turned to Quantum Computer Services ( you call it AOL, youngster), because they catered to the home market and there was no other game in town ( for these purposes CompuServe and GEnie don't really count as they catered to the business market, and were priced accordingly). Note that at the time even they could not provide internet access. Indeed the universal adoption of the TCP/IP protocol hadn't quite been settled yet.

Given the audience I should have said they preexisted open public access to the internet.

KFG

Re:What about non-profits?

[Schreckgestalt]

Of course. But it was called ARPANET or something.

Re:What about non-profits?

[Schreckgestalt]

Oh no, not again! Someone mentioned the Wayback Machine! Now I have to spend hours on it - again (and always re-check that my first sorry webpage attempt is still in there).

Re:What about non-profits?

[DrXym]

but refusing to do so hardly amounts to "fucking over" the non-MS clients

Sure it does. Up until they've been "Oh look us we're so nice while AOL is so mean" concerning access to their infrastructure. Now, that they're in a stronger position they're trying to shed those IM clients for very specious reasons which cast them in the same light as AOL.

That it's their network is understandable, but as I said, they could come to an arrangement where 3rd party IM clients can use their network in exchange for showing their ads, but will they I wonder? My opinion is they'll opine about 'security' and open source allowing ads to be circumvented and basically shut out all the open source IM clients unless they stump up a big amount of cash. This is just the thin edge of the wedge and if MS get away with it, perhaps we'll the AOL, Yahoo! etc. do the same.

As for Jabber being viable, no I do not think it is in its current form. The infrastructure is there, but the front end should be point and click - when you log into a Linux dist, it should ask you if you want to sign up for an account. There should be wizards and everything else to make the whole process idiot proof and attractive. There should be an incentive for Win32 / Mac users to use it too, which again means making it easy and loading it with neat features - perhaps the IM client could hook up to some blogging site so you can record your thoughts in realtime, or be notified of stock and news alerts, or when a new /. story appears, file sharing etc. In other words, put some innovation into the IM that makes people *want* to use it over proprietary versions.

Re:What about non-profits?

[16K Ram Pack]

First, they are right -- it's their network, and other people are piggy-backing on their servers for free and making bank on it. Why should they allow that? You have plenty of other options if you want to chat outside of Microsoft's servers...

Microsoft have given me access to their servers via the user ID and password. If they want people to pay, the best way would be a subscription for user ID and password.

Second, instead of the standard MS practice of just squashing the competition, they are introducing a reasonable (assuming the fee is reasonable) solution -- and have decided it's OK to join forces with third party products, if that's what the users want. I say "Bravo!" to MS in this instance.

You assume too much. You think MS really want competitors charging a few cents per client to run a Linux client that would allow people to easily migrate to another server, or allow for open networks to exist? I imagine that the licensing fees will be prohibitive, so that MS can say "well, we offered a licensing deal, but no-one was willing to pay".

I want to encourage MS whenever they do anything even remotely reasonable. To show them they don't have to be anti-competetive, business-stealing, life-destroying bastards to make money.

Good luck to you. I think MS are way down the path of "never mind the quality, just create monopolies and people will have no choice".

Re:What about non-profits?

[kubrick]

Well, any company that bases its business model on Microsoft's goodwill (the frog in slowly boiling water) probably deserves to die. Corporate Darwinism.

Re:What about non-profits?

[shokk]

but refusing to do so hardly amounts to "fucking over" the non-MS clients

Sure it does. Up until they've been "Oh look us we're so nice while AOL is so mean" concerning access to their infrastructure. Now, that they're in a stronger position they're trying to shed those IM clients for very specious reasons which cast them in the same light as AOL.

If you can't beat them, join them. It's obvious nothing has moved for some time in the case of allowing IM clients to share networks and nothing ever will, so why bother to pretend anymore? They take care the unlicensed IM clients that charge (Trillian Pro for example) and the non-MS platform users at the same time, all the while excersizing that right legally. They do not owe anything free to anyone, folks. In fact, what you've been watching is the implosion of the last free internet services. At some point soon I expect AOL to finally only allow AOL/AIM users and solely AOL/AIM clients as they have attempted in the past.

Re:What about non-profits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that they will *all* start to use another chat program and network, just because I don't use Windows?

If they want to communicate with their dorky friend/brother/son/etc. they will. Maybe they'll be glad at the opportunity to cut contact with the preachy guy who rants about Microsoft all the time.

Re:What about non-profits?

[cj171]

but, I can see why they would want to charge IMs like trillian, because they charge for their full featured client...I think the OSS IMs should combine and buy only 1 license and say since they're all open, they are all sharing it

Re:What about non-profits?

[kdsolutions]

the ONE GOOD THING about AOL... they charge for internat access, thier IM system originated from that service... and AIM was thier way to keep customers who said "I like your service, but don't want to get another chat thingy to talk to people that don't has AOL" (spoken/typed like a true AOLer.. lol). so, you see, AOL see that it is in thier best interest to keep it froo or people outside of AOL will quit using it, people using AOL will quit using it, and AOL goes bye-bye.

Re:What about non-profits?

[plague3106]

There is no way they are going to give access to open source clients, they cite security and privacy concerns, and that implies client side security.

This is bad security design for sure, but means no open source anyway, period.

Indeed. I recently discovered that the IM character limit on MSN is a CLIENT side restriction. Kopete doesn't enforce the restriction, and larger IMs send just fine. The only 'problem' was the person on the other end wondering how i could send much more text at once..

Re:What about non-profits?

[mcgeek1202]

The only point I would make here is MS doesn't charge people for using thier IM client. It is "free" and their network is "free". I use Trillian becuase I chat with people on MSN, Yahoo, and AOL. If Trillian wants to charge for their Pro version and people pay it ok. They are providing a service that MS is NOT. I use the free version of Trillian--it does everything I need it to do--so why pay. If by charging licensing fees they make Trillian a pay only program then I will have to give up Trillian. Now I have to make a choice I shouldn't have to--say goodby to my MSN buddies or install MSN IM. I will be telling everyone on MSN how to setup a Yahoo account. McGeek1202

Re:What about non-profits?

[plague3106]

First, they are right -- it's their network, and other people are piggy-backing on their servers for free and making bank on it. Why should they allow that? You have plenty of other options if you want to chat outside of Microsoft's servers...

Well, so are people using the offical client. They aren't paying either. So how does it cost MS more to allow 3rd party clients then it does to allow only the free client? It seems to me it takes EXTRA work to block 'nonoffical' clients.

Second, instead of the standard MS practice of just squashing the competition, they are introducing a reasonable (assuming the fee is reasonable) solution -- and have decided it's OK to join forces with third party products, if that's what the users want. I say "Bravo!" to MS in this instance.

Do you know of any MS products that have reasonable cost?

If Apple offered licensing to their music service servers for third-party developers, people would be cheering. But if it's MS, it simply must be bad, right?

I don't think anyone would really care. What the percentage of Mac users?

On top of this, presumably, part of the license fees include the network protocols - Which means less reverse-engineering, and less tail-chasing, which will probably counter-balance the cost of the license itself. And hell, these clients may actually work consistantly now.

I guess it depends on whether reverse engineering the client will be more expensive then the license fee or not. Since we don't know the cost of the license, we can't make any kind of comparission.

As far as clients consistantly working goes.. I've NEVER had a problem with a 3rd party client not working consistently, except when AOL was attempting to purposefully block Trillian. Other then that, they've been 100% reliable at sending messeges and files.

I want to encourage MS whenever they do anything even remotely reasonable. To show them they don't have to be anti-competetive, business-stealing, life-destroying bastards to make money.

So do i, but this hardly seems resonable. MS doesn't support users of 3rd party clients when there's a problem, so i don't see how the choice of client makes a difference.

Re:What about non-profits?

[plague3106]

Why should MS pay for other IM clients to use their servers

Um, because they are not. How does it cost them more to use a free 3rd party client over the free one that MS gives out? I really can't see how its costing them any more. The fact that they are offering a client for free means they'll have to provide servers for anyone who downloads thier client.

Re:What about non-profits?

[vannevar]

it's their network, and other people are piggy-backing on their servers for free and making bank on it. Why should they allow that? You have plenty of other options if you want to chat outside of Microsoft's servers...

Isn't this potentially a death knell for the Internet? Think about it. There would be No Internet if every network and server connected to it said, "It's our network and our servers, you can't use these resources without paying." Consider web sites. If you visit ANY company's web site, you are using their network and their servers. Suppose you are GOOGLE and link or index said sites. You are then "making bank" on them and why should GOOGLE be allowed to run a search engine that links to third party networks for FREE?

Or what about my ISP? If I use my ISP network to connect to the MSN network and MSN wants to use my ISP's network to reach me in order to make bank on MSN, they better have to pay an IM-specific licensing fee back to my ISP as well. That's a lot of verbage, but think about it. On the other hand, we may have a model here for creating great new revenue streams based on this or that protocol. Pay-As-You-Protocol. Hey, MS, you want to let people use https on your site? You want port 443 to work across OUR NETWORK? You gotta pay an SSL transit license fee if you use the Comcast/SBC/Verizon/Whatever network.

I'm thinking that this is not just another funny-haha move by MS, this has potentially far worse ramifications than any old-school browser wars.

Re:What about non-profits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is making money off of their client through advertising. This ad revenue helps to pay for the servers required to run the IM client. You could also argue that MSN Messenger is a perk given to their (Windows) customers. Either way, open source clients do cost them extra money in bandwidth, and it's completely within their right to lock out third party clients.

If you use a key to gain access to a storage locker full of stuff, just because some kid down the street picks the lock it doesn't mean he has the legal right to take what he wants.

Re:What about non-profits?

[arkane1234]

Was the internet around in 1984 when America OnLine (then called Quantam Computer Services) was running a C64 BBS and getting ready to roll out PC-Link? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Yes, the internet was around far before that.
It has been available since the 60's...
I add this:

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:What about non-profits?

[arkane1234]

Yeah, you're right.

ARPANET didn't cease existing until 1990. Though, the 'net used TCP/IP in 1982.
There was a transition period of course from NCP to TCP.

Here's a brief timeline of Internet history:
http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/tim eline/

Kinda makes me just sit and blink a little when I realize just how quickly it all developed into what we know today.

Re:What about non-profits?

[Malcontent]

"Come on. It's their network. Why should MS pay for other IM clients to use their servers, if they don't want to? "

MS has to be treated differently because they are a monoply. What they are doing here probably goes against their settlement with the DOJ.

BTW they have 50 billion dollars in cash I really don't think they are worried about the expense of running an IM network.

Re:What about non-profits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing? what do you mean? are we a church here where we only have "good" and "bad" and "right" and "wrong". MS is doing something legal, I cannot say the opposite. If it's good or bad I would keep that opinion for myself. But it's not about this. It's about the whole idea of how proprietary software wants to lock you in. That's all.

Re:What about non-profits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it was. Some of us were here and remember it quite vividly.

There was no web, of course; that's a relatively recent addition.

Security?

[6079_Smith]

"If there is unauthorized access to our network, it opens us up to potential security and privacy vulnerabilities"

I can't seem to remember the last time a malicious programmer bought a license to write his exploit...

Re:Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes it's useful to do so to gain access to additional information needed to complete the exploit.

Re:Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh and dont forget how you can give fake information when signing up for using hotmail/msn messenger.

I'm sorry to say this.

[Anonymous Coward]

But I think they are making the right move on this one. They do support a huge IM network. It was nice of them to let other clients use the network. But with the popularity of third party clients like Trillian, they lose revenue from the banner advertisements in their messenger program. They also make a point about that especially how Trillian charges for a version of its client, without giving any of that money to Microsoft. I am sorry, but it is their service. They really do not have to let any other clients run it.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[dbc001]

they lose revenue from the banner advertisements in their messenger program.

does that mean that TV stations lose money when I turn off the TV? do magazines lose money if i only read halfway through? do billboard owners lose money if i look at the other side of the road? does microsoft lose money if i don't view their ads?
i mean this rhetorically of course(that means don't answer for those who cant figure out big words).

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[FryGuy1013]

I paid my $25 so I could be connected on AIM in addition to ICQ without using another client (and not to mention that the ICQ client got really bloated, and the AIM one is really stupid). I don't use Trillian Pro for MSN, so why should they get a cut of my money? If they block Trillian from using MSN, then I'm not going to use it. I don't now, but if someone uses MSN and no others, I'm not going to load another client since I've already seen the light of a multi-service client.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is in your question: Yes. If the company loses money on a compaign, they will look for other outlets. Then the billboard owner will lose a customer. Simple.

Really, microsoft can do what they wish with their product. This case is cut and dry. Microsoft stealing, wrong. Microsoft modifying their own product A-ok.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Zilch]

You are missing the point. This is a CLOSED, PROPRIERARY network. We don't *want* to use it, we *have* to use it if we want to talk to anyone using MSN (which seems to be most Windows users now that MS won't let you close the damn client if you are running Outlook Express).

What they should be doing, is setting up a server-to-server architecture so that us on the Jabber network can use our own servers, even if we want to talk to MSN users.

You don't think even Trillian users actually *want* to have to have their client connect to 5 or 6 servers simultaneously when one would do? This is why the bloody IM networks are so expensive to run - because of companies like Microsoft everyone is using 5 or 6 x the network resources.

Basically they have created an artificial demand, and are now trying to charge us for it.

Also, my Jabber server only costs me $9.95/month including the rest of my webhosting services. Maybe Microsoft should outsource to dreamhost.com.

Zilch

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Nogami_Saeko]

Of course, didn't you see the arguement from our pals over in the television industry that said you were stealing their programming if you went to the washroom during a commercial instead of sitting like a mushroom and watching their advertising?

I can see MS's point if other (non-free) clients are using their network to make money. Those clients SHOULD pay MS a fee for connectivity to their network.

They should however, retain a free path (possibily with more limited features?) for those who use clients that are distributed free of charge.

N.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[radsoft]

Sorry, but I think that's just a wee bit naive. Yes, on paper it looks reasonable - but let's be honest: Microsoft are never reasonable. And they're always up to something. Exactly what Microsoft's angle is may take a while to figure out, but one thing is for sure: It's not about playing fair.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[zakezuke]

Hey, i'd agree with you 100% here. It is indeed their service, and they have every right to restrict access to whom ever they choose.

However, to offer PAY licenses for 3rd parties is just freaking nutty. The logic "Running an (IM) network is expensive" is incorrect to assume that *your* free software is somehow more profitable then someone else's free software, which technicaly could be true if the adverts pay for the service.

Ok then... allow license to use the service but conform to the advert system. This would *suck* for many end users, but then microsoft couldn't use the excuse about profit.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[kfg]

Indeed, they do support a large IM network. Why? Well. . .because they wish to. There's certainly no technical reason to do so.

If they used an alternative technology, like say, oooooooooh, the internet, they could save themselves all that trouble and expense. Sending text over the internet doesn't seem to be a great deal of trouble. It's so easy that one might even deduce it was designed for the purpose.

Ah, but they can't control, and can't charge extra for, the use of the internet, now can they?

This is a pure lock in issue. Plain and simple.

Both to be able to charge the users and charge advertisers directly.

Yes, it's their service. Yes, they can do whatever they like with it. That doesn't mean it's not slimey. What's more it'll only work until their client base smartens up and gets a real ISP.

KFG

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[militantbob]

I agree. Their network, their hardware, their systems... They can do whatever they want, regardless of how some may feel.

The question of charging for access licenses for totally free clients is an interesting one, however. On the one hand, you have the fact that the developers are making no money (unless they accept donations), and paying for the licenses may be difficult or impossible. (One might speculate that this is exactly the point: to squash competing free clients.) On the other hand, you have the fact that regardless of the lack of profit-motive in these free clients, they are still accessing and utilizing resources which cost money .

One solution would be to require that the free clients have built-in functions to cycle the ads that the IM service provider uses to pay for the resources. The obvious problem with this would be that these clients are mostly open source, and could be modified to disallow the ads. Reworking the entire IM system structure to prevent this would be expensive and, ultimately, futile.

Another idea might be to pass legislation either through Congress or the FCC, to allow the tracking and prosecution of the use of such ad-cleansed clients, or to allow civil suits, or whatever. However, this would be somewhat reminiscent of the DMCA, at least in the minds of users who are less respectful toward property rights. (The rights of creators and owners are something I strongly support!) This would also give IM service providers a free hand to close their networks and protocols, which is something the FCC has already opposed by suggesting that the service providers should interoperate with each other and not try to monopolize the market.

On a side note, this is also vaguely familiar in another way. Telephone service, and to a lesser extent, cable television service. Company X owns the lines and equipment, but is *forced* by law to provide access to competitors, albeit at a price. While this is usually good for consumers, it denies Company X's shareholders' fundamental property rights, in that their resources are not truely and fully theirs to dispose of as they see fit. The important thing to note about property is that you only truely own it if you are in complete control of its use. There is a label for a system under which an individual or company may 'own' a resource, but must abide by regulatory edict in regards to its utilization. That label is Fascism.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Anonymous Coward]

huh? by the internet, do you mean direct connections between the machines of the two people that are chatting? kind of like direct connect for everyone?
that would NOT be a good thing, not that anyone with moderate security has too much to worry about, but the less you advertise your IP to others, the better.
not to mention, ultimately, SOMETHING has to attach names/IDs to these IP addresses and update them in real time, making that component peer to peer based has catastropic possibilites, identity theft, down time, etc. its just sensible for an IM service to have a centralized server for the purpose of storing user IDs, and its basic security, especially since most people DONT protect their computers at all, to pass messages through this server as well so that the two communicating do not have to do so directly.

as far as the actual issue, i agree microsoft SHOULD charge trillian for making money off of its services. its not right to charge gaim, obviously, but we already know microsoft wont support gaim...
the only problem is that they *supposedly* [i read it here on ./ so take it with a grain of salt] advertised the protocol and wanted people to use it, and are now taking it back and saying, "no, pay us to use it!"... MSN is hardly the most popular IM client so dont think they cornered the market and then pulled this, AIM is still quite a bit ahead of them, so if they were trying to build a monopoly on the IM market, they shouldve waited a little while longer at least...

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Narcissus]

We don't *want* to use it, we *have* to use it if we want to talk to anyone using MSN

Yeah, and what's the deal with telephone companies? I don't *want* to use a telephone, I *have* to use it if I want to talk to anyone else using one.

The point is that if I want to communicate with someone using their medium of choice, then I have to deal with the costs. MSN doesn't have to do anything like setting up a server-to-server architecture because the problem is not them: it's the person you want to communicate with.

Why don't you just get them to install a Jabber client and have them hook up to your $9.95/month Jabber server? By the way, hope you don't mind when another few million people start using your server, 'cause that's what's happening to MSN right now...

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[I KNOW MARTIAL ARTS]

If they used an alternative technology, like say, oooooooooh, the internet, they could save themselves all that trouble and expense.

Please explain what medium MSN Messenger currently uses to connect users and servers. Could it be, oh, the internet? You sir, take the prize for misinformed post of the day.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[gotw]

I don't *want* to use it ... but I do!
Why? Coz a lot of people I wish to speak to use it and no other network. How did this come about? They found a client on their windows XP box, or it appeared on their computer when they installed the latest internet explorer or something. If you ask them to install some other IM protocol it's either too scary, too much bother or they don't want to run more than one and all their mates already use MSN (intertia). It's at least going to be a temporary pain in the backside for me, it's another monopoly abuse, just as IE was.

It's not that hard is it?

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Zilch]

We don't *want* to use it, we *have* to use it if we want to talk to anyone using MSN

Yeah, and what's the deal with telephone companies? I don't *want* to use a telephone, I *have* to use it if I want to talk to anyone else using one.

Sigh. You can always count on someone to come up with an insane analogy.

Yes, I have a telephone - and I pay for it. If I wanted to call someone in the USA (unlikely I know) then I am not expected to also have an account with AT&T. If they want to call me, they don't have to have an account with Telstra Australia. This is essentially what the state of Instant messaging is at the moment.

Would you mind having a room full of telephones - one to call each different country? Or each different network?

The point is that if I want to communicate with someone using their medium of choice, then I have to deal with the costs. MSN doesn't have to do anything like setting up a server-to-server architecture because the problem is not them: it's the person you want to communicate with.

Again insane. There is no cost to use MSN - Microsoft provides it for free (because they are trying to screw AOL over). They just want you to use their client (and hence their OS). This is like AT&T only allowing you to use their phone (sort of).

Why don't you just get them to install a Jabber client and have them hook up to your $9.95/month Jabber server? By the way, hope you don't mind when another few million people start using your server, 'cause that's what's happening to MSN right now...

"They" can and do. There are millions of people all over the world connected to the Jabber network. Go here if you want a free one.

Zilch

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[the uNF cola]

Right move in terms of "intellectual property". But I bet you dollars do donuts that instead of people paying, they just get dropped. As people don't find them to be a viable solution, some will leave, and some will force themselves to use MS9.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[TroyFoley]

It would also be Microsoft's right to institute a method for denying MSN subscribers from accessing AIM/YIM/ICQ networks using MSN dialup lines. Will you support them if they should choose this legal and revenue-increasing path?

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[zsau]

They do support a huge IM network.

When you get into your position by abusing your monopoly, you get what comes to you.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[kfg]

MSN, like AOL, is not part of the internet. It is a closed and propriatary network which offers internet access to its paid subscribers.

The MS Intant Messenger protocol is a propriatary protocol of that private network.

This is the very issue, is it not?

Your ISP already knows your ip address (did you know that when you're on the net you're broadcasting your ip?) and how to send stuff from their servers to your machine. That's how you get your email.

How do you suppose web pages appear on your monitor? It isn't by magic. You send out a signal saying "here I am, give me that," and what you request gets passed hand to hand across the net until you've got it in your hot little box and all sorts of people along the way know who you are and what your ip is if they want to. My firewall tells me all sorts of people already know my ip, nor is it possible to hack a box with a plain text message ( a buggy client may be another matter).

The idea of a centralized server is antithetical to very idea of the internet. The internet is a distributed network of servers, some sitting right in people's own homes. With publicly knowable ips. Fancy that.

That's what Microsoft doesn't like, the fact that anyone can setup a mail server and resolve ip addresses, and thus they can't force a piece of every pie into their own bank accounts. That's the intended function of MSN.

It would be easy enough for MS to promote an internet standard protocol. Then every ISP could put a 486 in the corner somewhere to deal with routing the traffic. It really doesn't take much computing power, or even bandwidth, to simply pass along ASCII text without storing it.

That's what the internet is for and way it's designed to work. That's why can contract with any ISP to connect to it and recieve email from any other connected computer or view web pages made available on any connected computer.

It's free and open.

It's noncentralized by design.

"They" already know who you are or it wouldn't work.

Does this create security issues? Sure.

The alternative is a world where only AOL and MSN exist on centralized systems and duke it out for absolute control of all network traffic.

That's the world both of them would like to see.

For my money I think my old granny said it best:

"Fuck that shit!"

KFG

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[jrumney]

Ok then... allow license to use the service but conform to the advert system. This would *suck* for many end users, but then microsoft couldn't use the excuse about profit.

And perhaps this would be acceptable to Microsoft. One of the free client's developers should try approaching Microsoft with this suggestion. If they do not agree, they may be violating the terms of their antitrust settlement by unreasonably blocking the competition from using their services.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[westlake]

MS won't let you close the damn client if you are running Outlook Express) 1 Open MSN Messenger
2 Click on Tools>Options>General
3 Uncheck "Display alerts when e-mail is received"
4 Click "OK"

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[jrumney]

I agree. Their network, their hardware, their systems... They can do whatever they want, regardless of how some may feel.

You (and Microsoft) seem to be forgetting that Microsoft has already been convicted of using their monopoly in an anti-competitive manner. They cannot do whatever they want, specifically the anti-trust settlement with the US Government requires them to open their protocols and APIs to competition from third party software.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit, it would be correct if they would actually charge for their client.
Compare it to phone companies in some european countries. Usually the net is owned by 1 (previously state-owned) company, but they have to permit others to their network for a fee, BUT they are not allowed to charge unreasonably low rates for their own users.

This is exactly what ms is doing by provinding messenger for free. And it is again using it's monopoly. I think capatalism has had it's longest time, at least in the US. Companies like this are destroying the foundation of what made them....

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[danila]

Don't be sorry, it's all right. I jsut want to mention the possibility of letting Trillian run their own server (connected to the MSN servers to interconnect these two segments of MSN IM network). This might be a fair solution as well. Of course, it all depends on how much money MS wants to get.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[militantbob]

This assumes two things. First, that anti-trust laws are *proper*. And second, that 'competition' includes piggy-backing on MS hardware/bandwidth/etc for free in order to turn a profit. Let's take them one at a time, shall we?

Anti-trust seems like a good deal on the surface. Consumers get protection from overbearing companies, entreprenuers get a chance at improving an existing produce or service, and government gets to expand and exert more and more control over the actions and properties of citizens (companies are owned by citizens - a fact that people tend to forget.)

Now, the 3rd 'benefit' I listed is obviously not a benefit at all. The very fact that government grows and becomes more regulatory/coercive should alarm anyone with common sense. Then there's that little side issue of Constitutionality. Sure, the feds have the power, written into the Constitution, to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States" (Art. 1 Sec. 8 Clause 3). But Jefferson said that all future interpretations of the Constitution should be limited to the language and usage and definitions in use at the time of the framing. Which means that to regulate commerce between the states is exactly that - to prevent the sovereign States from enacting trade legislation that would disrupt the economic cohesion of the nation. It does *not* mean that the Federal government has the power to interfere with the operations of companies. Therefore, anti-trust is unConstitutional. Not to mention free-market principles, and the fact that the 10th Amendment limits the powers of the Federal government to only those specifically listed, and reserves all other powers to the States and the people.

Having cleanly decapitated the Sherman Act of 1890, there is no logical necessity to remark on the free ride you're claiming 'competitors' have been granted by the settlement between Microsoft and the Federal government. However, it will be an entertaining exercise, so here goes:

First we must address the term 'competitor'. You label free-riders as competitors. A sports analogy will serve to disabuse you of that notion. On the football field, a runner is sprinting across the yard markers. He is pursued by a member of the opposing team who wishes to bring his gainful exertion to an end. If he wishes to be competitive, he must rely on the strength of his own muscles and of his own will - he cannot draw ability or aptitude from his intended target. Regardless of his wishes, desires, hopes, or whims, he can only be *competitive* if he has worked hard enough to gain for himself the resources necessary to achieve his goal. If he begged for his opponent to slow down, he would simply be a supplicant.

Giving a company a free lunch at Microsoft's expense is not only unConstitutional, it is the very 'anti-competitiveness' anti-trust reactionaries shriek about.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Zirtix]

There is a middle way. Jabber uses the email server idiom (user@server.com) for instant messaging user names. You can run your own server if you want, or use one of the many free ones on the internet. And no single company or organisation controls the traffic. Just like email! And like email, your ISP could easily provide a Jabber server, just as they have news servers, smtp and so on.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Stiletto]

Don't like anti-trust laws? I'm sure then, that you would be more than happy to:

Pay $500/month for telephone service (each line)
Pay $500/month for your utilities
Pay $20/gallon ($5/liter) for gasoline

These are just examples... Likely the price would be just high enough where enough rich people could afford it to keep the company profitable.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[militantbob]

Same faulty argument commonly used against drug companies in complaint against high cost of medicine.

There are a lot more poor and middle class people than rich people. There is more profit to be made in small increments from a much larger customer pool than there ever would be in simply catering to and soaking the rich.

Look at car companies. Most car models and manufacturers target middle-class people for exactly the reason I explained above. The companies which do serve the upmarket consumers make more profit per unit, but sell far fewer units, and as a result have lower total revenues and usually lower net profit.

Everyone needs a telephone, so even a monopolistic company would realize that they could gain the most by pricing the service low enough so that most of the general population could afford it. And if they didn't, some investment banker would get together with some venture capital types and fund an independent telco in some medium-sized market, prove that the lower-margin-higher-volume strategy works, and then seed similar companies throughout other regional markets.

A monopoly cannot remain so unless it responds to the needs and limitations of the customer. Without customers, companies cannot exist.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's rhetorical and all, but the answer actually is YES in all cases...I think perhaps you were expecting the rhetorical answer to be no.

They don't lose it immediately, but in the long run if people aren't looking at the billboards, magazine ads or TV commercials, the advertisers will stop using that medium and the billboard rental company, TV network, magazine or Microsoft will lose money.

PS - I may not be able to figure out big words but at least I can figure out the shift key and apostrophe keys.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Progman]

That's not a fair comparison because MSN dialup users pay for the service, there is a binding contract where MSN agrees to provide Internet access to the customer.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I have a telephone - and I pay for it. If I wanted to call someone in the USA (unlikely I know) then I am not expected to also have an account with AT&T. If they want to call me, they don't have to have an account with Telstra Australia

You do understand that there are underlying settlement agreements between the telcos and that AT&T and Telstra will get their cut when you access their long-lines services, however indirectly?

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[kfg]

Certainly, this is exactly what I'm suggesting and the logical way to do it since the logic of Instant Messaging is identical to the logic of email.

"Ding! You've got message."

Piece of cake and hardly expensive to implement since the server is only dealing with ASCII text transfers and doesn't have to store them. 2.2 Linux on whatever's lying around gathering dust.

My critic asks why an ISP should be responsible for this. I'd suggest for the same reason that they're responsible for providing you with email, ftp, http, and IRC services, as well as web server space.

Because that's their business; and you pay them for it.

KFG

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[theancient2]

Windows Messenger doesn't have banner ads, only MSN Messenger does.

So why aren't they concerned with losing recenue from all those Windows XP users getting a free ride on their IM system?

The answer is probably that Windows Messenger users paid for it indirectly by buying Windows XP. But since Trillian is a Windows program, all of its users have Windows licenses too. (Maybe not XP, but nobody would upgrade to Windows XP just to get WM.)

Maybe they're just assuming that they can trick Windows Messenger people into installing the MSN Add-In (which adds ads), but Trillian people won't.

Does Microsoft advertise anything except itself through those ads, anyway? Last I tried it, they were just ads for MSN. It can't be their greatest revenue source, unless they're signing up a lot of new customers through that link.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[arkane1234]

They can provide internet access, yet block certain server/port combo for "security reasons".

It's done alot of times for legitimate reasons, but those are usually well known spammers or irc attackers.

Re:I'm sorry to say this.

[Abattoir]

But with the popularity of third party clients like Trillian, they lose revenue from the banner advertisements in their messenger program.

If the people who use third party programs like Trillian suddenly started using the MSN client, they still wouldn't make money off those banner ads.

I don't know about you, but I never click on banner ads in IM clients. Granted, I haven't used an ad-supported IM client since GAIM got stable enough to use, or when Trillian came out.

What difference does it make?

[SkoZombie]

Control.

If i'm using MSN Messenger to chat to my friends, i'll be using the same resources as if i connect via trillian. So, the cost is EXACTLY the same. This therefore can NOT be the root of the decision.

Its control. Microsoft have always demonstrated that they want to control the way users experience the internet, and as such do anti-competitive things, such as this, to ensure no one can wrestle control away from them.

Solution? Use free* chat protocols, and give-up some of your time to help less computer savvy users migrate away from MSN.

Re:What difference does it make?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If i'm using MSN Messenger to chat to my friends, i'll be using the same resources as if i connect via trillian. So, the cost is EXACTLY the same. This therefore can NOT be the root of the decision."

That is where you are wrong. They may be using the same resources, but without any of the banner ads. So in essance the same resources are not being paid for.

Re:What difference does it make?

[RTPMatt]

"The MSN Messenger ban of outside clients and cited security issues ... The company's Internet unit, MSN, contacted third-party providers like Trillian and Odigo with a suggestion to buy access licenses."

Using this logic, the licensing for windows should make it the most secure O/S in the world!

Re:What difference does it make?

[dafoomie]

If i'm using MSN Messenger to chat to my friends, i'll be using the same resources as if i connect via trillian. So, the cost is EXACTLY the same. This therefore can NOT be the root of the decision. Sorry, no. MSN gets revenues from the banner ads on their client. Trilian is taking money away from them, using the network MS built, supports, and pays for. Solution? Use free* chat protocols, and give-up some of your time to help less computer savvy users migrate away from MSN. I agree with this part. If we all use free protocols then we only need to use one client instead of 4, and we will be outside of their influence.

Re:What difference does it make?

[Kris_J]

Ehrk. My group's IT staff *just* railroaded me into using MSN Messenger. I wish some of them would be less... normal... but they have a point when they talk about installed user base, etc.

Re:What difference does it make?

[cookiej]

Listen, I'm as anti-MS as the next guy but what the hell are you saying?

They're trying to get some money to support their infrastructure. If Trillian can't access the MS network, how is this the same? It seems like they're using the licensing fees to offset the extra users brought in by the 3rd party software.

And the previous poster is right -- when you are forced to use the MSN client, MS gets your eyeballs and profits from them, again to presumably keep the infrastructure supported.

Now, we can all use the "Well, MS has more money than God", or "MS is Evil", or "Gates is Borg.." arguments, but (provided the licensing fee is reasonable) this one just seems like good business. Just like Trillian did when they moved from donations only (which I participated in) to a fee-based system (which I AM partcipating in.)

Now, it would probably be way too progressive of Microsoft to come up with, but wouldn't it be great if they offered those who built and distributed free software a free license? That they'd only have to pay if they started charging for their work...?

Anyway, given the numerous blunders MS seems to be making right and left (See Eolas & Burst,) can't we chalk this up as a statistically due "good move"?

Re:What difference does it make?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Ads. Need we mention this again?

The decision makes sense. So let's find something else to discuss. It seems like Slashdot has just become "from-the-this-should-give-you-a-reason-to-complai n-about-SCO-or-Microsoft-dept" 24/7 zealotfest.

Sheesh.

Re:What difference does it make?

[militantbob]

I haven't used MSN Messenger in a couple of years now, so correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't Microsoft pay for the service, at least in part, through advertisements routed through their official client? And doesn't the client provide access to additional features which also generate ad revenue? And isn't MSN Messenger also a way to invite users to make use of other Microsoft products and services, which *are* fee-based? Seems to me that the Messenger service is a marketing tool, one they have spent a lot of time and money on, and which they should have full property rights to.

Re:What difference does it make?

[Troed]

Installed user base? Then it's ICQ you should use - and always has been.

Re:What difference does it make?

[asm0deu5]

I doubt that's their biggest reason - the _official_ OS X MSN client allows you to toggle the ads on and off. I've never seen anything much be advertised on their either, before I switched them off.

Re:What difference does it make?

[in7ane]

This may be a mac thing, or maybe everyone else just likes the MSN adds, or wants to support Microsoft's advertising revenue.

But the "View" menu has an option you can check/uncheck called "Promotional Pane". Is it OK with you if I uncheck it?

Re:What difference does it make?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those banner ads are also called IM-spam.

Re:What difference does it make?

[caluml]

Solution? Use free* chat protocols, and give-up some of your time to help less computer savvy users migrate away from MSN.

Seconded. If you have a nice domain name, install a Jabber server, and install the plugins that let them connect to their current networks. Try to get everyone using Jabber - it's a free, open source, open standard messenging system. Unfortunately, when I speak to people, they ask if I have Messenger. I ask - AIM, Yahoo, ICQ, or MSN, and they seem to never have heard about the first three.

Re:What difference does it make?

[Anonymous Coward]

those banner adds pay the bills

Re:What difference does it make?

[Anonymous Coward]

ofcourse, but that is _their_ problem. They choose this business model. And with this new change, they are unfairly competing.

Re:What difference does it make?

[Anonymous Coward]

the Jabber clients for Windows are feature-light
while that may appeal to some, for most it is a barrier to migration: MSN Messenger offers users much more than a plain text chat client

Re:What difference does it make?

[PubRadio]

How has this managed to be moderated +4, Insightful? This mindless b*tching about companies that aren't popular 'round here seems to rack up karma like nothing. Now:

1.) This has been said, in much more eloquent fashion, on at least TWO prior threads. Give some redundant here.

2.) Of course it's control: control of their resources, as you pointed out. However, just because the resources used remain the same, the interface, ad space, etc. are not. Again, look up some of the more apt analogies already up on the board, it's essentially getting something for nothing at someone else's expense.

3.) Oblig. Apple vs. MS response to your statement: "Its [sic] control. Microsoft have [sic] always demonstrated that they want to control the way users experience the internet, and as such do anti-competitive things, such as this, to ensure no one can wrestle control away from them." Well, DUH, they try to control your experience? Up to a point, that's what a GUI and app design standards are for. Now for the ref: Apple controls these things much more tightly, yet we love Apple. Flamebait/Troll. MS sucks. More Insightful.

I could go on and on this morning. Please, folks, let's think just a little bit before we moderate 'round here. This is just asinine.

Re:What difference does it make?

[TheRaven64]

But if you want to be able to keep using a working MSN transport next month, will people please stop posting interesting things on slashdot. Every time I sit down to do some work on msn-tng I get distracted...

/me returns to coding (honest!)

Re:What difference does it make?

[AxB_teeth]

They may be using the same resources, but without any of the banner ads.

This is BS. I'm using Microsoft's own Messenger Client (on a mac) and I'm provided with the option of turning off the banner ad. What purpose this serves MS, I'm not sure. But it's handy in debunking your argument.

This licensing thing is like Telcos forcing phone manufacturers to pay royalties. Which I didn't think happened, but in this day and age I wouldn't put it past them.

Re:What difference does it make?

[AstroPup]

This licensing thing is like Telcos forcing phone manufacturers to pay royalties. Which I didn't think happened, but in this day and age I wouldn't put it past them.

Not exactly. It would be like the Telcos not charging you and I anything for our phone line and forcing the manufacturers to pay royalties.

Re:What difference does it make?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bills are already paid, Bill Gates is already the undeservedly, richest person in the world.

Why is an IM included with the OS you paid for not an open standard? Because MS is overly greedy ... legally it's called profiteering, a crime Bill and Microsoft were found guilty of ... one land, two laws.

IEEE RFC open chat protocol please

Re:What difference does it make?

[Desert Raven]

Is this counting *active* accounts? Frankly, I don't know a single person who uses ICQ. Heck, I didn't even know it was still running. Most of the folks I know use AIM, and a couple use Yahoo.

Re:What difference does it make?

[Troed]

Let me guess - you're american. In Sweden almost everyone use ICQ. Why should've ever changed?

Re:What difference does it make?

[ejaw5]

Last I checked, the Linux/Unix client released by AOL and Yahoo for their IM service didn't include the banner ads...just a thought.

Not ZD

[DASHSL0T]

IDG is not ZD.

Excellent news

[heironymouscoward]

This means the playing field for alternative IM networks is levelled.

Money

[Anonymous Coward]

MS has enough money to sustain most third world countries. Let alone a few measly chat servers. Then again they probably have to pay for Unix licenses to keep the servers running...

good they only have about $40 billion

[sevenofnine]

'Running an (IM) network is expensive,'

It's not like making it free would even dent their economy..
Just another exuse for "we want to be alone".. oh well

Re:good they only have about $40 billion

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they have to pay for more resources? YOu get rich many diff ways, but you stay rich by managing your money. It's called economics.

Re:good they only have about $40 billion

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft makes money off of 2 products, Windows and Office, of which they make obscene amounts of profit. Everything else to to tie you into and purchase new versions of the above. They're just tieing up some loose ends is all. :P

Re:good they only have about $40 billion

[TheRaven64]

Running an IM network is expensive. This is true. Running an email network is expensive too. That is why no one runs an email network anymore, ISPs, organisations and some individuals run individual servers which together make an email network. XMPP/Jabber works on the same principle. Each organisation or ISP can run their own Jabber server and the overall result is an IM network that costs individual organisations very little. It costs almost nothing to run my Jabber server - the CPU hit is almost zero and the bandwidth is allocated to the server for apache / email / ssh / whatever anyway.

Whaddya gonna do

[Locky]

There's nothing you can really argue here, It's Microsoft's network, they can do what they want with it.

I encourage everyone to support the Jabber protocol, open and free for many clients to use, including the next revision of Trillian Pro.

Re:Whaddya gonna do

[Anonymous Coward]

Jabber still uses MSN network... yo. (optionally, but it can still piggy back off of microsofts resources).

Re:Whaddya gonna do

[l0wland]

If encourage means pre-install Jabber with Windows, your idea might have a chance.

Within 2 years I saw all of my friends move from ICQ to MSN, because it came pre-installed with their latest Windows- release. That left me with a large list of offline friends in my ICQ-contactlist. So I moved too.

With a small userbase and no support from MICROS~1, your suggestion unfortunately won't make it.

Welcome to the darks-side of monopolistic capitalism.

Re:Whaddya gonna do

[Anonymous Coward]

--There's nothing you can really argue here, It's Microsoft's network, they can do what they want with it.

I would disagree, the server software is Microsoft's as are the main number of clients, but the network is the Internet wich is supposedly public.

The supposed goal of the system is be able to communicate with others, so it seems to me that the more people who can access the system the better it will be. (but that's just me thinking like a normal person, when the real reason is to make more money and more market control to M$)

Also I find it funny that some people should say that MS can ask licensing fees since some other company is making money off their back, and not the other way around.... for once.

Re:Whaddya gonna do

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Well, I can argue that they're hypocrites. After all, they were never satisfied when AOL said "it's our network, we can do what we want."

Re:Whaddya gonna do

[luisdom]

It's AT&T network! they can do what they want with it. Other companie's subscribers can call between themselves if they want.

Re:Whaddya gonna do

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You could demand that they do not force their clients on users by means of their monopoly.

That means :
1) an I.M. to every existing MSN user saying there are alternatives, with a link to a jabber client (the one specified by the author of jabber)
2) make MSN messenger a separate product, which has to be BOUGHT SEPARATELY (ie NO DUMPING)
3) no advertisements inside windows for MSN messenger.

AFTER they do that, they can close their network all they want.

Re:Whaddya gonna do

[drinkypoo]

That's not why they're hypocrites. They're hypocrites because they don't open their protocols, and they try to shut down other implementations where possible. But in this case, they tried to treat IM as open (it should be) and found out that it will not be treated that way. Subsequently, since the rules of the game clearly say that IM is not open, they might as well close theirs. I think this is one rare time when they're NOT being hypocritical.

Re:Whaddya gonna do

[drinkypoo]

1. Ignorance is no excuse. Besides, the fact that there are other IM networks is blatantly obvious. Well, that there is at least one more anyway. Support for AIM is in a shitload of handheld wireless devices (think cellphones) and it's kind of ubiquitous.
2. Why make MSN messenger a separate product? Why no dumping? They run the servers, they pay to run the servers, I think it's reasonable that they give it away. After all they're selling ads, it's not REALLY free.
3. Why no advertisements? Like they said, it costs money to run the service, and they give away the client, they have to pay for it somehow. The other clients will have to pay a licensing fee, so they won't have advertisements. If you really must pay for a client, then you can pay for a non-microsoft client.

The fact is that they have nothing like a monopoly. Sure they are the only source for MSN IM, but note the M in MSN. It stands for Microsoft.

Re:Whaddya gonna do

[Mr_Silver]

Well, I can argue that they're hypocrites. After all, they were never satisfied when AOL said "it's our network, we can do what we want."

And I'd say they're not. They wanted AOL to open up the protocol so, by paying some sort of licence fee, other people could use it.

Which is exactly what they are allowing with MSN. AOL is perfectly entitled to purchase a licence and make their messenger interoperate with MSN ... but not vice versa.

Re:Whaddya gonna do

[cgranade]

Here, here! I hate M$ with a passion, but I must concede to them on this point: they own the system entirely from the protocol to the bandwidth to the original client. This, IMHO, is zer schlecht, very bad and amari yokunai. Thusly, please support Jabber. It is open, free and it works. </soapbox>

Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[MrHanky]

And so should you do. It's just as easy to deal with as MS Messenger, it works on many platforms, and it's free. Now you see why free as in Microsoft gives it away is not free as in free.

I recommend Psi for both Linux and Windows, but I'm sure there are other clients that are just as good.

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've just started using tipichttp://www.tipic.com). I'm liking it a lot. Unfortunately it's windows only. It looks like messenger, so you might want to try using it to ween your friends off of msn.

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[xmda]

There is only one problem: my friends does not understand why they should use Jabber instead of installing the real MSN-client on their computers. They know all about Free Software bla blah blah (I speak about it all the time), they just don't care because it's much easier for them to install and configue MSN. A few of my buddies are also "MS haters" as myself, but they are too lazy switching to Free Software if it does not give them practical advantages.

Btw, they happily run both an ICQ and MSN client at the same time, so switching to Jabber because it handles more than one protocol does not matter very much.

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[MrHanky]

There is only one problem: my friends does not understand why they should use Jabber instead of installing the real MSN-client on their computers. They know all about Free Software bla blah blah (I speak about it all the time), they just don't care because it's much easier for them to install and configue MSN.

I know. As long as MSN works, why switch to another client? Well, the only answer I know is this: It doesn't work for everyone anymore. I don't expect to have a working MSN client for Linux or other alternative OSes soon. If any of my MSN-using friends need to keep in touch with me by IM, they'll have to use Jabber or ICQ (and there's no reason to use ICQ now, it sucks painfully compared to MSN or Jabber. Just try to remember your contact list when you accidentally deleted it, for instance.). I expect at least one of them to start using Jabber, because he sometimes needs help with Linux, and I'm often able to help.

I think I started using Jabber because I expected something like this from Microsoft. ICQ had already done it earlier: changed the protocol to force users to switch to a more bloated and ad-infested client. Unfortunately, MS is much more experienced in user lock-in than any other company, and they have a larger user base than ICQ ever had.

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Just got today, it supports virtually every IM protocol (Including the "big three") through plugins, and it's open source. On top of that, it is easily customizable, simple to set up, and looks better than the official clients. The fact that it connects to MSN, AIM, et al. makes a nice, smooth transition to Jabber, too. :D

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[I(rispee_I(reme]

The above post was about Miranda IM, and should've been previewed. Here is the real link. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[Nurgled]

Are you going to set up and maintain a Jabber server for all of your friends to use?

Everyone piling off MSN and onto jabber.org or jabber.com is not the answer. For Jabber to work, people must run their own servers.

Centralized messaging sucks, but decentralized IM will never work for the masses unless it's peer-to-peer and "just works".

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[Anonymous Coward]

ICQ's servers can back up your contact list.

ICQ's protocol hasn't changed in a looooong time, either. I'm still running a really old (official) client and it works fine.

Just disable "auto-update" in the registry and it's fine.

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[Anonymous Coward]

ISP's run email servers as a courtesy to their clients. Why wouldn't the same work for Jabber, after all it is an open standard, like email.

In fact, I'm going to write to my ISP and ask them to do this. Thank you for this inspiration.

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[danila]

I think it's time to switch to Miranda. It is open source, free and supports ICQ/AIM/MSN/Jabber protocols. Don't know if it runs on Linux, though.

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[Zirtix]

There are loads of public Jabber servers out there, and they're not overloaded. As Jabber usage grows, so will the number of servers. Look here

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a newbie. Explain to me what a server is and why I should care. What should I do with the name given in that list? Which one should I choose and why?

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jabber is very low bandwidth. You can easily run a Jabber server off a cable modem with a dyndns name.

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[grishnav]

I already do, yes.

Anyone and everyone is more than welcome to use it, so long as it doesn't bog down other things.

Lets share the load everyone!

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[gonz]

There are very good reasons why Jabber has not become more popular. When I first saw Jabber, I was totally drawn in. It just made sense that IM should (a) utilize openly documented protocols and (b) be decentralized like e-mail (or even be unified with it). In a heartbeat I installed Jabber on our server and set about converting everybody at my company over to using it.

This was in Februrary of 2001. I worked on it for a couple weeks, but the software was just shit. The server crashed all the time. It was a pain to install. The clients were ugly and written by people who didn't understand modern GUI standards. Moreover, there were *way* too many clients to choose from, meaning I would have to install and test 5 or 6 genuinely awful clients to find the 1 usable one.

In the end I gave up and we went back to ICQ. However, the compelling Jabber philosophy stuck with me, and I hoped that these problems would solve themselves with time. I gave it a second chance in October of that same year, but not much had changed. (I mean, HOW HARD is it to send little text packets across the internet? We're not talking about creating a web browser here!)

In retrospect, I think we have moved past the point where internet progress is driven by innovative visionaries who anticipate the future. Rather, progress is driven by brute evolutionary forces selecting software that happens to solve the right problems at the right time. For all its great philosophy, Jabber was just not useful enough to real everyday people. I'm talking here about people whose primary goal is to communicate, not to learn about or participate in a software development project.

I would argue that these same factors are behind similarly mediocre successes like freenet, Miranda, and many others. Here's a link to my frustrated posting on the Miranda forum when I was trying to switch over to it. Note in particular how the community responds by pointing out that the problems are solvable. That's not the point! Real users don't like solving problems, they want it to just work. It's a hard concept for nerds to grasp, but an important one.

I'll concede that my opinions about Jabber are fairly dated. Really, I should give it another shot. However, the fact that Jabber is still unknown to most people on the street gives me a strong clue as to what those results will be.

-Gonz

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[Nurgled]

Sure, I can, aside from the annoyance of my dynamic IP address and having to keep a hostname with a small DNS refresh time up to date.

Your average user doesn't even know what an IP address is, however, let alone how to install a Jabber server. They need geeky friends to show them how or do it for them.

Not everyone has geeky friends. These are the people who use MSN Messenger because they know no better.

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[drinkypoo]

While ICQ was the last to implement this feature, for at least several months now it has stored your contacts list on the server.

Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber.

[Trejkaz]

Jabber works and doesn't have to be peer-to-peer.

I don't see the issue of a situation where everyone who is providing a mail service provides a Jabber service alongside it. That way you have a local server (at whatever ISP you use), but more elite users can do what they currently do with their email address and register vanity domains and set up their own server, or vhost it somewhere.

And yes, I set up a Jabber server which I allow all my friends to use.

OSS Competition

[sahrss]

'Running an (IM) network is expensive,' said Lisa Gurry, group product manager for MSN at Microsoft. 'We can't sustain multiple other people's businesses, particularly if they charge for certain versions of their software.

Gaim is free...I think this outlines the trouble Microsoft is having while competing with Free Software; if Trillian refuses the new liscense, will Microsoft be able to take actioin?
Because Trillian would be profiting monitarily from riding on the the Microsoft IM network?

Although, I suppose Trillian has more users than gaim does right now...

AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[kylef]

AOL has already changed their protocol on several occasions specifically to break the clients. This is nothing new.

I don't understand the big deal here. The MSN Messenger servers are Microsoft property. If they want to charge 3rd party clients to use them, that's their prerogative. And it seems to be a perfectly legitimate business move, unless you're of the persuasion that believes the public is "entitled" to use these servers in any way they choose. I disagree, however, and so do private property laws in the US.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Let's do a search and replace:
The www.msn.com web server is Microsoft property. If they want to charge users of 3rd party browsers to access it, it's their prerogative.
If they can control access, good for them. But if it's accessible from the web, and there's a third party client that's capable of accessing it, then Microsoft is unreasonable to expect that access will be limited to official clients.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[pen]

Microsoft already limits access to msn.com and Hotmail to a handful of browsers. And they have every right to do so, as they own the servers and bandwidth. What's your point?

And don't forget, every user they turn down creates an opportunity for their competitors.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[NanoGator]

"I don't understand the big deal here. The MSN Messenger servers are Microsoft property. If they want to charge 3rd party clients to use them, that's their prerogative."

Interesingly enough, if licenses are being sold, MS has a fire lit under them to a.) keep it up and running and b.) to keep it working.

I don't see the BFD about licenses either. I'd rather read that MS wants money to log in than to read that MS is constantly mutating to keep people off, not unlike another monopoly Slashdot hates.

Ah well, it's about MS, there's no such thing as the silver lining.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[Anonymous Coward]

How did that get modded up when it's completely false? I can access Hotmail with Mozilla, Safari, Opera, Omniweb, and I would bet just about any other web browser out there that comes close to supporting current web standards.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[Anonymous Coward]

AOL has already changed their protocol on several occasions specifically to break the clients.

They did that to MSN and Trillian. They never intentionally blocked free clients, like gaim. I'm pretty sure people at AOL have stated that they will not do any harm to gaim and don't have anything against free clients for operating systems they don't support. Also, regarding "intentional protocol changes" (sounds fishy to me...), I'm not sure about the OSCAR protocol, but I'm pretty sure the TOC servers have always worked the same way. I recently wrote my own client based on specs AOL published back in 1998. It works fine.

Even regarding OSCAR... Let's think about this. If AOL intentionally changes the protocol, that would break their own clients just the same way it would break third party ones... Unless they wrote some "change protocol behavior" mechanism far in advance that makes the official client do the right thing... (That sounds like too much work, even for AOL's level of evil and paranoia.)

I know they have done tricky things like requesting MD5 sums of portions of AIM.EXE using "undocumented" features of the protocol that the "official" clients implemented right from the start.... But changing the fundemential protocol itself? Could be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[Space Coyote]

Microsoft already limits access to msn.com and Hotmail to a handful of browsers. And they have every right to do so, as they own the servers and bandwidth. What's your point?

The point would be, that whether they have a right to do it or not, they're still asses for trying. And if enough people hear about it, hopefully such an action will hae a negative effect on their business and they'll learn. (wishful thinking, I know, but it's either that or start stockpiling weapons for the revolution)

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[Anonymous Coward]

Every right, yes. Highly stupid, also yes.

As a business, they should be doing what they can to keep themselves open to the widest possible user base that they can. Instead, they lock people out.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[16K Ram Pack]

Microsoft have given me a user ID and password to use their services. The client I use to connect should be none of their business.

Or maybe you are OK with the idea that Microsoft should dictate the make of modem you use to connect to the internet?

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[hamster foo]

Out of curiousity, what browsers are you referring to that cannot access hotmail? I've accessed it with Firebird, Mozilla, Konqueror, and IE. Do they have a block on Opera or Safari or something?

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[shokk]

It's called an EULA. If you OK it the next time you sign on then you are agreeing to their new terms for their service. If you don't then that's the end of your relationship with MSN Messenger.

I hate what they are doing, but your argument is silly. You are not entitled to anything for free other than the air you are sucking in right now. I don't understand how you figure they owe you their charity.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[sheemwaza]

I remember the good old days when I could access Hotmail with POP3. I was able to use my favorite mail reader to access my free mail, not Outlook. Thought it was too good to be true, and it soon ended. I think that is what the parent is referring to.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[frp001]

Have you ever tried with lynx? So? you see the point now?

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[MacGod]

It's not that it's necessarily "unfair" of Microsoft. They are right in that it it costs money to run their servers, and I'm sure they want to recoup some of those costs.

However, there are two issues as I see it
1) They seem to want to increase MSN's market share over AOL IM, ICQ et all. This is evidenced by them giving their client away for free. So, they must want MSN to dominate over the competing protocols. Therefore, I would have thought it would be in their best interest to have as many clients out there as possible. And, if they really want people to use their own client, they should compete with features, rather than blocking schemes. Surely with their resources they should be able to out-compete small developers on the feature front.

2) It's really annoying. I use a third-party client and am sick of getting the upgrade messages. And I don't want to pay any more for my client. So, it's annoying.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[16K Ram Pack]

I'm not talking about expecting something for free.

If Microsoft are saying that their service costs them money, then perhaps they should use a subscription model. This would be unavoidable for payment, but still allow any client to be used.

As for EULAs, they aren't worth the bandwidth they consume. MS bury all kinds of conditions in their licenses about not producing test results/not criticizing Microsoft/not producing a word processor. If they aren't up front, they are determined by courts to often be invalid. Courts do this to companies who bury conditions in small print to extract money.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[Snaller]

Microsoft already limits access to msn.com and Hotmail to a handful of browsers

That's just because they are monopolist creeps.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[W32.Klez.A]

I know foxmail has something called a Hotmail "proxy" built into it. Basically, it downloads the hotmail messages via HTTP and throws them in your foxmail mailbox.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[letxa2000]

It's counterproductive for Microsoft to do this. They can't argue that this is because running an IM network is expensive and then give away their client for free. What they want is control and to kill off the competition that makes it easy for people to use multiple protocols without loading multiple programs. This is nothing new for Microsoft, of course.

It will be interesting to see the results of this. I use Linux/Gaim and many people such as myself will be forced to stop using MSN Messenger. We will obviously tell our contacts to please install Yahoo Messenger, ICQ, or AIM. None of my contacts are particulary averse to loading lots of programs on their computer so I know none of them will complain. They'll just do it. These are people that currently only use MSN Messenger and Microsoft is going to drive them to install other IM clients that they would have never otherwise installed. Regardless of whether or not these people stop using MSN, is this really in Microsoft's best interest?

I personally think this could end up being a very interesting case study in closed vs. open protocols. The people that bend over and install the latest version of MSN Messenger are the people that already use Microsoft's messenger to start with. I bet that very, very few people that use Gaim, Trillian, Kopete, etc. are going to consider installing the official Microsoft client. They're just going to drive these users away from MSN Messenger which makes the service LESS useful since fewer people will be reachable via MSN Messenger.

If Yahoo Messenger or AIM plays this right they could really pick up some market share here. Especially if Yahoo and AIM made an agreement to interoperate between those two protocols and publicize it as the cheapest, most open way to communicate with the largest number of people on the planet with the client of your choice. Microsoft would look pretty foolish for locking their protocol down. It'd also be hard for Microsoft to complain about being excluded from the interoperability since they just finished making a huge move against interoperability themselves. :)

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[Fizzlewhiff]

The original post said "handful of browsers". That does not imply POP3 clients. The post was FUD.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[drzhivago]

Or maybe no one will pony up the money, and people will drop MSN as their protocol of choice, and MS will see their bandwidth costs drop.

Remember, part of doing this is to recoup bandwidth costs. Or so they say.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't get in with Mozilla. It throws me back to the login page whenever I try.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[blibbleblobble]

"Microsoft already limits access to msn.com and Hotmail to a handful of browsers. And they have every right to do so, as they own the servers and bandwidth. What's your point?"

Microsoft.com isn't part of the World Wide Web?

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[gonvaled]

What about charging for e-mail message sent to a hotmail address? What about charging for web page accessed which is hosted on a microsoft server?

First, this does not correspond to the costs involved: it is overpriced. The internet makes all these things cheap, and easy to manage, remember? You do not need to artificially complicate things. It is enough to charge for access to the internet - based on volume or on access time, as service providers do. I do not want to have thirty different bills for http access, e-mail, instant messaging, ftp, etc etc.

Second, it goes against the spirit of the internet: allow seamless communication in any form people want, using any client they want; make it open, make it transparent, make it easy and make it free.

Microsoft is effectively taking, step by step, control over the internet: it is splitting users into 'normal internet users' and 'msn users'. The problem is that they have a very strong monopoly in OSs which they can use to push this despicable tactics.

The only hope we have is by getting the market to operate efficiently (without the interference of MS through its monopolistic tactics): users will refuse this kind of service, if given a chance.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[tjohns]

AOL has already changed their protocol on several occasions specifically to break the clients. This is nothing new.

Actually, AOL runs two different protocols, OSCAR, and TOC. OSCAR is a more featured, closed protocol that is only supposed to be used with licensed AOL clients, like AOL's software or iChat. This is the protocol that they change every now and then. However, while a little less featured, the TOC protocol is open, and can be used by any client. AOL even uses it for their Java/Linux clients, and it has never been changed.

Basically, while AOL keeps the better protocol restricted to licensed clients, they still offer TOC to anybody who wants to use it. MSN, on the other hand, is just blocking everybody without a license, period.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[Durandal64]

Microsoft already limits access to msn.com and Hotmail to a handful of browsers. And they have every right to do so, as they own the servers and bandwidth. What's your point?

No, they do not. They were found to be an illegal monopoly as a direct result of this kind of anti-competitive behavior. Illegal monopolies don't have the same rights to their products as legitimate corporations.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[pen]

You are correct -- I just tried logging in with Opera and it worked fine. I don't use Hotmail often, but I remember that just a few months ago they would complain about me using Opera.

Also, if you try to access members.msn.com, you get the following message:

MSN Member Directory is not currently compatible with your Internet browser. Here's what you need to enjoy MSN Member Directory:

Internet Explorer 4.0 or later
You can download the latest version for free at: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie.

- or -

Netscape Navigator 4.x or higher
To find out more, go to: http://home.netscape.com.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[pen]

I just tried going to members.msn.com with Opera and was denied with this message (also described in my other post). This is only one example I remember off the top of my head. Also, Hotmail is a lot friendlier now than it was just a few months ago.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[pen]

• Microsoft also makes parts of microsoft.com off-limits to most browsers.
• Also, what's your point?

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree: MS is paying for their own servers, and they're entitled to control access to them. One of the complaints I hear all the time about spammers is that the victims of spam are the ones paying for all those unwanted messages. If it's not ok for spammers to send messages that eat up bandwidth you're paying for, then why should it be ok for you to send messages that eat up bandwidth MS is paying for? You can't have it both ways, folks.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[Progman]

haha, like msn.com is the only web site in the world that doesn't work with lynx... gimme a break, the reality is noone gives a flying fuck about the handful of retards who still use Lynx.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[hamster foo]

I figured it was probably Opera. It seems like I've heard of multiple sites making an effort to specifically block Opera.

It's sad that a lot of sites use javascript agent strings to determine if the browser is compatible with a site.

Another curiousity thing, does it work if you change the browser ID for Opera? I realize you shouldn't have to change that, just another point of curiousity.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[shokk]

Speaking of subscriptions, what we are seeing is the last of the free Internet services evaporating. I think that the recent MN idea about taxing VoIP will be the foot in the door to tax other protocols. You are right, everything will be subscription-based, but once you add all those little $9.99/month services, they will be too expensive to be worth it anymore. The current email virus state will cause ISPs to invest heavily in secure solutions (or be forced to by law) and make email more expensive than being wrapped up in your ISP subscription or free as in Yahoo.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a big deal because a few years ago, our friends in Redmond were accusing AOL of being a big evil empire and trying to dominate instant messaging. They were pushing for open protocols and allowing third party clients to connect to all the major IM networks. In fact, it was one of the few times Microsoft has come out in favor of open standards and protocols. Now that it's convenient for them, they've bundled the MSN Messenger client in Windows, and they're in a good position to compete with AOL, they close the service off. First of all, this is blatant hypocrisy on the part of Microsoft. Second, it's anti-competitive behavior. These are the initial steps Microsoft is taking to do to AOL what they did to Netscape.

Microsoft does not charge for the MSN Messenger client. The only business move here is keeping some clients off their network. Since Microsoft refuses to release software for Linux, *BSD, and a few other operating systems, they not only knock some clients off their network but lock out users of these operating systems.

Remember also that the government has cracked down at times on AOL's instant messenging service. And even if AOL locks some users off Oscar, there still is TOC. I'm well aware of the limitations of TOC, but the users aren't completely booted off the network.

Sure, hypocrisy is legal. But it's generally frowned upon.

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[toriver]

Actually, http://members.msn.com works well in Opera (7.11 for Windows at least) once you set it to identify as MSIE 6.0 :/

Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients

[pen]

Yes, and I'm sure that you can log onto the MSN Messenger service fine with other clients after you set them to identify as the official client. The point is that they are attempting to block access from clients not in a certain set.

Dropping support isnt the key

[SkoZombie]

However, providing a good option for migration is, which is why multi-protocol chat programs is important.

If we can work together to make a client (and there's plenty out there such as GAIM etc) that is as user-friendly and easy to install as MSN, then it would go a long way to solving this problem.

The new MSN has gimics to get ppl to use it, like integrated games, once you have a protocol defined surely it wouldnt be too hard to have a nicely defined API so people could write add-ons?

Re:Dropping support isnt the key

[I(rispee_I(reme]

I doubt that MSN messenger's ease of install will be beaten- it's preinstalled by default in Windows XP home.

Re:Dropping support isnt the key

[dhawton]

And also Windows XP Professional.

Re:Dropping support isnt the key

[x3r0ph00l]

Yeah and you cant shut it down...why does this remind me of what they did with Internet Explorer, and how is it any less of a move to protect or create an IM monopoly?

Re:Dropping support isnt the key

[Reece400]

Not just home, it's seems to be in every copy of XP, home or not, to my experience..

Reece,

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[cybermace5]

Not sure why the parent post is marked Flamebait, I completely agree. The MSN client is so bloated that I won't use it.

What are IM systems for? Communication. There is no logic in restricting the end-user's choice of interface. You don't see telephone companies selling phones that won't work unless you call someone with another phone made by them, do you? If you want to control and profit from a service, you charge for the use of the communication channel and allow users to choose their interface.

That said, no one will use a pay IM service unless that's all there is. They're trying to force people to use their interface, then add so many features that everyone uses it and AIM/ICQ/Yahoo/Jabber die off...and then, open your checkbooks!

Lost. So very, very lost.

[mcrbids]

Microsoft once tried (and failed) to get AIM opened to the public. They wanted to establish an "open" IM protocol.

Numerous fights between MS and AOL ensured.

Fast forward a few years. Now MS has something. AIM is no longer a near monopoly, and MSN is paying the bill. Suddenly they don't want to be so open. What happened to their cries for "openness"?

Gee, what a surprise. Do they ever surprise? No, I don't think so, either.

Re:Lost. So very, very lost.

[KillaMarcilla]

Yeah, the problem is that Microsoft is a corporate entity rather than a single person with a code of ethics..

Re:Lost. So very, very lost.

[LFS.Morpheus]

AIM is no longer a near monopoly, and MSN is paying the bill.

That's odd, I don't know anyone on MSN anymore. I think I had as many as 2 people on there, once, a few years ago, that I actually wanted to talk to. Now, everyone I know (tech savvy to end-users) -- my mom, my sisters, everyone -- uses AIM. After all, its what AOL users use. I guess someone uses it...

(Perhaps it doesn't help that I pretty much mandate that anyone who wants to talk online gets and uses AIM. Then they stick with it.)

Otherwise, I won't disagree with you. Clearly, one unified/open/interconnected chat network would benefit all end users. I hope that this backwards act by Microsoft will causes their network to (continue?) downhill...

Re:Lost. So very, very lost.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Open does not mean free. They could have banned all competitors' clients from entering the network, instead they are letting them in for a fee. So, as a matter of fact, by giving other companies formal access to the messenger network, Microsoft are making it MORE open, not LESS.

I wouldn't be surprised if AOL followed with a similar move, actually...

Re:Lost. So very, very lost.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good example of why we need a "-1, Idiot" moderation option.

Re:Lost. So very, very lost.

[pen]

Clearly, one unified/open/interconnected chat network would benefit all end users.

Now if we could just find someone to pay for it...

Re:Lost. So very, very lost.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Microsoft was complaining that AOL did not allow MSN Messenger to connect to the AIM network for free.

Re:Lost. So very, very lost.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft once tried (and failed) to get AIM opened to the public.

What happened to their cries for "openness"?

Turnabout is fair play and payback's a motherfucker.

Re:Lost. So very, very lost.

[IM6100]

Microsoft once tried (and failed) to get AIM opened to the public. They wanted to establish an "open" IM protocol.

Umm, when Microsoft failed to get AIM opened and established as an 'open' IM protocol, it seems like what the industry at a whole determined was that IM servers were proprietary and their funding interests could decide who and what could connect to them.

So they're just acting now within the spirit of what everybody (and I might add, all the Microsoft haters cheered on AIM during the fracas) decided was the way things would go.

Or is this really just another issue where whatever Microsoft does, we label as ba-aa-aa-ad??

Re:Lost. So very, very lost.

[Progman]

yeah, and then we could have one unified/open/interconnected network for email. Oh, wait...

Re:Lost. So very, very lost.

[rpillala]

I'm sure you'll agree it could be worse. I'm actually surprised that MS is doing this instead of taking the route of litigation. They seem to love litigation.

They have a point when they say various thir parties are using their network and charging for some versions of the software, but not supporting the network.

Ravi

Re:Lost. So very, very lost.

[Anonymous Coward]

billy gates is a person... without any ethics... so what's your point? People make the companies, different people - different companies. Select visely!

Before we start MS bashing...

[dafoomie]

I don't see anything wrong with this. MS built the network and maintains it, its their property. If someone else is going to sell software that uses their network that they pay for, they should get some of that money. Yes, they complained the most about AOL's closed networks, but this is different. If you make AOL's network work with MSN's network and both work with Yahoo's network, then you can all use the network since you're all bringing something to the table, you're all contributing. What does Trilian do for them? I think asking Trilian for a cut of what they charge is more than fair.
Don't like it? Build your own system, or use Jabber.

Re:Before we start MS bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trillian, as an example, allows more users on who otherwise couldn't get on the MSN Messaging network. These extra users increase the complement chatting partners, and since Windows is a monopoly and Messenger is basically installed everywhere now for Windows, that increases the chance of more users using Messenger which hence pays MS through ads. Ie, Linux, Mac OS X, etc users are adding an incentive to use a network. What I don't understand is why they don't just send the banner ads to every client then still claim the revenue for it regardless on whether they can verify if the banner is being shown. Or is this just a step towards that, like aimster using the real aim binary to login to make it undifferentiable from a "real" aim client thereby allowing all users to be considered ad revenue (note, aimster is just an example of the actual result of trying to block a network; the conspiracy belief that it's a way to claim all users as ad revenue is a separate issue).

Re:Before we start MS bashing...

[dafoomie]

The issue isn't if they'd be better served by allowing it or not, though that is very debatable. Though, I think you have it backwards - its not people on Trillian that attract people to use MSN - it's people who use MSN that attract people to both MSN and 3rd party clients on their network, like Trillian. If other people didn't use MSN exclusively, people wouldn't use Trillian for MSN.
What I don't understand is why they don't just send the banner ads to every client then still claim the revenue for it regardless on whether they can verify if the banner is being shown
If they did that, then companies would be very hesitant to buy ad space on MSN. The companies would realize they are paying for ads that are never seen eventually.
Your first point is more valid with a free client. Trillian has a pay version. If someone else is selling software that uses the network you own, you should get a cut of that.

Re:Before we start MS bashing...

[zsau]

I don't see anything wrong with this.

One thing all you people forget is that Microsoft abused their monopoly. I can remember a few years ago, everyone used ICQ. Microsoft starts putting MSNM into Windows. These days, everyone uses MSNM. Addmitedly, this situation differs from area to area, but I can't replace all my friends here in Melbourne with friends in NY just because they use AIM because NY is in a totally different country...

This is no different to Netscape. (Actually, it is, but it's worse, because there are free and suprerior offerings around, but Microsoft still wins out.)

Re:Before we start MS bashing...

[the_truk_stop]

I think asking Trilian for a cut of what they charge is more than fair.

Yes, that's true. But Trillian is only a drop in the pool. MSN has no offerings for the GNU/Linux operating system, and the only *nix clients that I'm aware of that are worth their salt are all free (such as Gaim). Asking them for a cut of what they charge is certainly a problem (10% of 0 = 0), so Microsoft has to demand licensing fees.

I would suggest a boycott of the MSN network.

Re:Before we start MS bashing...

[dafoomie]

These days, everyone uses MSNM. AIM has a comfortable lead, MSN and Yahoo are fighting it out for 2nd place. You complain about Microsoft putting MSN into Windows, but what about AOL bundling AIM with their service? I can remember a few years ago, everyone used ICQ Yeah, until AOL bought ICQ. Then ICQ started going down and AIM started going up. I used to use ICQ a lot. ICQ didnt go downhill because of MSN. It went away because didn't keep up with the competition in term of features. The other services kept getting better, and once AOL bought ICQ, not many resources were being put into it. Gee, you don't think AOL bought a rival service to slowly kill it off, do you?

Re:Before we start MS bashing...

[zsau]

AIM has a comfortable lead, MSN and Yahoo are fighting it out for 2nd place.

Read my post again. I mentioned this varies from region to region. The only (two) people I know that use AIM are not from around my area. The only person I know that uses Yahoo! also uses AIM and ICQ and MSNM. Abusing your monopoly to get another monopoly in a region is the same evil as abusing your monopoly to get a region in a large area.

This wouldn't bother me if I could just tell people to use AIM to talk to me because everyone else does. But I can't, because everyone else use MSNM, and I don't want to have to run Windows.

Re:Before we start MS bashing...

[luisdom]

Yeah, let them do with their monopolistic and illegal tactics.
Don't like it? Build your own government or swicht country.

<rant apologize/>

Re:Before we start MS bashing...

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You could demand that they do not force their clients on users by means of their monopoly, and fix the damage it has already done.

That means :
1) an I.M. to every existing MSN user saying there are alternatives, with a link to a jabber client (the one specified by the author of jabber)
2) make MSN messenger a separate product, which has to be BOUGHT SEPARATELY (ie NO DUMPING)
3) no advertisements inside windows for MSN messenger.

AFTER they do that, they can close their network all they want.

Re:Before we start MS bashing...

[arkane1234]

Actually you were stating large scale falacies like everyone uses MSN messenger.

Just because you don't know anyone who uses it doesn't mean it's unused.

To quote another person on slashdot (I wish I knew who it was, it was a good quote): "There are no black people at any of my friends houses, so therefore black people do not exist."

Re:Before we start MS bashing...

[zsau]

I was using a form of hyperbole. Both 'everyone' and 'everyone in my area' contain the word 'everyone'. I said 'Addmitedly, this situation differs from area to area'. I'm talking about what's relevant to me and other people in my situation.

Can't afford???

[Anonymous Coward]

"'We can't sustain multiple other people's businesses"

Like hell they can't.
$40b liquid in the bank, nothing but time to blow, (seeing as how they don't do anything useful, like fix their freaking software.)

Everytime I see something like this it makes me proud that I've never give a freaking penny to that damn monopoly.

I'll be much happier when GW gets the hell outta office and we can go back to slapping the hell out of companies like M$ in court.

Re:Can't afford???

[dafoomie]

"'We can't sustain multiple other people's businesses" Like hell they can't. $40b liquid in the bank, nothing but time to blow Why the hell should they support other people's business without getting a cut of the profits? Doesn't matter if they have 40 billion or 40 dollars in the bank. They don't have to let Trilian get a free ride.

Re:Can't afford???

[LostCluster]

Let's face it, anybody whose running anything other than the officially certified interfaces to an IM network is essentially stealing a service. MSN is at least letting other developers stay in the game if they pay up, AIM's main tactic has been to styfle any such developer with sudden changes to the protcol.

Re:Can't afford???

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let's get rid of GW; he doesn't make it a crime to be sucessful. What we need is a party that will introduce a 100% tax rate and then provide all services (free internet, free food, etc).

Re:Can't afford???

[Anonymous Coward]

Like anyone sending mail via an SMTP network?
Or anyone browsing the web using HTTP?
Or anyone reading news using NNTP?

Re:Can't afford???

[dafoomie]

Like anyone sending mail via an SMTP network? Or anyone browsing the web using HTTP? Or anyone reading news using NNTP? I knew someone would say this. There is a huge, huge difference here. Microsoft does not own the entire internet. It does not own every http server or mail server. Microsoft owns the entire MSN network. They made it, they paid for it, they own it. You can send and recieve mail through an SMTP network, but you can't send and recieve mail through someone else's private mail servers (unless they're dumb, and many are, but you're still not supposed to). If you don't like what Microsoft does with its property, which they can rightfully do, use an open system like Jabber, which I encourage everyone to do.

Re:Can't afford???

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing a service, that comes for free?

Re:Can't afford???

[Procyon101]

Probably a troll, but I'll bite because I think his logic is the basis of a collection of opinions on the subject.

1) 40b liquid in the bank is theirs, not yours. They earned it, you didn't. Bitch all you want about them having poor market ethics, monopolistic practices, etc. in an attempt to set things straight, but saying that because someone has something you don't they should support you is the logic of a common theif.

2) They fix their software and they do useful things, otherwise they wouldn't be in the market. Compare Win95 to XP and tell me that they have been sitting idle.

3) The fact that you are a computer user bitching on slashdot about them, but have never spent a dime on any of their products kindof flies in the face of them being a monopoly, doesn't it?

They own a bunch of servers that make MSN Messanger possible. They can do whatever they want with them. If you want to give a whole bunch of server resources away for free, go right ahead, but being as you don't, stop bitching that they don't want to either.

Re:Can't afford???

[gl4ss]

2) They fix their software and they do useful things, otherwise they wouldn't be in the market. Compare Win95 to XP and tell me that they have been sitting idle.

they have been sitting idle.

duh. you asked for it(how about a full code evaluation to see if there's any seriously exploitable bugs in the reused code? nooo that's too much work).
-

Re:Can't afford???

[Procyon101]

Been there done that. `Last year ALL windows and SQL code was closely reviewed for security flaws. This move was given top priority and new feature development was put on hold until it's completion.

Re:Can't afford???

[dafoomie]

It's given away but its not free. Advertising pays for your service. Advertising money that they lose when people use other clients.

Re:Can't afford???

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You could demand that they do not force their clients on users by means of their monopoly.

That means :
1) an I.M. to every existing MSN user saying there are alternatives, with a link to a jabber client (the one specified by the author of jabber)
2) make MSN messenger a separate product, which has to be BOUGHT SEPARATELY (ie NO DUMPING)
3) no advertisements inside windows (or any other microsoft software) for MSN messenger.

AFTER they do that, they can close their network all they want.

Re:Can't afford???

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Earned it?! Are we talking about the same entity here? Where conservative estimates are that 80 cents on the dollar is profit? (think of the money spent by hospitals/schools/etc. sent to M$!*?#@! M$! Constantly sued for stealing technology/ideas from other companies, then incorporating it, and selling it? Sueing anyone who remotely appears to be a threat to their monopoly? This is your idea of "earning?"
Guess you think wealthy criminals "earn" their money as well!

2) Nonsense. And yes, they haven't been idle. They've been making things worse...:-)

More bloat, more holes, more crashes, more time, etc.

Oh, and you did use the appropriate word: "market". M$ is just one huge marketing/advertising company, which has been very successful in selling crap to the public.

3) One of the many reasons I use Linux now is that I became tired of the unlimited number of "dimes" I was spending to get anything useful done.

And I'd be quite content if all MSN Messenger servers (make that ALL M$ servers), dropped off the face of the earth and were never seen or heard from again! Then perhaps more useful things would get done with what remains, and we all know what would be remaining, as recent viral events have demonstrated :-)

Re:Can't afford???

[RedSynapse]

1) Should that 40B in the bank really belong to Microsoft? Lets say I'm a water seller and I beat-up and intimidate every competitor in a 100 kilometre radius till the exit the market, then start selling water for $50 a glass - would you then say "Bitch all you want about having poor market ethics, monopolistic practices.. he earned it?" Earning something through fair competition is different from living on the proceeds of crime.

2) Lots of monopolistic companies have done useful things. Standard Oil revolutionized the distribution of petroleum products. But it also used it's monopoly power to crush the competition. You have to look at the total costs and benefits.

3) Oh come on, a monopoly only needs to have an overwhelming influence on a market to be a monopoly. Saying "Look there are still 5% of home desktop users out there that aren't using a Microsoft OS!" is pretty solid evidence that MS IS an monopoly, not otherwise.

The reason MS can afford to throw away a bunch of money at IM and XBOX and well everything besides its OS, OFFICE, and intellimouse, is that it reaps huge monopoly profits from those products. I read an article recently that said there is a 90% plus profit margin on its OS and OFFICE products. That's not normal, or indicative of a healthy market.

So yeah, they own the servers, and they can make people pay. Now give me that $50 for that glass of water. Fair's fair.

Re:Can't afford???

[Procyon101]

Rubuttal to point 2: I agree with you on your statement, but I think you agreed with mine too ;) They do do useful things, monopoly or not.

Anyway, your point is well taken, and I agree with you logic about the water, but the fact is you don't have to pay $50 for water! I am typing this in Mozilla on a box running Slackware 9. Nothing I am using right now has any connection to Microsoft, and that I think is the best defense for them NOT being a monopoly. Sure, they might be selling a glass of water for $50, but no one is forced to buy it for lack of options. If they can get away with it through excellent marketing, etc, good for them. Are designer jeans really that much better than generic? No? Then are they a monopoly because they charge too much?

As for is their money really theirs? You may not agree with how they got it, and that's what the courts are for, but they have done alot of work and put out a decent product and sold alot of copies. They might deserve to pay reperations to some people for not being completely ethical in some situations, but they don't owe the world networkinf infrastructure just because they have money. Unless you were crushed out of buisness by unfair practices (not simply competition) by Microsoft, you have no claim to ANY of their money.

Re:Can't afford???

[Procyon101]

I have to disagree with Microsoft making their products worse. Did you ever use Win95? Have you used XP? Security has increased dramatically, holes have been plugged all over the place and the system is actually stable enough to use now. MUCH better. Now as for bloat..... lol

And an 80% profit margin is not evil. It's what the market will bear. If viable alternatives are available for less, then the market won't bear that markup (Apple is good, but more expensive. Linux is not quite there yet, trust me, I'm using it and as a software engineer I rather enjoy it for it's power and elegance, but I won't be giving it to granny anytime soon)

I don't see anything wrong with this..

[Heartz]

What wrong with this. Trillian and other third party client which charge people for premium software using microsoft's network should be paying microsoft for profiting from their network. MS is not saying they can't connect to the MSN network. All their asking is to share a little bit of the cost burden. What's wrong with that?

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[smcn]

The last time I used Trillian (granted it was about 6 months ago) I didn't have to pay anything and I didn't get any ad/spyware, AFAIK it's completely optional. And other (better) clients like Miranda and Kopete are completely free.

As a previous poster stated, it has nothing to do with cost, it has to do with control.

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[boa13]

All their asking is to share a little bit of the cost burden. What's wrong with that?

Maybe the bit will not be little? I can see other problems for third-party clients, such as being restricted to a subset of functionnalities, being forbidden to reverse-engineer other parts of the protocol (if it evolves, for example), well actually all the problems you can have being a licensee to such a corporation, especially since you have no strength on your own and completely rely on the licensor goodwill.

Don't get me wrong however: I think this network is Microsoft's private property, and they can do whatever they want (as long as the FCC doesn't invite itself in - which is perhaps why they're "opening" their network to third-parties).

We still have Jabber, and we cannot lose it, so let's go Jabber!

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[Thomas M Hughes]

To the best of my knowledge, this move will completely lock out all Linux MSN clients. There are no third party clients which charge people, but there are a few free clients (GAIM, AMSN, etc) which have no way of raising money for a licensing fee.

Personally it just means I need to try and convince people to run Jabber. That's not an easy task mind you.

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[sqmagellan]

As said earlier on the topic, it's about Microsoft's control. Legally they can do what they will with their own network, but it's the moral implications that unsettle me. Poor grandma is not going to care about people getting locked out, or switching to another service; all she did was click the link that popped up when she first turned out her computer, and if it works, it's good enough for her.

AIM or Yahoo can't claim many people like that. Ya'd figure with a recruitment tool and large base, MSN would want to remain open, to get more chatter flowing.

But this is Microsoft. Chatter matters little compared to the profit potential of a captive crowd like that!

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[GrouchoMarx]

All their asking is to share a little bit of the cost burden. What's wrong with that?

On the surface, nothing. It's a reasonable request. However, not all 3rd party IM clients charge (GAIM and Kopete come to mind, gee, both for GNU/Linux...), so not all 3rd party clients' developers have money to buy a license, even if they wanted to. That puts free (beer) IM programs at an automatic disadvantage.

Quoth Microsoft person: 'Running an (IM) network is expensive,'

Yes, I don't doubt it. That's why the monolithic IM network concept is inherently flawed. Architecturally, I FAR prefer the design of Jabber, for precisely that reason. It's distributed, the same way the email network is. No one person/company bears the burden of maintaining it, and anyone can setup their own jabber server on their own domain, just as you can setup your own SMTP server. It's far more stable (no single point of failure like Passport), far cheaper (cost is the same as for email; time of whoever runs the server, which could be yourself if you want), and doesn't suffer from the potential for abuse from the company that owns the server farm (MS, AOL, Yahoo!)

I have a few issues with Jabber's use of XML as a message encoding system (very verbose for sending to per-KB-billed handhelds and phones), but the basic architecture concept is far supeior to any of the Big Four. As soon as I manage to get a working server going, I want to try and move my company over to Jabber for our online communication. (We've been using MSM, with me on GAIM, but that won't work for much longer...)

Really, I encourage everyone to take a serious look at Jabber as what the future of IM should be.

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[zangdesign]

Jabber is fine for small-group communication, but how well does it handle communication between individuals with different groupings, without having to have a multitude of Jabber servers?

For instance, I use IM to talk to people I work with and my friends. To connect all of them, someone would need to have a Jabber server set up that could connect all of us. No big problem, but then these others would need to access Jabber servers to talk to their friends who had no connection to me.

So then you have a problem with Jabber server proliferation (which is probably good for Jabber, but not so good for the people who have no interest in running it).

A monolithic service such as MSN can easily handle the requirements of communication with these groups, but Jabber cannot.

This is poorly stated, but I hope you see the point here.

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[jrumney]

Jabber is fine for small-group communication, but how well does it handle communication between individuals with different groupings, without having to have a multitude of Jabber servers?

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at. Having a multitude of servers is optional. There are a number of public Jabber servers around that anyone can sign up to. All of them interoperate with each other.

For instance, I use IM to talk to people I work with and my friends. To connect all of them, someone would need to have a Jabber server set up that could connect all of us.

Which any Jabber server can. The Jabber network is not lots of independant monolithic Jabber servers, it is a distributed network of Jabber servers (although you can run a private closed server if you want). You seem to be confused about the capabilities of Jabber.

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[Anonymous Coward]

the wrong this is that ms is is giving it's client away for free.

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[Torne]

Jabber does not require you to be on the same server as the people you are communicating with. It works the same way as email. If your Jabber id is user@myserver.org, then anyone on any Jabber server can contact you; their server will simply contact myserver.org's Jabber server to send messages.

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[IM6100]

It's a reasonable request. However, not all 3rd party IM clients charge (GAIM and Kopete come to mind, gee, both for GNU/Linux...), so not all 3rd party clients' developers have money to buy a license, even if they wanted to. That puts free (beer) IM programs at an automatic disadvantage.

Oh well.

If I stand on the sidewalk outside your house and offer free crowbars to anybody interested in breaking in your house, you are not required to allow them to break and enter.

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean like AOL and Yahoo are?

Re:I don't see anything wrong with this..

[arkane1234]

If I stand on the sidewalk outside your house and offer free crowbars to anybody interested in breaking in your house, you are not required to allow them to break and enter.

You're absolutely right, so don't do it.

Geez.

re: i'm sorry

[dollargonzo]

*i'm* sorry, but your last point doesn't make sense. should the people who make roads get money from the people who make cars? that is the logic you seem to be following. they created a service. you are correct that they are losing revenue from banner advertisements, but that should be a matter of the client you use. apart from banners, there is absolutely no difference. as someone else mentioned, it's about control. as soon as you open up the roads, you can't say (100 years later) that only fords can drive on them.

And su you should be

[NickFortune]

"Nice"? Nice had nothing to do with it!

This was no nicer of them than it was nice when they decided to "give away" internet explorer with windows. That move was aimed at killing off Netscape. This particular MS freebie has been intended to freeze out yahoo, aol, icq and the rest.

The make it free and allow 3rd party clients so they can get the user base. Now they have that user base, its time to start freezing out the free clients. When that's done, there'll only be on free messenger program for MSN. How long do yur suppose the pay clients will last after that? Espcially once MS starts messing about with the protocol to bugger them up.

And when the majority of people use MSN running the MS client - that's when they start charging for it.

"Nice!"

Re:And su you should be

[zangdesign]

The[sic] make it free and allow 3rd party clients so they can get the user base.

I would question whether Microsoft made the service completely free OR just didn't object when programmers reverse-engineered their protocols.

Now they're objecting. I don't think it's so much a matter of security so much as liability and cost of maintaining the network. Still and all, it's well within their rights to terminate outside clients that aren't licensed.

Not saying it's a good thing, it's just what is.

Re:And su you should be

[NanoGator]

"That move was aimed at killing off Netscape"

Yeah, damn Microsoft for putting Netscape into a position where they'd have to compete by making the product better. Imagine if other IM producers had to make their software better too. Oh the horror.

If the XBOX has shown us anything, its that MS can't make a monopoly out of everything if the market chooses a better alternative.

Re:And su you should be

[742Evergreen]

It's not that MSN is better, it's more that it came pre-installed with the OS and was very hard to remove for the average user.

It's very hard for a program which does almost the same (ICQ, AIM) to compete with a similar program that always starts up when you boot.

The way this takeover was played out kinda reminds me of the way IE conquered the browser market, by bundeling the program with the OS.

Re:And su you should be

[Awptimus Prime]

"The make it free and allow 3rd party clients so they can get the user base. Now they have that user base, its time to start freezing out the free clients. When that's done, there'll only be on free messenger program for MSN. How long do yur suppose the pay clients will last after that? Espcially once MS starts messing about with the protocol to bugger them up."

Oh they are so terrible? I tell ya what. Since you are obviously not like them, that is, you seem upset with their practices, why don't you: go develop a functional IM client, build a network to house it, get a few colo boxes, then a few million users. Oh yes, you HAVE to support it on banners alone AND allow 3rd party developers to write software for, and charge for it, while keeping it completely free to the end user.

Um, yeah. You'll be rich. riiiiiiight.....

1: Run free, but costly service
2: ???
3: Profit! /much needed sarcasm

Re:And su you should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to let you in on something incase you didn't already know. Sometimes even the best technology/product doesn't win because of marketing/politics/etc. behind another one. Maybe Microsoft did make better software than other companies at times. You still can't throw out all the possibly anticompetitive things they have done to take that position. Also, with Microsoft had their OS, third party software obviously had a major disadvantage running software on their OS as opposed to Microsoft having the full source of the OS at their hands.

Re:And su you should be

[thing12]

and was very hard to remove for the average user

Huh? Control Panel : Add/Remove Programs : Add/Remove Windows Components : uncheck the box for Windows Messenger. I don't have msnim.exe on my windows boxes , and iirc that's I'll I had to do to get it that way.

Re:And su you should be

[GoofyBoy]

AOL IM went to amazing lengths to block out Trillian and I'm sure other 3rd party clients too.

MS wasn't the first one to do something about this issue.

Re:And su you should be

[Anonymous Coward]

why did they say this then http://www.petri.co.il/uninstall_windows_messenger .htm

Re:And su you should be

[HiThere]

step 2a: Kill off all other vendors. Gain market share. Become seen as necessary.
step 2b: Begin escalating prices, while changing, and perhaps concealing, protocols.

(I'm sure there are some more sub-steps in there that I should have disentangled, but I'm already up to four steps.)

Re:And su you should be

[archen]

And when the majority of people use MSN running the MS client - that's when they start charging for it

MS wouldn't charge for it, it's not in their best interest. What they'll do instead is try to keep it as a windows only technology as much as possible, integrate it into the OS, and try to leverage it in other ways. That way they have another method of locking people into windows - which is a big concern of theirs now days.

Re:And su you should be

[HiThere]

And to the extent that AOL is a monopoly (a lot less than MS!) I disapprove of their action as strongly.

Many acts aren't good or bad themselves, but only in a context. Monopoly is bad in-and-of itself (because it always gets abused). Market dominance is along the same axis, but not as far.

Were I writing laws, monopoly restrictions would begin a scaled kicking in when you reached 50% of the market (any market, though I assume some restrictions are necessary. Left-handed Lithiuanian Tailors doesn't deserve the same regulation as Internet Users doesn't deserve the same regulation as humans doesn't deserve the same regulation as breathers (i.e., those who use the atmosphere in their vital processes) doesn't...

Thus the most stringint regulations would apply to entities which tried to monopolize the Universe, and the least stringent would apply to monopolizing an optional accessory for blond men with warts on their noses and long pinky fingernails.

Thus AOL does not deserve the same degree of criticism as MS.

Re:And su you should be

[Doctor_Jest]

Give me a BREAK. Netscape charged for its browser. No matter HOW much better it was than IE, IE was free, and people like free. Sure Netscape could just dump the thing and try to sell server space or mail accounts, but they were making a BROWSER, and MS came in (like ALL monopolies do), undercut at a huge loss (initially) making a free browser, bundling it with their OS, effectively locking out Netscape from competition.

Granted some versions of Netscape are trash, but the fact STILL remains that MS abused its power to squash competition.

Read any history book about Standard Oil or other Robber Baron era company, and you'll see how textbook Microsoft is about squashing its competition.

Microsoft put Netscape in a position where it COULDN'T compete. Remember, Microsoft is whining about Linux, saying "how can you compete with free?" Something's beating them at their own game, and they are fuming.

As for their IM licensing. Just ANOTHER example of "the first one's free kiddies." Get them hooked. Then close the door behind them, locking them into your version of the Internet. Way to go, Bill!

All the XBox has shown us is that Microsoft doesn't understand the console business. Sony's already a huge player, and Nintendo is as well. Entrenched businesses are harder to uproot with typical Microsoft tactics. They are Netscape in the console equation after IE is the de-facto browser for Windows. The only way MS can compete with that entrenched marketshare is to give away the Xbox. But I don't think the Japanese would take that console even for free.

Re:And su you should be

[Alan]

He was talking about IE.

Re:And su you should be

[Awptimus Prime]

Dude,

They can go ahead and charge away. Nobody will pay up. Not as long as there's alternatives. For instance, I don't know anyone who uses MSN anymore. Everybody I know uses ICQ, AOL, and Jabber. If AOL, ICQ and MSN started charging, you would immediately see new players jump in and do ad-supported, free alternatives.

It really gets boring dealing with the negative, doomsday-predicting attitudes on here. Microsoft sucks. They are the worst thing to happen since the old days of IBM. They'll screw up at some point, then never recover fully. Someone else will step in to be the big, scarey monster you people need so badly to sleep at night.

I really can't imagine any modern company doing business any differently than M$ does, given the position they are in. The company, itself, is not an evil entity. The evil entity is the US legal system for making the way they conduct business remain profitable. Who runs that legal system? Last time I checked, We the People do.

gee what took'em so long?

[KingRamsis]

This was going to happen sooner or later, IM was not going to sell if it was introduced with a price tag, first give it away for free, then when it becomes "something you can't live without" they will charge you for it.

like it or not you are using MS servers and maintaing those servers running costs money, and if you are using a third party client you can take out the ads. and that is simply not acceptable.
so they secure the client first,next step charge you for access, and I have more bad news for you... expect a similar move by yahoo and AOL.

solution ? the opensource community comes up with with a distrbuted IM system that relies on loosely coupled servers, something like freenet.

Re:gee what took'em so long?

[6079_Smith]

solution ? the opensource community comes up with with a distrbuted IM system that relies on loosely coupled servers, something like freenet.

Jabber does that already.

bullshit alarm

[dollargonzo]

if microsoft was really concerned with the cost of running a service, particularly the servers, they would adopt a protocol like jabber that allows anyone to run a server. every business aims (or rather should aim) to minimize their cost while maximizing their profits. microsoft clearly just doesn't care

Re:bullshit alarm

[Laconian]

I think what it comes down to is control. By using their own protocol, Microsoft becomes the epicenter of all communications, which gives them the ability to leverage other technologies down its customers' throats. As has been demonstrated with the latest Netmeeting and Outlook Express and MSNIM, Microsoft isn't afraid to construct a web of dependencies between its applications. If you get one product, prepare to have five unrelated applications shoved down your throat as well. When every single user is at your beck and call, you don't have to fight as hard to push your agenda.

Re:bullshit alarm

[ax_42]

Quoteth the parent:

if microsoft was really concerned with the cost of running a service, particularly the servers, they would adopt a protocol like jabber that allows anyone to run a server. every business aims (or rather should aim) to minimize their cost while maximizing their profits. microsoft clearly just doesn't care

M$, like any company, is not interested in costs but interested in profit.

Profit = Income - Costs

Banner ads shown through their client = income.
IM clients on their network = costs.

Non M$ IM clients on the MSN network generate costs without generating income. Using an open protocol allowing anyone onto (part of) their network also generates cost without generating income (in the banner-ad model, anyways). Other charging models (eg per KByte sent) would generate an uproar.

Make no mistake, M$ cares very, very much. But remember, their goal is to make profit, not to support standards.

3rd party clients

[QuasiRob]

Obviously a ploy to price the 3rd party clients off of their servers. Having control of the client software gives them more control over what we see and hear. But whats next? Will they, for example, stop 3rd party browsers such as Opera from being able to access their web servers? Oh...wait....deja vu

Re:3rd party clients

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! And they'll point a gun at the back of your head and make you kiss Bill Gates' ring if you're not careful.

Remain vigilant! Never trust ANYTHING to do with Microsoft! Always assume the worst!

(you fucking dork)

Re: i'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic is flawed, if a buisness owned all roads, and had to pay for the ability for each car to use it, and that company designed roads to work using its car that had mechanisms to generate money to help pay for said road, then the analogy would work. But the way it is in reality the roads are public property, microsoft's IM service isnt. so the analogy doesnt work. Microsoft foots the bill for the service, that gives them the right to attempt to charge people that want to use it outside their sphere of influence.

Re: i'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, but roads are a physical object. their network is data that has to be paid for to exist. if you stopped paying for road maintenance, odds are it will still be there tomorrow. if you stop paying for hosting fee's and whatever prices are paid to support the network, then the network goes away.

anyone?

[dbc001]

so what is the best alternative IM client? i know that trillian supports IRC, does it work as well as the IM networks like MSN/AIM? (I'm currently using trillian with MSN and ICQ and it's been very tolerable.)

is there a usable IM client that uses an open protocol? how about jabber has anyone had good luck with it? i'll use alpha software if it does things right...

Re:anyone?

[timerider]

i use jabber, and as client i recommend psi because its good. and its not only good, but its good on unix, mac and windows, without being the evil that is java ;)

bye,
[L]

Re:anyone?

[Triumph The Insult C]

trillian pro 2.0 (in beta) supports jabber, or any network for that matter, through plugins. have to pay for it though.

MSN Freedom

[ratfynk]

MyComputer\ControlPanel\addremoveprograms
Scroll down to MSN messanger, click add\remove, if it tries to add click cancel, if it starts the script to remove MSN just keep clicking yes. End of MSN software problem. When daugthter or other person installs it again just repeat procedure. They will get the idea, sooner or later.

Re:MSN Freedom

[mvdw]

When daugthter or other person installs it again just repeat procedure.

Problems:

• Daughter can't live without MSN messenger (ever tried telling a 14yo she can't chat with her friends??).
• Daughter has her own computer (as with all geek households, we have > 1 PC per person).
• All of said daughter's friends use MSN, so if she were to try jabber or similar, she wouldn't have anyone to chat to (not much point in chatting to self...).

Of course, once MS starts charging for use of MSN messenger, then she will be either putting a very strong case to her friends for jabber, or she'll be not IM'ing at all.

Re:MSN Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

What's so wrong with just not using it yourself, and leaving other people alone who share your computer?

Maybe it's time for some of us to teach your daughter the 'fdisk /mbr' command and some of the other tricks for killing Linux boot sectors on your boxes...

Re:MSN Freedom

[quantum bit]

All of said daughter's friends use MSN, so if she were to try jabber or similar, she wouldn't have anyone to chat to (not much point in chatting to self...).

I have an eliza bot on the Jabber network she could talk to. Not the best converstaionalist, but it beats talking to yourself...

Re:MSN Freedom

[ratfynk]

not a problem I just dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda ..this kind of takes care of Windows software, viruses, worms and other annoyances perminently. Besides cfdisk works better. Not to mention which fdisk can be removed from windows and you can still boot if you edit your sys. Tricky old fart that I am. I wish she would learn a little about this sort of thing then she would stop adding windows shitware in the first place, I am the one that has to clean out all the shit and spyware that gets left behind. MS is going to start charging for messanger, and updates. What happens to them after they release the much touted longhorn I could care less. The entertainment restrictions that will be applied will make MS really hurt, I have the feeling people will just not rush out and buy it this time around and they certainly will not pay to patch their systems.

p2p IM

[SlashDread]

Isnt that less costly? Is it around? Company servers suck. /Dread

Re:p2p IM

[quantum bit]

It's called Jabber.

Not P2P, but it's decentralized like e-mail so anybody can run a server and chat with people on other servers.

Exponential Growth, Feedback Loop.

[Databass]

If you add one more phone to a network, millions more potential person-to-person calls can be made. The value grows exponentially and.

If I were a regular MSN user, this decision would affect many of my PERSONAL friends using Trillian who can't message me anymore. My buddy list shrinks. No MSN-only buddies to talk to? That sucks,I quit. That causes other peoples' MSN buddy lists to shrink. They quit. Pretty soon MSN Messenger has the rep "Well, no one uses it, so why should I?" Negative feedback loop.

Having everyone leave MSN Messenger should reduce their costs like they want anyway.

Re:Exponential Growth, Feedback Loop.

[LostCluster]

I think the point is, Trillian will most likely pay up since it has a revenue model behind it... but any dreams of an OSS MSN client die here.

Re:Exponential Growth, Feedback Loop.

[Anonymous Coward]

>I think the point is, Trillian will most likely pay up since it has a
>revenue model behind it... but any dreams of an OSS MSN client die
>here.
>
>
And who cares? I don't run IM software and quite frankly don't want anything to do with IM users who are basically losers like you.

What's really rich here is that assholes like you ran around sneering at people who said AOL had every right to shut Microsoft IM software out of their network because Microsoft wasn't paying anything to AOL for the upkeep of AOL's network. What a *JOKE*!

Re:Exponential Growth, Feedback Loop.

[Anonymous Coward]

when 95% of the IM market can access MSN it's Trillian's share that shrinks when connectivity is lost

security reasons... right.

[wotevah]

I for one am glad Microsoft have finally identified the gaping security hole in that otherwise fine operating system that causes all these worms and insecurity on the Internet. Today is a great day for Windows users, for they are finally safe from all the Internet hackers once and for all.

Re:security reasons... right.

[QEDog]

I use a non-MSN IM client, and I've been getting messages at logon from MSN that I have to upgrade my IM software for security reasons. In my client I can't seem to be able to block those system messages. Has anyone else had this problem during the last few days? I really feel MSN is sending unwanted messages (spam) to force me to use their client.

Trillian, $25 or $30 with MSN support*

[FryGuy1013]

End users paying to connect to MSN messenger using non-microsoft software. A real good idea.

(* I don't think Trillian should charge people for the MSN component since it's completely seperate from the rest of Trillian. I don't use MSN, so why should I have make Cerulean Studios to pay for it?)

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Jason1729]

You don't see telephone companies selling phones that won't work unless you call someone with another phone made by them, do you?

No, but up until relatively recently you couldn't get your own phone at all, you had to lease them from the phone company. That way they could also make sure you didn't just plug in another phone without paying an extra fee for the other jack because you couldn't buy a phone at all. Today, who would think of paying an extra fee for each phone jack? It's free. There are still a lot of elderly people paying $5-10/month to lease phones they've been paying for for 30 years or more. It's sad that the phones are worth less than 1 month's fee.

IM is still in it's infancy so there will be silly restrictions like this.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Interesting...

[superchkn]

At first glance this is predictable and understandable. Why would one build a network and let people make money off that network without contributing back? That's pretty much all the GPL asks of those using protected code, abstractly of course :-)

What doesn't really have any justification is locking out all clients. That is unless there is a licensing agreement between Microsoft and Apple which would clear up the reasoning for supporting Macs but not open source platforms like Linux...

But it's very possible that there is a licensing agreement of which I've not been aware.
(Then I'd only have one hundred issues with Microsoft rather than one hundred and one.)

Re:Interesting...

[superchkn]

I've heard that they have banner ads showing up on MSN Messenger, so I guess that would help the reasoning to support the Mac.

At the same time, I'm sure they justify (well, externally) the lack of Linux support to insufficient market presence. Going by that logic, the use of their network by Linux users should be insignificant, right?

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to justify locking out clients.

It's their network. They can do what they damn well like it it.

Re:Interesting...

[oscarmv]

Well, there IS an official MSN client for the mac (at 3.5.1). It is being supported through this.

Not as full-featured as the Win version, not as bloated either. Some people actually prefer the mac client if they just do text chatting.

Obviously MS won't touch linux with a 10 foot pole, so the chances for an official client there are less than zero.

Re:Interesting...

[superchkn]

Well, that's what I mean. Strange that there is a version for Macs, but no version for Linux.

Not really strange, we know why that is ;-) Somewhat inconsistent maybe is a better term.

Why I run GAIM.

[DKConstant]

So I don't have 4 different IM clients running at any one given time. And until MS offers that kind of functionality, they can bite my bag. (i'm reminded here of MSIE's support for tabbed browsing)

In addition, is MS REALLY losing money? The way i see it, most people using multi-protocol clients are fairly immune to the Techni-color lure of banner ads. Word.

Re:Why I run GAIM.

[dbirchall]

Yes, of course MS is losing money! Hand over fist. The only stuff they turn a profit on, if I recall, are Windows itself (oh, and I don't mean Windows CE, er, Pocket PC, er, Windows Mobile, since that probably loses money) and Office. Everything else? Go out and paint the balance sheet red...

Re:Why I run GAIM.

[Procyon101]

Yes, they really lose money, since advertisers pay for eyeballs seeing their ads. The effectiveness of their ads is their problem, not Microsofts.

Re:Why I run GAIM.

[cj171]

Hey GAIM, tell em F U and we'll find another way to get back on msn...

Re:Why I run GAIM.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 4? Why settle for bloated and buggy gaim when you can run Miranda?

Re:Why I run GAIM.

[arkane1234]

Probably because Miranda works on that other operating system.
You know.. Windows?

Gaim can do far more than 4 protocols, he was just using a nice even number.

Here's why this is bad...

[GabrielStrange]

Here's why I think this is bad... Because, once the dust settles, once everyone agrees that there isn't any legal ground to stop MSN from doing this, MSN will try to spin this as if it AIN'T THEIR FAULT.

So when your old buddy or your sister or whomever gets a brand spankin' new Windows PC, and naturally installs MSN on it just because he knows MSN is Microsoft and he uses Microsoft so that must be the one that's most compatible, and finds out that despite the fact that you claim to use some fancy program called GAIM that'll talk to "practically every other IM program there IS!" in fact you aren't able to talk to him, he'll probably laugh at you and tell you that obviously all that supposed computer knowledge you have is completely bunk and that you should dump that silly Linux or BSD system of yours and switch to good ol' dependable Windows.

And I say this based on actual experience. A year or two ago, when Trillian first started to get popular, suddenly all my friends were telling me that every time I IM'ed them (from LICQ) they were getting a warning message telling them that I used an old and buggy version of the ICQ client and that they should ask me to upgrade to the latest. And of course I was using the latest LICQ. So I went through LICQ's help forums, trying to find out why this was going on... Turns out it was because Trillian's authors had been lazy and only implemented the most recent ICQ protocol -- whereas LICQ's authors had implemented every ICQ protocol ever used... But hadn't quite finished development of the very latest one. (This was fixed after a few months, when LICQ's authors did finish a working implementation of the latest ICQ protocol.)

But Trillian's authors had no problem putting code in their clients to encourage their users to regularly harass the users of other IM programs.

I still cringe every time I hear the word "Trillian" because of that. I tried to re-watch the Hitchhiker's Guide BBC miniseries the other day -- couldn't do it! Kept thinking about the IM debacle! NO LONGER ENJOYABLE!!!

And if Trillian doesn't have a problem with doing stuff like that... Does anyone really think Microsoft would?

This is a ploy. This is intended to get your friends, family members, coworkers... Your boss... to tell you that if you're choosing to use any IM outside of MSN... (And yes, you guessed it, MSN will only be available for Windows based computers)... You're effectively making yourself less available for communication. Which makes you things like "Unfriendly" "Uncooperative" "Mean" and even "Not a Team Player"... And of course, it puts serious doubt on your technical skill, if you seem to think you can talk to "practically every IM program out there!" but you can't talk to the one that most "normal" people use.

That's what I think.

Re:Here's why this is bad...

[RPoet]

You're effectively making yourself less available for communication. Which makes you things like "Unfriendly" "Uncooperative"

Not to forget "Unmutual" ;-)

Re:Here's why this is bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you didn't have anything to say at all. Paragraphs full of hot air. And you are modded up?? When did all of you microsoft trolls get here, and who the fuck gave you moderating powers??

Re:Here's why this is bad...

[GabrielStrange]

I honestly wasn't trying to troll. I was expressing an opinion -- an opinion that I feel is well based in a fairly large amount of experience.

Microsoft's done this sort of thing before -- plenty of times. Maybe you aren't clear on this, but this is exactly the sort of thing they meant when Microsoft was accused of monopolistic business practices.

I still remember getting annoyed regularly at how the HTML exporter in Microsoft Office created pages that were more or less completely unviewable in Netscape 4. And naturally, this was blamed on Netscape, and everyone went over to IE. And there was a long period of time where I was forced to admit that IE quite simply was the most usable web browser out there, and that I was rather upset there wasn't a Linux version of it. (I now feel more or less the exact same way about Safari...)

Even though pages created with almost any other program looked fine in both IE and Netscape. Including pages created by the HTML exporter in StarDivision StarOffice (that's right, even before it was bought by Sun.)

The argument about Microsoft being worried about losing banner ad revenues is completely ridiculous. It wouldn't be too hard for them to add in text ads to the bottom of the IM's, just like both Hotmail and Yahoo do to the bottom of regular Emails.

Actually, I think the whole suggestion that Microsoft makes a sizable amount of money out of banner ads is fairly silly... I think the main reason for the existence of MSN IM's is that MSN is a chief competitor of AOL's and AOL has an IM client. MSN IM exists in order to promote MSN in competition with AOL.

AOL started AIM because their subscribers wanted to exchange instant messages with people who aren't AOL subscribers using the same instant messaging system that's built into the regular AOL software... So AOL made this possible -- by having non-subscribers install AIM.

Microsoft tried to top them by creating an IM client that would let you talk to both MSN and AOL subscribers. But AOL wouldn't let them muscle in on their IM network, so they ended up making their own.

But the original point still stands -- MSN IM exists in order to promote the MSN brand name. If you use MSN IM, you're aware of the existence of MSN as an ISP. It's quite likely to be one of the first ISP's to pop into your head if you need to find a new ISP in a hurry. It's fairly likely that, if you use MSN IM, you first got into it because you or someone you know actually uses MSN as their ISP.

I don't think the exact software you use to send and receive MSN IM's effects your awareness of the MSN ISP's existence.

The argument that this is a security concern is also quite daft. There's plenty of well known, open encryption algorithms out there that they could use to encrypt transmissions to their IM service without blocking access to third party clients.

On the subject of IM security... A few months ago I noticed that when I sent files through AIM, the transfers went considerably slower than they do on ICQ... I ran some network sniffers, and it appears that AIM file transfers actually go through a server *at* AOL that then relays the data to the other user... This allows transfers to happen even when both users are behind a NAT (as long as they don't have ZoneAlarm or something like that blocking the transfer)... And it also increases security by making it possible for the file transfer to take place without either user knowing the other's IP!

How's that for security? Why is it that when Microsoft mentions security, there's never anything that makes that much sense involved?

The argument that they shouldn't want third party clients accessing their network is also quite silly. As I said above, it'd be very easy for them to insert text ads into MSN IM's... And by allowing third party clients, they could have those ads reach users of those clients! So I could be using GAIM on my Linux box

Re:Here's why this is bad...

[Wordplay]

Re: old and buggy

I believe that message originates inside ICQ's networks, not with Trillian. It always showed up on my IM as a system message, and would show up regardless of whether I was using Trillian or the official client.

You sure you're blaming the right harasser?

Re:And so you should be

[NickFortune]

Up until the latest release, which I believe uses ssh, the entire protocol uses plain text. How much reverse engineering does that take for heaven's sake?

it's not like it would have been difficult to use a binary format from the start. They made it easy to reverse engineer. They wanted people using the network.

why do they run MSN at all?

[penguin7of9]

"Running an (IM) network is expensive," said Lisa Gurry, group product manager for MSN at Microsoft.

Well, so why do they create such a centralized network in the first place? Microsoft doesn't run a centralized mailer for every Microsoft software user, so why should they run a centralized IM server for everybody?

The centralized IM infrastructure is an aberration. The sooner companies like Microsoft and AOL give up their stranglehold and the sooner it gets replaced with a distributed system based on open protocols (kind of like IRC), the better.

But the fact is that the IM providers actually like the control. Each of them hopes that they'll own it all sooner or later, kind of like the phone company used to be.

So, Microsoft, if you don't like the expense of running Microsoft IM services, just don't, and put client and server software based on open protocols into Windows. Problem solved, expense gone.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[LostCluster]

Centralizing IM is the reason why IM spam has been kept down to a soft wisper compared to e-mail spam. Spammers simply can't set up an IM sending bot without being quickly detected and pulled from the network... try doing that with good old e-mail.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[penguin7of9]

Perhaps, perhaps not. There doesn't seem to be a lot of spam on IRC either. In fact, because of instant feedback from users, killing IM spam (collaboratively) would seem to be considerably easier than killing E-mail spam.

Furthermore, even if centralization is the reason for less spam, handing that level of control to a few big companies in order to avoid spam seems like a bad tradeoff. We have had large, centralized E-mail systems in the past and they were stifling and expensive.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

No spam on irc? HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH (laughing for 20 minutes...then returning)

There are all sorts of spams on irc for porn or "here download this" spams.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[gl4ss]

you're on the wrong networks then on the wrong channels. i haven't had a single spam on ircnet for the past 3 years(before that maybe one per 6 months for a small perioid).

(hint: don't hang on the #chixorsforeveryoner00lye3a channels)

and really, irc is simple enough for anyone to use. so when non-geek friends ask a way to chat i tell them to use irc rather than some im.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[TaliesinWI]

There's a fundamental problem with something like IRC or a non corporate owned decentralized IM system. When the 15 year old script kiddies flood an IRC server, effectively shutting it down, the person running the server generally doesn't have the resources to do anything about it - they bitch, they moan, they might even call the police, but the police only want to hear how much money you've lost, not that some service you were providing out of the goodness of your heart was no longer working. It would be the same as if you were a bookstore owner that had fifty free books on a table with a sign that said "Free: take one." Do you honestly expect the cops to do anything if one person came by and took them all?

Besides, how can you have granny rely on IRC-like networks to communicate with you if the whole thing is volunteer based and could collapse at any moment due to lack of funding, apathy, or whatnot? And if "everyone" can't rely on it, what good is it?

The decentralized IM system would work if, say, every ISP set up their own server and you could only send thru it if you had a username/password on their system already. Then tracking "spammers" would be easy (call/E-mail the ISP of the misbehaver) and if a particular server goes down it's between that company and its customers, and that's all.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[Bert64]

And it also opens you up to unstoppable floods of spam from those few companies, because it would be the only source of spam users would pay it more attention, and because it was from the mail provider users would be more likely to trust it.

Also, consider this... spamming is very profitable, so you can pretty much guarantee that spammers would want to pay these companies for the "right" to send spam to their users, ms already does this with hotmail.. tho it`s not publicly acknowleged. Providing a spammer with access to your thousands, even millions, of customers, could prove highly lucrative, virtually any business will jump at this opportunity to increase profits.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[tabby]

Really? Try joining an AIM chat room ;-) .
>>IM spam has been kept down to a soft wisper compared

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[Zirtix]

Jabber is decentralized. It works, There is no spam. Hve you tried it?

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[rmohr02]

Microsoft doesn't run a centralized mailer for every Microsoft software user, so why should they run a centralized IM server for everybody?

Shh! Don't give them ideas.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[TaliesinWI]

Sure. In fact I'm working on a proposal to run our own Jabber server at work and provide it to all of our customers (I work for an ISP.) The Jabber model is great, but it's not going to get to AIM or Yahoo or MSN levels with volunteer-based support.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[Politburo]

Wrong networks? Maybe.

Wrong channels? Well unless you want to hang out in only +s channels, you pretty much can't avoid a bit of spam.

IRC is not as simple as IM. Why? There are multiple networks. There are multiple servers. There are multiple channels. Start up any IRC client, and then start up AOLIM. Which one is easier? True, anyone can use IRC, but not as quick as they can use IM.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[drinkypoo]

There is a shitload of spam on IRC. Besides, IRC is semi-centralized, certainly you can't just set up your own server and join a network, you have to be approved to join, so there's sort of a cabal at the head of each IRC network. It's distributed AND centralized :) But the point is that there are two kinds of opers, those with global kill and those without.

Anyway opers DO kill spam bots, that's normal and expected, but it doesn't always happen. People put new ones up all the time, and people just sign in with scripts that do the same thing; spam. On my favorite irc channel we get spam all the time, including bots with onjoin messages. I get far more spam on irc than I do on any IM.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[glob]

bullshit.

IM spam is low because most clients allow you to only receive IMs from someone on your contact list, and you need to approve someone before adding them to your contact list.

imaging the effects on spam if every email client used whitelisting and trusted senders.

Re:why do they run MSN at all?

[burns210]

whatever detection software used by the central IM system, could also be used in the local IM server system....

Jabber lets you setup a local IM Server, that can connect to others so you can chat with whomever, there is no reason why these Jabber Servers can't be fitted with spam filtering and safegaurds just like the main central servers for MSN/AIM are.

Re: i'm sorry

[FrozenDownload]

no, im sorry,
as far as the road analogy, i have to say that if it is a private road and you let someone use it for a time, and then decide not to, they cannot legally use it without permission.

A good friend of mine did just this. He has a private road that happens to be in a convenient place for a business not very far from him. The businessman didn't slow down for his children, so he chained it off. The guy was infuriated, and took him to court on it. The judge saw fit to rule in my friends favor because well, it was private property.

so in short, yes, if the server/road is theirs they have every right to say that only licsenced clients/fords can use them.

Re:security reasons... right.--[obligatory troll]

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sure I think it's obvious to most people here that the real security hole is the windows users. If there aren't any users, there isn't any problem? Am I wrong?

Clearly to make this world safe for commerce and to secure every country against attacks on their infrastructure (whether direct or indirect), we must immediately enact an international ban on windows users!

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Max Threshold]

You don't see telephone companies selling phones that won't work unless you call someone with another phone made by them, do you?

No, but you see them encouraging exactly that. Unlimited PCS to PCS, anyone?

Re: i'm sorry

[dfn_deux]

Railroads would probably be a more accurate comparison. Where the infrastructure is paid for and maintained by a company that originally intended it for only their trains. You would hardly expect amtrak to let "Joe Trillian's Free* Train Service" run on their tracks free of charge, especially if the free* train service was turning a profit. Also, you wouldn't expect a bakery to let the "across town bakery" use some of their display case space to sell their cookies, without being compensated.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[pen]

You don't see telephone companies selling phones that won't work unless you call someone with another phone made by them, do you?

I see cell phone companies selling cell phones that only work with their network.

Correction...

[Kyrthira]

More like over $50 billion, easy. That's pocket change for the big boys... The money they are planning on spending to create licensing fees and the inevitable lawsuits would likely be better spent on more testing of the software before release to the public, therefore resulting in less vulnerabilities for hackers to enjoy poking at.

Which means less time spent later on trying to discover said vulnerabilities when someone does poke at them. No matter what client is used.

WTF

[digitaltraveller]

Does this mean Tim Berners Lee can now approach Opera software and ask them to license use of his world wide web network? What a joke.

Companies have every right to continually upgrade their software in a never ending arms race to fend off competition. That is a healthy marketplace.

What is not healthy is the idiotic notion that you can declare a protocol on an interconnected mesh network to be exclusively yours is bogus to the extreme.

To the posters in this thread who thought this was a 'good idea', please wake up and get a clue.

Re:WTF

[BiggerIsBetter]

Go read up about how MSN actually works.

Re:WTF

[Thomas M Hughes]

MSN is not an interconnected mesh network. Microsoft is the only one who owns the servers. There are no other MSN servers other then the Microsoft servers.

It'd be more like Tim Berners Lee charging people who access his website with clients that block banner ads.

Re:WTF

[pyrrhonist]

Does this mean Tim Berners Lee can now approach Opera software and ask them to license use of his world wide web network? What a joke.

Uh, no. You're comparing apples with oranges.

The HTTP protocol is defined in an RFC. It's public knowledge. It is NOT considered IP. Any additions to the protocol will be decided on by the community. If Tim Berners-Lee decides to make changes, he needs to go through the IETF to do so, because he doesn't own the protocol.

Microsoft's MSN protocol is not in the public domain and is considered Microsoft's IP. The only way you make an MSN client is to either reverse engineer the protocol or pay for a license and sign an NDA from Microsoft. Either way, when you do this, the protocol is still Microsoft's, and if they decide to change it, they have every right to do that on their own with nobody's permission.

This is why Jabber is trying to become the IETF standard protocol for instant messaging. It would simplify matters if it was a standard. Right now, the Jabber protocol definitions are still drafts, however.

Re:WTF

[Procyon101]

It's not the protocol they are asking to be licenced, it's access to their servers. Big difference. If you run a mail server, should you be forced to forward email for everyone on the internet?

Re:WTF

[bacchusrx]

Microsoft's MSN protocol is not in the public domain and is considered Microsoft's IP. The only way you make an MSN client is to either reverse engineer the protocol or pay for a license and sign an NDA from Microsoft. Either way, when you do this, the protocol is still Microsoft's, and if they decide to change it, they have every right to do that on their own with nobody's permission.

The "right" to make changes to a closed protocol isn't analogous to licensing third parties to use what is essentially a public network.

It's like saying that only one HTTP client is "licensed" to connect to your company's HTTP servers and all the others are illicit. You could claim such a thing, of course, but it doesn't give you a remedy against people who connect using one of these "illicit" clients.

Further, the protocol may "belong" to Microsoft, in some abstract sense, but it's not "intellectual property." It's not a "work" -- an independent implementation whould not violate any copyright -- and IIRC it is not patented.

bacchusrx.

Re:WTF

[pyrrhonist]

The "right" to make changes to a closed protocol isn't analogous to licensing third parties to use what is essentially a public network.

They're licensing the protocol, not the network. You can still try to connect to the network with whatever client you want, but if your client doesn't know what the protocol is, it will be refused. Furthermore, although the service may be free to use, a user of the service must read the usage agreement and create an account with the service. Therefore, the network is not by any stretch of the imagination a "public" network. Although the sheer number of members may be very large, it is still more of a private club than a public network. It is a club to which many people do not belong, myself included.

It's like saying that only one HTTP client is "licensed" to connect to your company's HTTP servers and all the others are illicit. You could claim such a thing, of course, but it doesn't give you a remedy against people who connect using one of these "illicit" clients.

No, it's not. Microsoft is making a protocol change to it's own closed protocol. This is not the same thing as refusing connections from clients that use an open protocol like HTTP.

Further, the protocol may "belong" to Microsoft, in some abstract sense, but it's not "intellectual property." It's not a "work" -- an independent implementation whould not violate any copyright -- and IIRC it is not patented.

No, intellectual property is any product of the human intellect that is unique, novel, and unobvious (and has some value in the marketplace). IP can be:

• an idea
• an invention
• an expression or literary creation
• a unique name
• a business method
• an industrial process
• a chemical formula
• a computer program process
• a presentation

The protocol used by MSN Messenger is clearly covered by this definition - it does not need to be patented. This is why, for instance, you cannot bottle some tap water and sell it as "Dasani". Dasani is not a "work", but it is IP, and it is copyrighted.

The fact that someone opens a port to the Internet and makes a client available for accessing a server on that port does not automatically mean that the client's algorithm is public knowledge and that the service provided by the server is a public service.

Microsoft's bathroom is for use by patrons only, and even if you are a patron, you must wear shoes and a shirt.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not think you will be allowed to connect without the licence. Next versions of Kopete and Gaim will probably support this new version, but I suspect MS will treaten to invoke the DCMA, if people use it. Simply because they "circumvent" an encryption.

Re:WTF

[GMontag451]

The protocol used by MSN Messenger is clearly covered by this definition - it does not need to be patented. This is why, for instance, you cannot bottle some tap water and sell it as "Dasani". Dasani is not a "work", but it is IP, and it is copyrighted.

Uhh... no. Straight from the Copyright Act: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Protocols *cannot* be copyrighted, they must be patented. If this protocol is not patented, then bollocks to MS and their licensing.

BTW, the Dasani thing has nothing to do with IP at all. Dasani is a trademark, and is protected under a completely different set of laws.

Re:WTF

[pyrrhonist]

Protocols *cannot* be copyrighted, they must be patented. If this protocol is not patented, then bollocks to MS and their licensing.

This isn't about whether a protocol can be copyrighted is it? It's about whether a protocol is IP (which it is) and whether Microsoft has the right to control access to its IP (which it does).

BTW, the Dasani thing has nothing to do with IP at all.

Yes it does. Trademarks most definitely are IP. You cannot sell something that you labelled as "Dasani". In fact, you can't even be in the water business if your decide to call your company "Dasani".

Dasani is a trademark, and is protected under a completely different set of laws.

My fault, I meant "trademarked". Sorry for the confusion.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about whether a protocol can be copyrighted is it? It's about whether a protocol is IP (which it is) and whether Microsoft has the right to control access to its IP (which it does).

You're full of shit. Something isn't property -- intellectual or otherwise -- unless property rights are attached. Something against which property rights cannot be enforced has no capital value. Intellectual property is a convenient synonym for "intellectual capital."

A protocol -- which is nothing more than a process -- is not protected by copyright law nor by trademark law and can only be protected by patents in limited cases (and this isn't one of them).

The MSN protocol, in other words, is not "intellectual property" in any commonly accepted definition of the term any more than... the English language is "intellectual property." IP, as such, is a legal fiction that is of very recent coinage. If you do any research into the facts, you will find it is applicable to a much less broad set of things than you think.

Converting users to another protocol...

[Khad]

...is really hard. All the people in my contact list are using msn messenger and they don't want to change. They say: why should I install another software if this one works well? I can tell them whatever I want about free software but they don't care: msn messenger I shipped with windows and they want to use it. There's nothing I can do...

Re:Converting users to another protocol...

[Trejkaz]

MSN2Jabber lets you use the existing MSN installation to connect to Jabber. Of course it only really helps if you're administering a network, but the idea is good.

Par for the course

[Zordas]

This is not surprising to me. As a tech myself, I always knew that someday chat servers (and possibly email) would cost the end-users in the future. MS has just found an excuse to start doing it today

Re:Par for the course

[Anonymous Coward]

I always knew that someday chat servers (and possibly email) would cost the end-users in the future.

Last time I checked, I did pay for e-mail. Isn't that part of $40 per month Comcast charges me?

Re:Par for the course

[olliej_nz]

I don't see why you, or anyone else for that matter thinks this is unreasonable. MS isn't charging their users anything for using MSN on their client, banner adds inside it cover the costs(ICQ does the same, and so i image does AIM). They are merely charging third party clients such as Trillian for the use of their network. Remember Trillian does cost money, so users have already chosen to pay money to use it. Effectively trillian is running a rival to MSN, except 1) They make money, 2) It doesn't cost them anything. Now I agree that this hits the open source clients (i use kopete), but that's just an unfortunate side-effect. They are effectively doing what Trillian does, although they don't make any money they are still giving away something that does not belong to them. --Oliver

Re:Par for the course

[Zordas]

LOL .. Good point.

Re:And so you should be

[I KNOW MARTIAL ARTS]

SSL, not ssh. And it was plain text up until the protocol that shipped with MSN Messenger 5.0 (protocol MSNP8). This just happens to be the version that you are required to update to after the cut-off date.

And they didn't just make it easy to reverse engineer, they published the original version and attempted to make it a standard with the IETF. Google for MSNP2.

Important SCO Announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, all instant messaging programs are derivative works of the 'talk' command included in System V Unix, which is owned by the SCO Group. Therefore, effective immediately, all users of such programs must pay a $699 per CPU fee for each machine they use such a program on, in order to avoid legal action over their continued use of infringing code, to the SCO Group. Additionally, SCO is suing Microsoft over breach of its recently-signed contract to use the System V code, for its clear transfer of IP from 'talk' to their instant messenger product.

An undisclosed flaw?

[InfiniterX]

I was most surprised by the MS spokesperson's comment that there was an as-yet-undisclosed exploit in the MSN Messenger software.

"Here, take this 'trustworthy' software; there's something big and wrong with the one you've got right now but we're not going to tell you what it is."

Re:An undisclosed flaw?

[lieven_dekeyser]

well, the newer protocols use SSL for authentication, the older ones just used an MD5 hash of the combination of the password and a server generated stamp.. the rest is more or less the same. Okay, SSL might be a little more secure than the MD5 sheme they used, but still.. there's no way to decrypt the MD5 hash and get the users password, the server generated stamp means sending the same hash twice doesn't work, so it should be pretty secure, no?

I can imagine the cost of maintaining an IM network is pretty high, but MicroSoft shouldn't seek excuses like that.. just be honest!

Re:An undisclosed flaw?

[Knightmare]

So lets say I discovered a two food ingredients if mixed together would kill millions. And I somehow also found a shot that would make you immune to the effects if taken before the food combo. Would you prefer I release the specifics or let everybody get the injection first?

Re:An undisclosed flaw?

[InfiniterX]

I'll be first in line to get my Betty Crocker brand Bleach & Ammonia Brownies.

Re:An undisclosed flaw?

[Knightmare]

You might be on to something there... I'll take distribution rights you can have naming rights. Split the take 50-50?

Re:An undisclosed flaw?

[Anonymous Coward]

the older ones just used an MD5 hash of the combination of the password and a server generated stamp
there's no way to decrypt the MD5 hash and get the users password, the server generated stamp means sending the same hash twice doesn't work

How does that work?

If my client generates the hash from my password and a server's timestamp, how does the server authenticate it, unless it has a plain-text copy of my password to hash as well?
If the server has a copy of my plaintext password, how did it get there?

Re:An undisclosed flaw?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, no answer. I should've guessed that someone on slashdot pretending to know technical details was just talking out their arse.

Re: i'm sorry

[frdmfghtr]

should the people who make roads get money from the people who make cars?

Bad analogy...the people who made the roads were paid to do so; Microsoft was not paid by anybody to build their IM network.

as soon as you open up the roads, you can't say (100 years later) that only fords can drive on them.

If Ford owned the road, then they sure as heck could do that. It's their property, they can do with it as they wish. If Microsoft wants to prevent any client other than a MS-licenced client from accessing their network, then so be it.

Put yourself in Microsoft's position for a minute (yes, I know it's a pianful thought, but try it anyway). Do you want somebody else to profit while you maintain the infrastructure at your own expense?

Consider this: You build a road and allow people to drive on it as long as they pay a toll. This toll pays you for the cost of maintaining the roadway. Now, some people don't want to pay the toll, so they simply drive through the toll gates; an easy thing to do, since you don't have any gate arms or anything to stop them. Eventually people simply stop paying the toll voluntarily, so you install gate arms to enforce the toll on the road.

MS simply put gate arms at the toll booth, forcing you to pay the toll, which in this case is a piece of your desktop for banner ads.

Jabber

[Zork the Almighty]

I just signed up for Jabber, I encourage all of you to do the same. Microsoft is going to try to use its monopoly to club all the other IM clients AND protocols. Time to jump off their ship.

Re:Jabber

[Anonymous Coward]

What were you doing 'on the microsoft ship' to begin with?

Re:Jabber

[Zork the Almighty]

I've used Hotmail since before Microsoft owned it. When you already have a Hotmail account and your IM client supports multiple protocols using MSN messenger seems like a no-brainer. Well, it used to anyway. I always try to give technology a fair shake, and use whatever is good regardless of the politics. Microsoft has stabbed me in the back for it on more than one occasion, and I can't say I didn't see this one coming. I'm trying to set up my own mail server (biggest technical obstacle is the wife), in anticipation of the day that Hotmail is Windows only.

I wonder...

[rbeattie]

How easily it will be for non-Windows based IM applications to get that license? Trillian and Odigo are both Windows based apps.

Are Linux-only licensees going to be allowed to buy a license? How about non-M$ based smartphones?

I doubt it. Microsoft wants its cake and wants to eat it too. I'm keeping my MSN Messenger on only as a way to get contacted by someone and then to tell them to use another system.

-Russ

Re:I wonder...

[Trejkaz]

It's nothing to do with which system they run on. Jabber has multiple clients on every single platform, including Windows. It's more about who they can harrass for money, and open source shops generally just don't have the money.

Of course, I wouldn't put it past the JSF forking out a fee to Microsoft in order to get 'permission' to update the transport so it will work again.

warning

[Trepidity]

You used the phrase "making bank," so now I must destroy you.

That is all.

Dear Microsoft Corp.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not submit to our rule, we will

advertise one microsoft product each week

on the front-page of slashdot, until our

demands are met!

ILoveYou,
Fred

No sorry

[I KNOW MARTIAL ARTS]

MSN Messenger still comes pre-installed on every Windows computer that ships, and still pops up the first time you use a Windows computer and asks for your email adderss to register an account.

If by levelling the field, you mean, "I will be less likely able to talk to my friends who use MSN Messenger", then yes.

Re: i'm sorry

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Ever heard of Tolls? You know, as in paying to use a public road?

Probably they are going after commercial IMs only

[sw155kn1f3]

... and it's still uncertain what will happen to GPL-licensed IMs out there like jabber, miranda and gaim, b/c they're obviously "viral software" for microsoft.
Actually probably Microsoft will give some source code of their protocol to licensees so it's probably worth the money for commercial IMs - they won't need to reverse-engineer the protocol and will save a money.
Will GPL IMs have a money to pay for license ?
Will they have a right to disclose the source, or license will prohibit them doing so ?
Seems like an attack on open-source IMs for me - quite sad.

If I were Microsoft...

[militantbob]

I would make my own free client that accessed all networks. I would make MS Trillian, basically. If I made it high-quality, and bundled it with Windows, I would eliminate Trillian entirely, and if I provided a binary install for Linux and maybe even BSD, I could even eat at gaim perhaps (hah, I can see some IRC kid saying 'brb lemme install msn linux 3.01 so i can holla at mah h0ez!').

Then I could say to Yahoo and AIM and all the others: Hey guys, our network is open - how bout yours? Our client works with everything - does yours? Hurry up and write your own before our install base grows too large for you to compete.

Re:If I were Microsoft...

[Debug This]

If *i* were microsoft, id shoot myself in the head. Think about it.

Ad revenue is unlikely to be the reason

[Andor]

Whenever it has been important to them, MS have not complained about the cost of service or software (e.g. IE).

Presumably, they are charging because they feel that they can, and it would give them control. Don't underestimate the value of control to media and communications companies (just look at DVD regioning and CSS).

EXTRA!

[I(rispee_I(reme]

OSS MSN Client Dream Lives On!

Re: i'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you not heard of toll bridges?

Wine

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I think it's OK if MS starts to charge license fees. After all it's their network being used.
But it would be nice time for everbody to start supporting Wine development. Its support for MSN client is partial at the moment.
http://appdb.winehq.com/appview.php?appId =127

contradictory result

[Anonymous Coward]

although in the short run eliminating other clients that reduce msn revenue is good for ms's pocket book and control, in the long run its most likely only going to reduce dependance on them as people tend to like choice. If they let other IM clients use their network at least these clients are dependent on them. In that sense they could still use their network to maintain control. However its now likely that other networks will gain popularity due to lack of choice on msn and thus MS has actually lost some control.
You can crumble a cookie many ways, buts always the same cookie!

related?

[hendrix69]

Since today Gaim users that use MSN accounts receive these messages every few minutes:
(12:50:09) messenger@microsoft.com: You are running a version of messenger that requires an immediate security update. Please visit http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Upgrades.aspx to complete the update.
It's annoying as hell and I'm this close to ditching my MSN account all together.

Re:related?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because gaim is stuck using the old insecure MSN protocol. If you run Windows, switch to Miranda and select "Use MSN protocol v8" in your MSN Network settings.

Re:related?

[hendrix69]

Miranda won't connect with v8, as of now it suffers the same fate as Gaim - a message from MSN every minute or two.

Re:related?

[Anonymous Coward]

Works just fine for me, and without the messages.

No problem with this

[Andy Smith]

Just adding a quick "me too!" to the opinion that Microsoft have done nothing wrong here, and indeed are doing something right.

There's an ethos on Slashdot that you should mod the comment, not the poster. People should remember that when talking about Microsoft. Just because it's Microsoft doing something, that doesn't make it wrong, evil, anti-competitive, greedy, subversive, or whatever. Sometimes it's just a fair and reasonable thing to do.

It's their network! Other messengers weren't invited.

Off-topic: There was a story the other day about new Dell systems having an EULA on start-up. My mum and dad have both bought new Dells this week and my mum's had the EULA. Unbelievably the Dell-certified installer who set-up the system for her just clicked through the EULA without her having chance to read it! My dad's system hasn't been set-up yet but I assume it will be the same as it was purchased at the same time. So the EULAs have already spread to Europe. (I'm in the UK.)

Kinda OT but Funny: Update Bill's Borg Icon Pic

[Saint Stephen]

You're being too nice to Bill with that Icon -- lots of Bill's press pictures are him still at 35, or 37, or even 41.

Since he stepped down as CEO, he's gained a lot of weight, his hair is gone all wierd, and he's starting to look old, wrinkled, and pudgy.

Funny thing is, since Balmer took over as CEO, he's *lost* a lot of weight (this happened post-Monkey-boy). Guess it goes to show which is the more stressfull job!

Anyway, Gates is like 47 or 48 now and starting to look like an old man. Time to update those icons -- don't show anymore press photos of the "old bill" -- the new one is much easier to ridicule.

Duh! Centralization is a bad idea for IM!

[thule]

Can you imagine if Internet email had to be provided by only a handful of companies? Bad idea right? Why is IM any different? This is why Jabber is such a good idea. Anyone can setup a local Jabber server. Jabber servers will route Jabber messages between them.

If there was some way to get ISP's to start setting up Jabber servers for their users, then people wouldn't be dependent on Microsoft's whim's.

Why this is not in Microsoft's Best Interest (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

I see plenty of comments here claiming that it is reasonable for non-msn client users to pay to use their service. After all if you don't like it, don't use it right?
Wrong.
Its not reasonable when all you ever do on MSN is explain to your friends how to fix windows. I mean the way I see it, why should I have to pay 30 bucks or whatever when they save that much on not hiring more tech support people.

GAIM (unoficcial) statement

[nomso]

GAIM (unoficcial) statement is here.

http://gaim.sourceforge.net/msn.php

Just a bad business move?

[LeoDV]

I understand that the MSN network is MS propriety and they have every right to charge for it, but isn't that just a bad move? If you have to pay for MSN but can still go on AIM for free, then I know what's going to happen next.

I'm hardly representative of the bulk of the Internet population, but everyone I know has AIM, and the only people I know who use MSN also use AIM.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Anonymous Coward]

up until relatively recently you couldn't get your own phone at all

30 years is relatively recently?

Jabber :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

This wouldn't be a problem if people used Jabber and left companies like AOL and MSN.

Use something open source like Jabber. It is not dependent on a central network which makes it better IMHO.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Anonymous Coward]

30 years is relatively recently?

Relative to pretty much anything that matters, yep.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside of the computer industry, yes.

Private gardens

[pacc]

The key to this discussion isn't whether it is right or not to shut out independent clients or how much a sentence in a message is worth. This is a struggle from any big company to be able to keep customers in their own Private Garden with less choice where all money goes in one direction only.

There are analogies to electricity and telephones which started out as a free market but ended up in monopolies where you had only one choice. This was in the best interest of everyone at the time, but is still a major problem now when there are no real reason against several companies on the same physical network.

With the internet and mobile phones there are no such barriers stopping you from using, for example, your phone on another network. Instead there are a fenomenon called private gardens where you cannot use a "mobile phone" on the network, instead you get a crippled terminal usable only with one service provider.

This sounds OK when told by PR-people, new services can be introduced quickly and safely with less risk and you are free to choose the provider giving you the best complete package. In practice however this means that no services that are free or crosses the boundaries where you can no longer bill the customer can be allowed in your crippled phone (standard e-mail, independent answering machine, transferring of phone number to other device)

Microsoft might allow their service to be free, but only as long as they can dictate the means and make it an extension of their package - which you must buy to take advantage of all "new features".
Anyone interested in just getting a message through or in the telephone example, have a conversation, should look for less expensive alternatives.

Anyone with a better link analyzing private gardens?

Confused

[stephenry]

I'm confused. I thought that, in the settlement for the recent anti-trust hearing, where Microsoft were saved by a wisker from being broken up, the judges ruled that Microsoft had to OPEN it's proprietry communication protocols to outside parties.

MSN ---> Communication protocol.
MSN --> Supposedly open protocol --> Now secret "secure" protocol??????????

Explain to me how this isn't just a vast contravention of these rulings?

Oh that's right! It is!

It's comletly within their rights ...

[Gorgeus]

Ouh now I'm going to make myself unpopular. MS is providing the infrastructure for it's IM network. Just because we are used to get that "free" doesn't mean that MS has any obligation whatsoever to provide it. And the free part can also be questioned, because Windows buyers finance it, just like AOL users finance the AIM network. If MS, ICQ and AOL are giving away their clients for "free" they do so to increase their popularity, sympathy or whatever, but in the end they do it for business reasons. This is exactly like Winamp, if they decided to sell it again you may not like it, but it would be perfectly their right to. Gaim, Trillian and others are using this infrastructure without paying any usage fee to MS and MS doesn't reach their goals of increased popularity, sympathy and customer satisfaction with these clients. This goes especially for Gaim and other non Windows clients. So stop whining because someone asks for money for something they run and which costs them money.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[WindowsTroll]

I don't see what the big deal is about M$ charging an access fee. Posts to this thread have mentioned that IM is similar to a phone company - and last I checked, I get monthly bills so I can use the service. There is an infrastructure involved that requires resources that cost money. The money has to come from somewhere. It can come from advertising, licensing fees, or philanthropic donations.

If you don't want to pay the fee, use a service that doesn't have one. However, be aware that if too many people switch over to the free alternatives, the IM service provider may have to charge a fee to recoup the extra expense of handling all the extra people.

Mod Parent Up

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all.

my messenger...

[hangingonwords]

i'm using trillian and i've only received one security message from them. i'm also not experiencing any problems using my msn account on trillian. when is all this supposed to go into effect and whatnot? frankly, there's enough messenger clients out there that i really don't care what microsoft wants to do with their msn. i do have an account but i pretty much use aim for all my chatting. msn or no msn, i don't really mind not being able to use their service, it sucks anyway...

Re:my messenger...

[arkane1234]

It's supposed to go into effect in October if I'm not mistaken.
I know what you mean though, I use Yahoo Messenger, and ICQ. I *sometimes* connect to MSN Messenger, but very rarely. Usually just to see who's actually using it anymore.

The machines in matrix

[ksenos]

You want to control humans? OK... just give them the illusion that they have choises!

How long until they want money for Explorer?

[Anonymous Coward]

2 more percents of marketshare, and you'll hear: "we cannot sustain this many users without getting paid for the work, now you must pay HAHA!".

Will you then also say that they've done nothing wrong?

Re:How long until they want money for Explorer?

[arkane1234]

Quite honestly it wouldn't affect me....
But considering how many times they've said that IE was an integral part of Windows, in essence you are already paying for IE, indirectly. That is, if you run Windows.

How are they going to inforce this?

[MoogMan]

In all fairness, you can see where they are coming from - losing advertising space etc etc. But I would like to know how they can possibly prevent this? How can they tell a "authorised" MSN Messenger client from a properly-formed proprietory client

Re:How are they going to inforce this?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can they tell a "authorised" MSN Messenger client from a properly-formed proprietory client

There are several ways.

1) Public or private keys. The "authorized" client knows a key, the MSN Messenger servers know a key. The server refuses connections from clients which don't have the proper key. Disassembling MSN Messenger to include the "official" key in, say, Trillian would be illegal, thanks to the DMCA.

2) Checksums. AIM used this for a short time. When attempting to login to Oscar, the server would ask for a checksum of the client executable being used, and deny access to anyone who didn't send the magic word. This was a twofold advantage for AOL, firstly it let them kick their own older clients off the network, secondly it let them kick competing clients off the network.

3) Memory dumps. AFAIK this is the method that AIM uses now for Oscar logins via the official AIM client. When you go to login and claim to be an AIM client, the Oscar server says something like "OK then, Mr. Client, tell me the 10 bytes starting at offset 0x4fa3 in your memory space." Only AOL knows what those 10 bytes would be, and again, reverse engineering the info to forge it would be a DMCA violation.

It's of note that, obviously, AOL/AIM doesn't currently block third party clients, though AFAIK they do have verification in place to determine who's using actual aim.exe versus Trillian or gAIM. They've blocked 3rd parties in the past, but for the time being, they let anyone who can speak Tic/Toc connect. Now that MS has pulled this latest stunt, don't count on AIM to remain so open.

Re:And so you should be

[zangdesign]

That may be the case, but I still don't see any justifiable complaints about requiring licensing on the service.

It's not like anyone is going out of their way to create a new IM protocol (or functionality) - we've got Jabber, and AFAIK, that's the big three (AOL/ICQ, MSN, Jabber). If we had a plenitude of IM protocols, there might be more incentive to keep the networks open, but there's not.

Let's face it - the free ride is over and I don't see any valid argument for keeping the network free and open for other developers.

no more MSN?

[golgotha007]

drat Microsoft, i'm a linux user and there is no MSN messenger for my platform.

i use gaim, which is an amazing peice of software.
many of my windows friends use the windows version of gaim, as it simply rocks all over trillian.

i guess i will just have to persuade my MSN friends to use ICQ or AIM instead.

What an oxymoron ...

[quarkscat]

for Microsoft to use the words "licensing" and
"security", at all. Not to mention the term
"open standards", which M$ tends to extend and
control. Case in point, the extensions to the
kerberos standard, which Microsoft protects
with a NDA. I say screw M$ and screw MSN.
The open software community should write their
code to exclude MSN entirely.

Hey, S.weet O.ld B.ill Gates, you will not see
another dime of my money. I would rather suck
the scat from the backside of a dead and rotting
donkey than buy another M$ product. Between
License v6, your EULA, and security (oh yes,
security is now job one, right?), you have
squeezed the last blood from my stones ...

I have an idea how this can be handled...

[MikShapi]

We can start a new open-source multi-network client, call it, say, xTrillianBase5, base it in Jenin, or Beirut or maybe aboard the ISS, announce war on Microsoft, and get busy breaking the 3DES-keys they're going to place in every MSN client starting with the next version using the average Joe's home PC. Does the DMCA apply aboard the ISS? I think not, otherwise NASA will be forced to lug hundreds of pounds of needless encryption chips along with every electronic device they send into space to protect the interests of copyright owners.

Oh wait. Microsoft has enough money to lease Israel for about a year given Israel's annual budget. And leasing Israel would put people with guns at their disposal. Err, forget it. Bad idea.

ridiculous

[Saturninus]

Like one of the richest companies in the world can't afford to let other people use third party clients. I hate Microsoft sometimes.

Hmmm.

[peatbakke]

I use a program like Trillian to chat with my buddies across several networks. Most of my buddies use a similar type of program.

If it suddenly costs money to use the MSN network, then we have four other networks we could use instead. AIM. ICQ. YIM. Jabber.

I guess it's a good business move on Microsoft's part. It does cost money, and if the market is there, why not? I would *prefer* that they use a value added model ... ie, just chatting is nice and free, but voice / video chat and 3+ user chat rooms would require $ (just as an example).

Oh well!

its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[sniggly]

MS is charging a license fee, not an access fee. So if integrated messenger X puts up the money and allows you to download it for free you can communicate on the ms messenger network without paying a fee. Otherwise you have no option but to use MS messenger itself. Which will of course remain free.

MS messenger is available natively for windows & mac. It's available through plugins (gaim, kopete) on linux/bsd. Gaim/kopete wont be able to license ms messenger. So the only change this will bring is that linux/bsd clients no longer have a ms messenger protocol: effectively linux & *bsd access will be blocked on the msmsngr network.

MS integrated messenger in windows to build momentum. The moment they have a significant market share they lock down the protocol and start to license access to their users. I'm interested in talking to people who use msn, not in using the protocol, I could care less what protocol is being used. But now MS forces me to start emailing all those people who use MS messngr that they either have to get another IM account or they wont be able to chat with me through IM anymore. SO now they all have to get a yahoo account, download the client, configure, install, blah blah blah stuff they can totally do without. Thank you Microsoft.

I can't run windows or mac because they dont have the applications i work with.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[westlake]

and just how long do you suppose Yahoo or any other commercial IM service with a significant user base will be offering gaim or kopete a free ride?

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[Anonymous Coward]

he meant to say jabber:)

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[shokk]

It's not just about blocking *ix/*bsd. I use Trillian Pro through Win2K/XP systems because it rolls all the clients up into one, so I would suffer as well. I hate having a plethora of IM clients open. Don't treat it as another Win vs Lin crusade. You'll have more people on your side if you see it as the cross-platform problem issue that it is.

This is about blocking alternative clients that do not offer links into their web shops and do not offer an ad banner pointing to their ads. I imagine that if Trillian (Pro or free version) offered an ad banner than all IM services could submit into, then they wouldn't make such a stink about that access into their networks. I for one would still not want to see that, so my solution is going to have to be to wait and see what Trillian developers do or just drop contact with my MSN messenger pals.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[dtperik]

So in the end, Microsoft's move is causing your contacts to open up accounts with other IM systems in order to communicate with you. If they do this, perhaps they'll get sick of using two IM programs and get they're contacts onto other IM systems. So you'll all be able to dump MSN. In the end Microsoft shoots itself in the foot. This can be good.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[plague3106]

Sorry, wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't be going after Trillian, which is a windows only app.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[LurkerXXX]

Actually that doesn't mean anything. Windows has 95% of the desktop market, and Trillian is by far the best windows IM client. I'm going to guess that it has a larger market share than any of the dozens of *nix IM clients. It's a logical choice to go after. It's also run by a company while some of the *nix ones are just run by some folks putting their opensource apps on sourceforge. It makes sense to contact companies first about licensing if your going to charge $$.

Personally, I'm sticking with Trillian, I'll just stop using the MS IM service.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[Anonymous Coward]

how long do you suppose Yahoo or any other commercial IM service with a significant user base will be offering gaim or kopete a free ride?

If the parent poster is correct, why would they do that?

Yahoo already has a Linux client - and they have no windows monopoly to maintain..

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[babyrat]

Gaim/kopete wont be able to license ms messenger.

Says who?

Have they approached Microsoft and been refused?

The article even specifically mentioned "companies who are selling clients". Can we wait until their is actual evidence before sending out the lynch mob? Perhaps the GAIM people will contact Microsoft and recieve a license as long as they don't charge for their client...

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[cybermace5]

Imagine if Microsoft got their PVR rolling. Then they add a feature, say, when someone sends you an IM on the MSN network you can have a little notification or the actual message text scroll at the bottom of your TV screen. These are the kinds of things Microsoft has the ability to do, and the kinds of things it hopes will slowly pinch off the other IM networks until Microsoft can charge for IM services.

I don't see it happening, but at least some people will pay Microsoft for the priveledge.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[sniggly]

Well trillian is a commercial product so you can actually buy a client and part of the license fees will be paid to MS for use of the protocol (thats how i understood it). MS apparently already was in touch with trillian about that.

The whole idea of having to pay for messenger access is fairly ridiculous anyway, user records dont need alot of space on the server, clients could message p2p.. so you only need a very thin server side daemon. The idea that its more secure ... ms is using its own flaws in its own defense.

I dont normally see things in a ms vs open source light but in this case there is little other reason evident.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[sniggly]

RTFA... The post on slashdot itself said The company's Internet unit, MSN, contacted third-party providers like Trillian and Odigo with a suggestion to buy access licenses.

to buy access licenses so while MS doesnt have to pay access to its own network anyone else does and anyone who gives away their IM client for free is crap out of luck except MS itself...

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[sniggly]

"Running an (IM) network is expensive," said Lisa Gurry, group product manager for MSN at Microsoft. "We can't sustain multiple other people's businesses, particularly if they charge for certain versions of their software. We're introducing licensing processes for third parties like Trillian."

Gaim developer: "Hello MS, I represent GAIM and want a free license to your ms protocol for our free multi messenger client".
MS: "You represent who? Are you the owner or a person able to CONTRACT WITH US"
Gaim developer: "uhhhhhh"

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[Durandal64]

"Companies who are selling clients" automatically excludes Gaim. Even if this was not the case, where do you think all the money for the license is going to come from? Are you implying that Microsoft are just going to give a license to the Gaim folks out of the goodness of their own hearts? What about Microsoft's monopolistic behavior makes you think that they'd do something without the possibility for profit, like giving away licenses?

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[linhux]

Someone can license Messenger and provide a binary-only plug-in for Gaim/Miranda/Trillian/whatever.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[plague3106]

Ok, please reread the parent post I initially replied to, then reread my post.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[bigbadwlf]

Trillian is by far the best windows IM client.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. Personally, I dumped Trillian for Miranda-IM. I find it leaner and the interface cleaner.
Oh, and it's GPL'ed.

Personally, I'm sticking with Trillian, I'll just stop using the MS IM service.

The aforementioned aside, I agree completely.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[Smarmy_1]

I don't think you got his point. Although this effects Trillian as well, it's even worse for the current Linux/Unix based solutions that are out there. That's because Trillian is a commericial developer, and has an infrastructure where they could pass the cost of the MSN license onto their customers. A free software project has no such ability to pay another entity for server costs. That's why he said it effectively blocks their access to the MSN protocol.

If MS really believed that it was all about the infrastructure cost of running servers, perhaps they should have designed a system where someone else could run their own server, like IRC. Or change the protocol to allow this. But I don't really think that's what this is about all. Other vendors in the IM business threaten their complete domination, so they must be converted to a revenue stream (and controlled by a license), or be removed.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[drinkypoo]

MS messenger is available natively for windows & mac. It's available through plugins (gaim, kopete) on linux/bsd. Gaim/kopete wont be able to license ms messenger. So the only change this will bring is that linux/bsd clients no longer have a ms messenger protocol: effectively linux & *bsd access will be blocked on the msmsngr network.

I see no reason why, if there is a market, someone could not make plugins for various free IMs which license access to the MSN8 IM network. That way, those who absolutely must have it can license it.

If microsoft charged per-seat, you could even just sell it for the cost of the license fee, plus a nominal charge for maintenance so it would actually pay for itself. If you were the altruistic type, that is.

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[shokk]

I've noticed that oh so many of the products that were once free have begun charging for Pro versions of their software. I foresee a time where we will have GAIM and GAIM-Pro with GAIM still being open source, but GAIM-Pro being enabled by a for-pay plugin with closed source. The only question is what type of pay model would be used to cover development...a fund for supporting GAIM developers, a licensing fund, a pizza slush fund, a pizza and slushies fund?

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[Zork the Almighty]

I foresee a time where we will have GAIM and GAIM-Pro with GAIM still being open source, but GAIM-Pro being enabled by a for-pay plugin with closed source.

The GPL forbids this, you will never see a closed source "Gaim-PRO" unless it is a complete rewrite. Thank you Richard Stallman for your forsight. .

Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access

[ray-auch]

Rubbish - the copyright holder (ie. the authors) still has all rights under the GPL, including the right to choose other licenses. Plenty of stuff has both GPL and commercial versions (eg. QT).

Well, let's just close up shop, then.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but if you run a mail server, and your server allows me to connect, I've committed no trespass, even if you disconnect me later.

TCP was not designed to verify the identity or origin of the application used to connect... by leaving a port open, and accepting connections, you're implicitly agreeing to communicate according to a protocol. You can't claim you didn't want me to connect, because your server permitted it.

It's like a storefront. You agree to let members of the public walk inside, even if you reserve the right to kick someone out later.

I know people like this "MSN servers belong to MSN" argument, but, if the Internet worked like that... well, we probably wouldn't be here right now. There are consequences attached to your choices: communicating on an open, public network, included.

Re:Well, let's just close up shop, then.

[Procyon101]

I agree with you, but I kind of like their solution. The COULD go with a more heavily policed network and more stringent licences to protect make sure people are using their network the way they intend, but instead, they are asking others to use it that way in the first place. If it doesn't work, I anticipate MSN moving to either a stronger challange to the client to better ensure that it is their client, or moving towards a more Jabber-like protocol that doesn't require the infrastructure to support.

IS this the same company?

[miffo.swe]

I remember Microsoft vrying like babies that AOL should open up their protocol to MSN. Now they are doing the very same thing and trying to blame costs. We all know that costs has nothing to do with the matter. Neither competing IM apps on windows. This is all about making life harder on competing platforms.

I will start using jabber instead and lobby to everyone i know to do the same.

Pay! *scof*

[Bruha]

If MS wants to make us pay for MSNM then I want it to be free for me since my last Laptop came with Windows bundled with it. And guess what? MSNM is intergrated into the OS in the same manner IE is that has generated the complaints from the states. I cant remove it and it's always popping up when I dont want it too where I just have to kill the process.

If they shut it out of Trillan and Kopete I really cannot call it a big loss since I'm sure the 5 people I do talk to ON MSNM will probably move to something else also. I've always been a heavy Yahoo and AOLIM user since that's really where people are at anyways.

MS will also have to introduce value added services such as voice chat, good chat rooms, stop the SPAM!, oh and NO ADS! before they should start asking for money. Otherwise they'll just lose out to the free alternatives. And frankly chat is probably the cheapest part of their bandwidth bill due to all the security patches people have to download on a daily basis. They also act like MSNM is the cause of viruses which is not the case though I suspect they're doing all this due to a issue they found and are worried so they decided to secure it.

Well off to work!

MM, if Microsoft...

[perlboy84]

Just offered a Linux version of their client I might be happy. But I guess that's a distant pipe dream.

To be honest, I've always found MSN to be quick and easy to setup on M$ Windows users computers. So much so that if they offered a Linux version of their client I'd use it (just to stay connected to MSN)...

Considering their installation program doesn't run in Wine/X I'm going to assume they have no releases for Linux planned... Surprise me some more huh?

I would agree entirely, but...

[26199]

...MSN messenger comes with Windows.

So, they're abusing their monopoly to take over the IM market, then charging alternative providers or blocking them to make sure they really have the IM market. Alright, so they still have competitors, but they're giving themselves a massive advantage...

Re:I would agree entirely, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

very correct. Messenger is freely available, so it is unfair competition to people who distribute other messaging clients.

Re:I would agree entirely, but...

[26199]

Free isn't the point... the point is that when you buy a new PC it's there already. As we all know, people will use what's put in front of them if it works... so the competitors don't even get a look-in.

Re:I would agree entirely, but...

[GroovBird]

Incorrect.

First of all, Windows XP comes with Windows Messenger, which is different from MSN Messenger. None of the other versions of Windows come standard with any sort of IM client.

Second, you can turn it off. It's not as easy as everyone would love, but it's certainly not impossible.

And while you argue that they are "abusing" their "monopoly" to take over the IM "market", you should be criticizing TV networks for showing ads for their own shows. After all, they're not paying anyone to run those ads because it's their network.

So please, get a clue.

Dave

Re:I would agree entirely, but...

[26199]

Hmm. Well, I don't use windows, so I guess I'm going on hearsay. But I'm sure it's been bundled with MSN at some point, or that some vendors bundle it with MSN, or something... I admit I could be entirely wrong on that one :-)

Your analogy is miles off, though. The facts are:

1. Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop PC OSes
2. It's illegal to leverage a monopoly in one market to break into another

How is that in any way like a TV network showing ads for their own shows?

The whole point is aggression.

[Anonymous Coward]

People make the mistake of calling Microsoft a software company. But it isn't. It's an aggression company.

quit that now

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, stop that "it's their network and they can do whatever..." shit! yeah, it's their machines, but if they hadn't used the same tricks they did with Internet Explorer, half of the world wouldn't be using MS messenger now, making some strange geeks look crazy when they tell their contact list to change their IM program when they can push a button and donwload the new MS version... hey, you can even put photos on it!!!! Whoooa!!!

I don't see any difference between messenger and IE cases. Maybe when MS try to begin charging for their IM, it will be time for a visis to the Courts...

bait and switch

[Anonymous Coward]

*Nearly* a classic case of Bait and Switch

Only its microsoft trying to take control.

I don't use MSN, there are probably 100 backholes to feed info to MS on what hardware etc I'm using.

ok for the ones that charge but..

[mAineAc]

Are they going to let the ones that don't charge, like gaim, use the protocol without charging them? If trilian can charge for the im service why doesn't MSN just charge the people for using their IM service? Leave the protocols open so that people can intercommunicate. can you imagine what the world would be like today if every different telephopne company didn't communicate with the other?

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Shishak]

But you pay for your phone service. If the telephone company gave you free phone service but you had to use their phone. They would have the right to lock out any phone which is not theirs. MS is paying for the network and they have the right to block anyone they choose. If you don't like it go build your own IM netwrk (Jabber)

If you don't like it, don't use MSN...

IRC

[RAMMS EIN]

``Running an (IM) network is expensive''
Yup. That's why we have IRC. It's venerable, open, extensible, has all the features, and allows distribution of load/cost.

Re:IRC

[Anonymous Coward]

and once an IRC network hits critical mass it becomes useless due to DDoS attacks, flooding, porno spam bots, and god knows what else.

Sorry, but unless you're using a private IRC network IM protocols are so much easier.

Re:IRC

[drinkypoo]

And servers split from each other all the time, and it is the target of frequent DDoS attacks, and it's full of capricious ircops who make vanity kills. Great!

The assorted IM services also have web integration; no irc network currently offers this feature. There are many sites for individual channels but no community sites for irc networks.

Re:IRC

[RAMMS EIN]

``And servers split from each other all the time, and it is the target of frequent DDoS attacks,''
This can and does happen on proprietary IM networks as well. I personally get more downtime on AIM than I get on IRC. Moreover, some IM networks change protocols once in a while, blocking out clients that previously worked fine; the very nature of IRC virtually makes this impossible.

``and it's full of capricious ircops who make vanity kills.''
That's the downside of allowing anyone to op. That said, I never ran into any problems with this.

``The assorted IM services also have web integration; no irc network currently offers this feature.''
P2PChat does.

Re:IRC

[drinkypoo]

``The assorted IM services also have web integration; no irc network currently offers this feature.''

P2PChat does.

P2PChat appears to be just another website for a handful of channels. You can see another one at www.ircchannel.com. This does not in any way address my point which is a lack of network-associated network-wide support for profiles, roaming, etc. Let's not forget that IRC doesn't even allow you to keep your nickname eternally! Even networks with services will eventually expire them, and on most networks "eventually" is around a month.

MSN chat would be a closed & proprietary netwo

[Futurepower(R)]

MOD PARENT UP!!!!

MSN, like AOL, is not part of the internet. It is a closed and proprietary network.

Wouldn't it be great if we had a government that cared about standards? Wouldn't it be great if we had a government that had anti-trust and business anti-aggression laws and enforced them? Wouldn't it be great if we had a government that cared about us?

"I know you'll say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

Not only are MSN and AOL proprietary networks, but they are proprietary networks that sometimes try to mis-use a public utility to make a profit. If AOL did not offer access to the Internet public utility, the company would have long ago gone out of business.

If Microsoft can charge the public to use its private network, can a government charge Microsoft to use the public utility?

The only reason MSN chat could be profitable is that someone else pays for the most of the network. The only reason selling tobacco is profitable is that someone else pays for the health care costs. Licensing MSN chat is, effectively, a way of diverting public funds to private pockets.

And, as others have said, this is as anti-trust as trying to run Netscape out of business. Microsoft was convicted of that, but the U.S. government said that there would be no penalty. No one would use MSN chat if Microsoft didn't bundle it with its operating system. That should be illegal tying of one business to another to accomplish monopoly aggression.

If you murder, it's against the law. If you are a big enough murderer, it's war, and everyone who helps you is a "hero".

When Microsoft abuses us, we begin fighting with each other, instead of taking serious steps to end the abuse.

Re: i'm sorry

[deke_kun]

Bad analogy...the people who made the roads were paid to do so; Microsoft was not paid by anybody to build their IM network. Yes they were. No capitalist corporation does something, especially something that costs money, unless there is a benefit involved. Microsoft, whilst not garnering profit directly (except for of course visa vi the advertising), undoubtedly gain from the MSN network. And clearly what is happening here is, they are trying to increase the amount that they gain from it. Stopping 3rd parties from profiting from their service is fair enough. Stopping 3rd parties from producing clients at all without paying, be they open source or otherwise, has the benefit of increasing the marketshare of their client (and the resulting ad revenue), as well as strengthening their desktop position. The masses of MSN weenies are going to grow up, and be buying PCs in the next few years. If they know that open source competitors cannot use MSN, then they clearly want be inclined to migrate. Its for obvious benefit.

Re: i'm sorry

[caluml]

Read Slashdot at -1, free your mind.

Free your mind at -1? Fill it with crap, more like! I used to read at -1, but I quickly dispaired at how ignorant and inane some people are.

IM Interoperability

[Fuyu]

Remember when AOL and Time Warner merged in 2000 and the FCC stated that AOL must work towards making its AIM network interoperable with other competing services and that if AOL wanted to enable "video conferencing and other advanced features via Time Warner's broadband cable lines" that they would need to open its IM network to competition?

And Microsoft was complaining that AOL should open their AIM network to other IM clients? A Microsoft spokesperson said, "As we've said all along, we believe that the ultimate benefit for consumers is a standard for instant messaging/interoperability among all IM products. MSN continues to work with the IETF and the rest of the industry to make that happen so that consumers can communicate openly and freely with friends and family no matter what instant messaging service they use."

Have they forgotten?

Re:IM Interoperability

[Unnamed Source]

well, considering the FCC changed it's mind and said that AOL doesn't have to provide an open IM network, is it really all that surprising that Microsoft decides to close it's network?

Re:IM Interoperability

[demon]

Well, it's Microsoft now, and it wasn't Microsoft then. Microsoft's management obviously thinks they should not be subject to the same rules as everyone else, otherwise they'd say "gee, we were all on about the whole 'openness' thing before... it'd be awfully hypocritical of us to go all closed now that it's us." But when has Microsoft ever not fallen in the "hypocritical" category, anyway?

Re:IM Interoperability

[burns210]

no, they haven't forgotten, this is good ole' MS strategy. Right now, MSN is second seat to AOL/AIM in size. with AOL being as big as they are, they don't need to bow down to make it easy for the little guys to play in their sandbox(note: the FCC restrictions were recently lifted off of AOL TW). MS is playing the standards friendly underdog, until they can get the network size to flip AOL the bird and Microsoft can do whatever they want.

When you are the underdog, you have to play nice.

trying to kill the open net

[mikeee]

Ah, joy another step towards the closed, pay-per-transaction, non-peer-to-peer Internet. IF you think this is fine, just imagine:

'Running an email network is expensive,' said Lisa Gurry, group product manager for MSN at Microsoft. 'We can't sustain multiple other people's businesses, particularly if they charge for certain versions of their software. We're introducing licensing processes for third parties like Eudora.'"

Re:trying to kill the open net

[rimmon]

Wow, that is one dumb comment...
All the Messenger Servers are run and paid for by Microsoft. That's right. They bought the hardware, pay the people to maintain them, pay the bandwidth fees and so on.
They can do with their servers whatever they want to do: Turn them off, charge everybody for using them or paint them pink. Don't like pink servers? Switch to another service...
Mailservers on the other hand are a) run by everybody on the net and b) at lots of places you have to pay to use them! *gasp*

I mean come on, gimme me a break, I think there are some things wrong with Microsoft, but that's for sure not one of these things...

Fuckin' Great.

[doppleganger871]

Hey... I never used MSN anyway, and anyone that wants to talk with me can just use something else. We use MSN at work... well, not we, THEY do. They can have my ICQ number tho.

Other microsoft services probably will be next.

[Lokist]

Okay so they are locking us out of there MSN instant messenger network(who cares). Whoever is using this protocol for business purposes should have a swift kick in the rear anyway...

Think about it for a second, we all should have saw this coming... Chances are some microsoft idiot didn't like the fact that they couldn't charge for access to there instant messenger service. Now I haven't been following enough to know if they are actually charging, or if they are just trying to make all of there clients complient and for use with only ms systems. I really don't care.

So who wants to bet with me that hotmail is next? They charge for that now (to get a bigger mailbox)...But who can see them denying access at all unless you pay?

Coming soon to a website near you... $24.99 to access your old mailbox...

This isn't a troll, it's more like trying to get people to see that this isn't a suprise at all...

What does that mean??

[neoform]

We can't sustain multiple other people's businesses this guy should learn some grammar.

Re:What does that mean??

[arkane1234]

He means we can't multiple other people's businesses.

Said in a certain way, it sounds right. It's not bad grammer, it's just that you thought it wrong.

Re:What does that mean??

[arkane1234]

I meant to add sustain into that sentence.

Re: i'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

No capitalist corporation does something, especially something that costs money, unless there is a benefit involved.

If your premise were true, no company would ever go bankrupt since everything they did would be to their benefit, involving "undoubtable profit".

Companies take risks every day pursuing ideas which are expensive but have the possibility of becoming profitable ventures. Sometimes the risks bear fruit and sometimes they don't.

Also, lay off with the "whilt" and "visa vi" window dressing. It isn't concealing the fact that your post is pretty damn weak.

You can't polish a turd.

Re: i'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

the picture changes on the moment that ford (who owns the roads) gives away their cars for free, and starts asking money for a road-license to other car sellers.
Than you are unfairly competing, and you should have been split up, unless ofcourse, ford also buys the governement....

Same story, different decade

[Ride-My-Rocket]

"If there is unauthorized access to our network, it opens us up to potential security and privacy vulnerabilities," Gurry said. In fact, there is a yet undisclosed security flaw in Microsoft's IM network and clients, she said.

Because of this unknown flaw, Microsoft is forcing users of several older versions of its own MSN Messenger and Windows Messenger clients to upgrade to newer versions. Users that have to upgrade have been alerted via e-mail and will soon start to see notifications in their Messenger client, according to Microsoft.

Same story, different decade. There are bugs in the older versions of the product, but the newest version purports to fix these problems. The newest version costs money. Repeat ad nauseum. You can see this in a variety of Microsoft products; for instance: Windows NT has bugs, but is no longer being supported; users are urged to upgrade to Windows 2000 or newer. Maybe this is a bad example, since NT is fairly old, so I'll toss a few more in for good measure.

Internet Explorer 6.0 SP-1 is the last standalone version of IE; subsequent versions will be built into future versions of Windows. IE6's support of CSS2 doesn't come close to Opera 7.x's, which makes it all the more difficult to develop for it according to the W3's specs. I'm sure CSS2 will be fully supported, and CSS3 halfassedly supported, in the next WindowsIE version, though.

Visual Studio .NET 2003, the 2nd generation of the .NET development IDE, still has bugs that have been around since the first version went gold more than a year. This includes one major usability bug, which reformats one's code when toggling between Design (~WYSIWYG) and HTML (raw code) views: an idea most definitely borrowed from Frontpage. And yet, they claim this feature is too tightly integrated into the application to be fixed in this version -- BUT it will most definitely be addressed in the next version of VS.NET.

I like Microsoft products -- from both an end-user and developer standpoint, they're easy to figure out, well documented and suit a variety of my needs (gaming, programming, researching & shopping). But there's a fundamental problem with allowing any company to escape accountability for the problems it foists upon those who would deign to use it, in the guise of a EULA. Maybe it's time to take more drastics steps to change this kind of behavior.

MS forced to use IP designer's choice

[16K Ram Pack]

Lucky, that people like Vint Cerf don't say "you are using our protocol, you must therefore use our software".

regardless of whether they legally obliged

[Rooktoven]

It still means they are being pricks-- just like AOL when they pulled this kind of crap. If I can't speak to someone on their network, well then their network is pretty useless to me. The only one I speak to on MSN is my girlfriend, and I'll get her to change to AOL or yahoo.

This is further proof that Microsoft provides absolutely nothing a home user needs to have.

Re: i'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

roads also go away, or at least become unusable, if you don't maintain them

I'm a linuxer and I don't care about MS

[Schugy]

My only contact with MS is, when there IIS is down like on Asus.com. But that's on the remote side and I can't do anything else than not buying Asus. My old Asus A7V133 wasn't 100% stable, their site doens't work, Asus is trash like MS.

For once I agree.

[mindstrm]

I mean, really.... it's great that we've been able to use Trillian, Fire, Gaim, etc, all this time.... and sure some of us really rely on it.. I'm sure wondering whether I want to use Messenger now, or what I'm going to do...

But Microsoft is completely within their rights to do this... it's a free service. They could also just shut it off tomorrow. Or charge huge fees for it.. nobody has any right to complain.. that's the beauty of competition. You can go to other platforms.

Really, we need two things:

a better jabber server, from a software point of view. Something easier to set up. I mean, look.. I realize it's all XML and whatnot.. but as a long time computer "expert" and someone who's set up all kinds of bizarre things.. jabberd is DIFFICULT to understand without alot of study... the documentation just plain sucks.

We need a GOOD jabber implementation, and a set of solid clients on multiple platforms, something ISPs can roll out to their customers, letting them use their email addresses as jabber IDs. Get every ISP running jabber and promoting it to their clients.

Re:For once I agree.

[sylware]

I agree. One the main issues is that the Jabber protocol is not standardized yet. We need it fast with the same features than MSN. For instance it should be able to deal with video conferencing. Internet Sevice Providers should provide their own jabber server member of the jabber network. Like DNS, email etc... Changing of jabber server (I should say Jabber account) should be automated in the case you want to change of internet provider. IMHO, it is the way to go.

Re: i'm sorry

[sylware]

This is strategy: M$ owns the vast majority of the home user market... So they created their own IM system, and distributed its client bundled with their OS: That means the vast majority of home users were drived to use MSN (like IE). Of course all clients were allowed to access their IM network. So they took also a signifiant share of the open source clients IM market, but everybody knows M$ is fighting open source as hard as it can. So, now they have a bootstraping share of the IM market, they deny access to the other clients, knowing that open source clients cannot follow. The vast majority of open source client users is screwed, because most of them have the vast majority of their online friends using MSN and those won't migrate to another IM system, because it is too much annoying (... and the MSN messenger "urge them" to subscribe as soon as they start windows, and this is done in only a matter of a few clicks). Chess play: Good move from M$.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[timeOday]

Well, you certainly seem receptive to Microsoft's moaning about the high expense of running an IM service... which is a farce. They would say exactly the same thing about hosting web sites, and allow only MSIE if they thought people would fall for it. Somehow IRC has managed to get along all these years without MS' deep pockets.

The simple fact is that, like everything else, they are the de facto owners of this market because of their monopoly OS. Otherwise, everybody would just laugh at the idea of an IM client that refuses to interoperate with anything, just like some new email client that makes "special" emails only readable by itself. Kinda makes you shudder to think what the Internet would be like if MS had bothered to participate in its construction instead of clinging to the notion of distributing everything on CDs.

I'm sorry you said this.

[Fermier de Pomme de]

Telcos were granted access rights to private property to install/maintain lines.

As a property owner I don't get a cut of their profits even though they use my property to run their comm lines. Telcos were given what was at the time a monopoly and were allowed to charge for the services they provided through their monopoly. In exchange for this consumers gained the ability to communicate with each other in an increasingly cost-effective way. The economy also flourished as a result.

Eventually, once technology and the mature telco operating landscape allowed it, the monopoly was broken and competition was encouraged to develop.

Should they have been allowed to charge whatever the 'free market' would have let them at the outset when they had no competitors and could have none by the nature of the monopoly they were granted.

The analogy is crap. Feel free to use it.

It seems that a lot of posters have gotten their sum total of econ knowledge from a 'Dick and Jane' book. See Dick sell. Sell Dick, sell. See Jane buy. Buy Jane, buy. Dick and Jane are happy in their free market economy!

In case you have forgotten, MS was ruled a monopoly. This means that they are subject to more stringent oversight than your average business that doesn't exert monopoly control. Their behaviour is considered in a different light.

Note how they bundle their free client with their OS. Just like they had bundled their free browser in the past. Smell the lock-in.

In many things, there is no pure free market and as such the overly simplistic econ you spout is going to work out great for the dominant players but not so great for anyone else, including consumers and other would-be competitors. I appreciate the concerns that MS spends money to run their network and as such they should have some control. Because of their monopoly status I would suggest that the issue is not as cut and dried as some would have you believe.

If you want to encourage competition, a possible solution would be to force w3c common messaging protocols into place, force MS (they are a monopoly, remember) to allow their clent software to be pointed at alternate messaging servers and see what develops. If this rankles then remember that telecom has historically been a heavily-regulated industry and stop thinking that muli-billion dollar monopolies should be subject to the same (lack of) regulation as your kid's lemonade stand.

Re:I'm sorry you said this.

[militantbob]

The only part that I feel the need to address is this:

Property law provides a mechanism called an 'easement' for the usage of another entity's property in cases where purchasing the necessary property would be prohibitively difficult or expensive, and where such usage would be for the benefit of the whole of the people. There is this caveat: the easement is inappropriate if it would interfere with the original property holder's legitimate and full use of his holdings.

If I own a piece of land and the electric company needs to put lines underground or overhead, they will be granted an easement with the restriction that such placement does not obstruct the usual and reasonable usage of my property. In this way, I lose nothing, and the only harm is the potential inconvenience while the lines are being run.

If, however, what I owned was a server and allocated bandwidth, no easement would ever be justifiably *coerced* upon me, as that server has limited processing power and trasmission capacities, which would be consumed partly by the secondary party.

The other important thing to note is that an electric company or a telephone company does not compete with a home-owner for marketshare. Technology companies do compete with each other. Any 'easement' granted to a 3rd party IM client developer would be similar to the idea of Person X buying a gun, and Person Y being forced to supply the bullets he himself will be shot with.

Warning!

[sylware]

I have been reading quite a lot slashdot in the past few months... don't forget M$ is at war with open source, and communication is a very important battle ground. They have 50 billion of $ in cash and slashdot is an open source communication focal point... Has anybody heard of the people paid full-time to post messages in favor of M$ or drive topic the wrong way?! They can be part of the moderators! We need to come up with something to secure all that! Quickly!

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[dnoyeb]

We pay extra for each extra TV connected to Cable.

Re:Duh! Centralization is a bad idea for IM!

[BigGerman]

how do Jabber servers know about each other?
How the Jabber server at my ISP would know that my message to you needs to be forwarded to Jabber server at your ISP?
what are the naming conventions for addressing and such?
I glanced over their website(s) and did not see immediate answers. Just curious.

Their Network, Their Choice.

[nurb432]

However, its my choice not to use it.

The only real problem i see, is that if this idea catches on, then we will see the other IM networks go the same route... we will all end up back on IRC and unix 'talk' before its all over.

The next step will be to charge for usage even with a native client...

Re:Their Network, Their Choice.

[man_ls]

I'd pay some nominal access fee for AOL Instant Messanger, etc, if they wanted to charge for it...I'm thinking a small *yearly* fee but if it were small enough, I'd even be willing to go monthly...$10/year isn't too bad to ask, and that would potentially generate $BILLIONS of revenue for AOL (which does desperately need it), or MS, or whatever other network wants to sell access...

Alternative IM system

[BigGerman]

Disclaimer: I know these people and I like them - I met them at the bar.
Arliweb - messaging system where messages are routed over mesh of peer servers. Anyone can run Arliweb server. If you operate server and it is chosen (randomly, based on network load and your past reliability) to transfer paid-for messages, you (the server operator) get paid too.
Internet IM service by the people for the people kind of thing.

Its not really so bad

[WhiteKnight07]

Check the trillian fourms. AOL tried this sort of thing before and failed. The trillian guys just patched to keep up.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[blixel]

No, but up until relatively recently you couldn't get your own phone at all

Uhh... how recent are you talking? I'm 27 years old and I as far back as I can remember (at least 20 years), my parents had their own store bought phone.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[blixel]

Relative to pretty much anything that matters, yep.

Considering the time scale, I wouldn't say 30 years was recent when dealing with phones which have only existed for little more than a hundred years. (Invented in 1876 but not popularized until years later.) 30 years is almost a quarter of that time. That's not exactly recent. *Relative* to my own life, I don't consider the things that happened when I was 20 (a quarter of my life past - I'm 27 now), "recent" events in my life.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[JeffSh]

im 23 and i can remember phone rentals /shrug

we would take them to a dropoff point to turn them in.

Re:Duh! Centralization is a bad idea for IM!

[BigZaphod]

The way Jabber works is basically just like e-mail. Your Jabber ID isn't just a single name, it is a name and a server. In fact Jabber IDs look exactly like e-mail address:
username@jabberserver.whatever.

That is how the servers know how to route. When you try to send a message to a user on a different server, the server makes a connection to the destination jabber server and then delivers it for you. Your client only needs to talk to your Jabber server, but your Jabber server can communication with all other Jabber servers to deliver messages.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[plague3106]

We pay extra for each extra TV connected to Cable.

You're not supposed to. Its not legal for the cable company to do so. Unless you are renting a cable box.

AOL doesn't allow 3rd party, MSN does

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why people act like an idiot when it comes to Microsoft, but AOL didn't just close their network, but they didn't offer any other alternative. MSN in this case provides an alternative through licensing. So please shut up and give them a credit.

Everytime you guys complain and say something stupid, you only make Microsoft more and more pretty.

Re:AOL doesn't allow 3rd party, MSN does

[arkane1234]

Everytime you guys complain and say something stupid, you only make Microsoft more and more pretty.

A turd wrapped in aluminum foil with ear-ring hooks is still a turd.
Nuff said.

Re:AOL doesn't allow 3rd party, MSN does

[DrXym]

But AOL is open, both by OSCAR and TOC protocols. Even if AOL shut off support in OSCAR for whatever reason, you can still fallback on the simpler protocol.

WRONG

[dollargonzo]

not true at all. if you let someone use a private road for a period of time (i forget the actual period) and never block it off, it becomes a public road (IANAL but i am almost positive there is such a law). same thing with any other kind of property. that was the reason for my road analogy, because i meant it from a purely legal standpoint.

Microsoft has a right to do it....

[voss]

Ok it makes me sick to say it...buts its true

Noone is forced to use MSN messenger, Yahoo and
AOL both have clients with multimillion user bases.
AOL IM, ICQ, YAHOO, GAIM.

These silly car road ownership analogies dont work....Microsoft isnt a monopoly in instant messaging, both AOL and Yahoo(and otherS) have signficant user bases that are growing.

I have MSN messenger on my windows machine, but I almost never use it because Yahoo messenger is better.

Dont whine because microsoft doesnt play ball, tell your friends you dont use MSN messenger because its not interoperable, tell them you use Yahoo, or GAIM or whatever.

I dont think its right for competing clients to make money off Microsofts network that Microsoft built with its own money.

Microsoft is not licensing users, its licensing its competitors to use THEIR SERVERS.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Overly Critical Guy]

What's funny is that this isn't news. Microsoft said they would do this in the LAST article. Doesn't anybody pay attention?

Re: i'm sorry

[luisdom]

If Ford owned the road, then they sure as heck could do that. It's their property, they can do with it as they wish. If Microsoft wants to prevent any client other than a MS-licenced client from accessing their network, then so be it.
Bad analogy, Ford doesn't own a monopoly of cars or roads.

Put yourself in Microsoft's position for a minute (yes, I know it's a pianful thought, but try it anyway). Do you want somebody else to profit while you maintain the infrastructure at your own expense?
Why did they let everyone to do it for years? A guess: typical MS maneuver, once everybody is in because you integrate it in the OS and you're open and let everyone else connect, lock and make mo' money.
The monopoly, as allways.

The only reason...

[s10god]

I use AIM,MSIM, Or Yahoo IM, is because Trilliam supports them. If there was not an application like Trillian I would strictly use the ICQ client.

Sorry, this is Slashdot

[Overly Critical Guy]

This is Slashdot. Even though this isn't news (Microsoft said they were going to do this in the PREVIOUS article!), and even though Microsoft has every legal and moral right to do this, Slashdot needs a bash-Microsoft article to generate page-hits for its parent company.

Mod me down if you disagree, but I think it's obvious. This is a complete non-story, and there are better things we could be talking about. Why would a bunch of *nix nerds want to talk about Microsoft and its IM licensing? The only possible reason is to just bash Microsoft.

Re:Sorry, this is Slashdot

[arkane1234]

This from a person with the signature that says:

lilo: linux init=/bin/bash - Instant root without password

I guess your not much of a *nix "nerd" then.
PASSWORD your lilo/grub, jesus.

Whooa, crazy message from MSN to my GAIM

[bryanthompson]

I just got this from messenger@microsoft.com:

(10:43:37) messenger@microsoft.com: You are running a version of messenger that requires an immediate security update. Please visit http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Upgrades.aspx to complete the update.

However, it let my Gaim connect... and i can still talk to other MSNers, at least for the time being.

Crazy thing, is that for the last week i've been getting a 'cannot write to server' error upon log in.

Re:Whooa, crazy message from MSN to my GAIM

[quantum bit]

Yeah, I've been getting that to.

I just reply with stuff like "No, I'm not, moron." or "Your 'upgrade' doesn't run on my computer. Thanks for nothing."

Not that anybody's watching responses to that fictional account, but it makes me feel a little better anyway.

Phone company still charges for touch-tone

[hermango]

The phone company still charges for touch-tone service.

Re:Phone company still charges for touch-tone

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and they won't let you cancel that so-called option; I tried.

Windows Messenger doesn't have ads!

[Anonymous Coward]

The ads only show up if you install the useless MSN add-in. I used Windows Messenger until a few days ago when it said there was some mandatory update and mentioned something about "trustworthy computing" in the description. Fuck that shit.

Clever

[nepheles]

This is a disappointing move for Linux and Trillian users alike, but it shows some pretty shrewd reasoning from Microsoft.

Unlike most other communication systems, IM relies on your friends being on the same network as you. By building up a web of contacts, you have created a huge amount of inertia. I currently use MSN Messenger (I started a few years back) in tandem with Jabber, and it would be extremely difficult for me to switch.

It would be an almost irresistible move for Microsoft to start charging individual users for use of the service. Is that likely? It's Microsoft.

microsofts holy grail..

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to lock an internet wide protocol, even if its of their own invention, down to the point that they can charge for access to it.. Is this not what microsoft has been trying to do since the dawn of time?

I personally feel once you design something to run over a public network like the internet, you have accepted the fact that it might not be yours anymore.

They also note in the article that they cant support other businesses.. It seems like since those users would be using a microsoft client otherwise, which microsoft gives away - what they are losing is the opportunity to advertise to those users, which is what this is really about anyhow, isnt it..

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Anonymous Coward]

how about:

lilo: linux 1

Microsoft should acknowledge what they're selling

[Todd Knarr]

Nobody (for the most part) uses an IM network because of the client. They use it because of the network and the people who use that network. MS should simply acknowledge that in their business model. There's a simple way to do that: stop licensing the client and start licensing access to the network. You buy Windows, it comes with a license to use the network automatically. You don't use Windows, you'll need to get a license from somewhere else (like buying one from MS). End of problem.

MS, of course, will never even consider this, because the problem from their PoV isn't third-party clients accessing their network, it's clients other than theirs existing at all.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see telephone companies selling phones that won't work unless you call someone with another phone made by them, do you?

I see cell phone companies selling cell phones that only work with their network.

Great analogy...you supported the point. Cell networks are "new" compared to the land lines so they are going through the same growing pains..imagine..we are just starting to see cell number portability here..had that for awhile on land lines.

Why Can't 3rd Party Clients ...

[tabdelgawad]

.. play the same game Trillian played with AOL a year or two back? It seemed that the technical cards were stacked in Trillian's favor, and it could patch its client quite quickly to adapt to any AOL blocks. The lack of legal response by AOL seems to show that Trillian wasn't breaking any laws by doing this.

Could someone explain why the situation with MSN Messenger is different?

M$ does it again

[MoFoQ]

I thought the FCC declared something about instant messaging...and here we are with Microsoft, using their "arm twisting," "suggestion" tactic.

I guess we're just lucky that Microsoft doesn't ask for licenses for their web extensions from Netscape, Mozilla, Opera, or from our ISP's

Really?

[Luxviaest]

"We can't sustain multiple other people's businesses, particularly if they charge for certain versions of their software."

I know it's tough to keep such a model running even with a company who has more cash in tow than the gross nation product of many third world countries. ::: sarcasm stops here :::

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[einhverfr]

I see cell phone companies selling cell phones that only work with their network.

Not so fast. I know a thing or two about telecom (but am certainly not an expert). I think the perception of the "cell phones that only work with our network" is a great invention of the cell carriers. But here is the thing--

Most cell phones work based on one of three standards: Advanced (I call it Ancient) Mobile Phone System (or AMPS), Digital AMPS (or DAMPS), or more frequently GSM, as AMPS and DAMPS are old and of much more limited capacity than GSM.

A GSM phone authenticates on a network by using data stored in the SIM chip. If you swap SIM chips between cell phones, you have essentially swapped the accounts (and carriers) that the cell phones use! See your owner's manual for directions. I believe however, that special phones may be needed for advanced features such as CDMA (which is necessary for some services as it allows bandwidth to be sold in more flexible ways than TDMA).

Think about it-- if a cell phone was only useful on one network, than how would roaming work?

Of course, what usually happens is that the cell companies will refuse to give you just the SIM and require you to buy a cell phone in order to get one. So your analogy is actually sort of clear, where MSN is requiring people to obtain a client *from them* in order to use their service. Of course this comes free with Windows.

But on a larger level, I don't understand why Microsoft is doing this-- the vast majority of MSN IM users use the MSN Messenger which Microsoft offers free of charge with advertisements. I honestly don't know anyone who pays attention to the advertisements, and the Windows Messenger (which is supposed to be part of a *corporate* messaging suite) also has advertisements.

Maybe it is to block Desktop adoption of Linux, but this does not make sense to me either-- strong alternatives exist including Jabber. From a corporate viewpoint, Jabber is at least as good as Exchange Instant Messenging, and because you don't have this UI lockin, you can extend it in many ways. Instead, I think Microsoft should be opening up the network further so that they can allow many people to help produce products that make the IM functionalities of Exchange compete better with Jabber.

heh

[Anonymous Coward]

God, capitalism is a mean bitch eh ?

Re:MSN chat would be a closed & proprietary ne

[Politburo]

Public utility? Ha.

Re: i'm sorry

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

MS is a monopoly and does not have the right to do this.

What is the owners of the road (the government I suppose, which is a monopoly) were to say right now that only American cars were allowed to drive on them ? How would you react then ?

You realize. . .

[PhxBlue]

They didn't get to where they are today by being a charity.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree just drop the MSN support. When MS introduced the latest Messenger 6 I disliked the ad banners and so immediately dropped MSN IM.

Not being able to pick my own free front-end just adds on top of the banner annoyance.

Re: i'm sorry

[frdmfghtr]

Ahh, but the government does NOT own the roads. The roads are public property, paid for by taxpayers' money. The taxpayers are the owners of the road. Thus, as part of the road-owning public, I am fully entitled to drive my Toyota on any public road I choose.

Likewise, if I use a road that is paid for by a toll, then I am paying for the privledge of driving on the road, as I have paid my toll.

If I paid Microsoft a fee for using their IM network, then I should be allowed to use whatever IM client I choose, be it MSN Messenger or Trillian or Imici or Everybuddy or whatever.

Personally, I think the "privacy and security" excuse is just smoke to give their licensing plan some form of technical backbone, when all it really needs is marketing backbone. I'm sure they will license any IM client that is willing to pay for the service, after meeting some basic "security and privacy" criteria which, my guess is, will be better than MS's own client.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[linhux]

My mother use it, for example. A lot of my (non-techie) friends use it. I can't (don't want to) annoy all of them to change IM client.

I would love if everyone used Jabber, and I will, of course, subtly plug for any alternative IM clients when people complain about how inconvenient MSN or whenever it might be appropriate. But I don't like nagging my friends about things they really don't care about.

Re: i'm sorry

[maraist]

No capitalist corporation does something, especially something that costs money, unless there is a benefit involved.

If your premise were true, no company would ever go bankrupt since everything they did would be to their benefit, involving "undoubtable profit".

You interpret his comment incorrectly. To say that a capitalist takes no venture not prone to benifit is a far cry from meaning that businesses need garunteed returns on investment. It is more tau-istic, than anything; a pessimistic view that in any apparent good deed a corporation does, they have an ulterior profit-minded motive.

Take NPR (National Public Radio), companys make grand donations all the time. Isn't that altruistic? Is that great for the public good? Well, I only know this fact because I hear the advertisments that acknowledge these grants to the individual companys.. Oh, and I get to hear the company's tag-line right after hearing about their generous donation.

Ok, so this is merely a thinly disguised commercial, and they're paying for it as they would a non "grant-based" commercial. What's the point? The point is that you could interpret this pessimisticly as corporations trying to subdue a class of audience (those that think they're not having to listen to commericals). Subdue? Yes, commercials are not meant to "get the message out"; to let people know that a service exists, but to indoctrinate various slogans into peoples head through repetition. "I need a light bulb". "Oh yeah, G.E., we bring good things to lite".. They must make better light bulbs than westing house (or who-ever else non-pathmark brand makes lightbulbs.. see it already works).

Now, it's possible that some company's make anonymous grants to NPR, and thus can't attain such commercial dredgery. And we'll even neglect the tax benifit. We'll even neglect the fact that stock holders might demand that the otherwise undonated money should be distributed to share-holders. Incidently, how could this simple common sence act be considered bad? They're share-holders, don't they have a right to collect on profits if they wish? How could this be interpreted pessimisticly? Well, just take a look at current stock-scandles. American Corporations have written the book on how to manipulate their own stocks. If you allow for a greater than average dividend or profit realization one year, then you've set expectations for subsequent years. Exceeding expectations gives you very little beneifit.. Maybe a few temporary points higher stock. But woe is the company that misses a projection by even a fraction of a point. Better pretend that we had a bad year (by donating some of the excess), then to risk not doing as well later.

The previous poster's comment was merely a reflection that MS is a modern industrous company who is very evidently willing and able to use every dirty trick in the book.. Hell, they invented a whole new generation of dirty tricks.

Does this mean company's are bad? Absolutely not. Does it mean we should give them an inch.. Hell no!! Fight the bastards every step of the way.

This current IM debackle means competition to AIM. That means squelching Open Source environment's use of instant messanging to our non-geek peers. Whether they care about hurting open source instant messenging is frankly irrelevent.. This WILL be the effect of their actions.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Hatta]

I see cell phone companies selling cell phones that only work with their network.

Damn, Try saying that five times fast.

Imagine this

[canajin56]

Imagine I run a website. It becomes REALLY popular and is costing thousands of dollars per month in bandwidth. So I put up a bunch of banner ads and popups to offset the cost. People are EXTREAMLY pissed because they hate ads, and start using Mozilla to block to popups, filter the banners, etc...so I can no longer make money off advertising. So I start making the website subscription only. "How DARE you!" the people scream "I am a loyal reader, I DEMAND service! You used to give me free entertainment and your expense, and you MUST CONTINUE TO DO SO! I refuse to pay for anything! You are evil!"

Now, if I happen to be stinking rich, and able to pay the thousands per month without a worry, does that make a difference? Because somebody CAN afford to lose money, they should HAVE to?

Sure, Microsoft is an asshole for closing off 3rd party clients, and they raised a stink about others shutting THEM out of their IM networks...but think about it. They pay money, lots of money, to run their IM servers. They make it back by having adverts in the IM client. And people like Trillian are SELLING software to access it without the ads. They are MAKING MONEY off Microsofts servers. Why should they not have to pay?

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend what you just said is kind of not right. If I was following your thought all the way that would mean Linux would be dead long time ago. While your thinking resembles very much the thinking of Microsoft it is not necessarily true. History shows it and I will not explain (Open source development). The bottom line appears to be MS doesn't want you to run anything but MS's products. I used to be a big Trillian fan but I think I am shifting away from it because any time I start it the hateful "you need to update" popup comes from ".NET Messenger service Staff". Who the heck is that??? I can't even block that idiot who is just sending me the same stuff over and over. Duh, this is Microsoft and you can't block us, remember? We own your desktop, we watch everything you do we may send your info to the government if they ask us to (and you will never find out) and we know you are not using MSN messenger - therefore switch to it or we will stop you from contacting your friends who are using MSN messenger.
Microsoft can't afford to sustain service as simple as MSN messenger? If a company that has $40billion in cash can't afford that who can? This is insane and just outrageous. I hate Microsoft, I hate its executives, I hate their guts.
And, guess what? DMCA protects them. If I write software that will bypass MS's detection mechanisms I may go to jail for that. However, if I release the source code for it (without actually compiling it) - what are they going to do? Are they going to put me in jail and why? What about my freedom of speech? Source code is speech.
Here we come to something very fundamental that lots of people out there still cannot comprehend. Open source development is the way to go. Any other methods of software development are obsolete and more and more of them are under the threat of the crappy legal system we are getting here. Example - what happens if Trillian never buys MS license for MSN but delivers a product that allows users to connect to MSN? Guess who will get busted?! Cerulian Studios (the company behind it) of course. However, if it was that Trillian was open source who would get busted? Cerulean Studios? Nope! I don't think so. They would have to go after the end users so you would be liable for compiling your program to connect to MSN messenger. Now, if that doesn't make you puke I don't know what would!!! Microsoft is continuing to do its monopoly game and the US government just sits there and doesn't do anything. Nothing!!!

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Progman]

I think I'd pay extra to read Slashdot with all the analogies filtered out.

Careful what you ask for.

[Hatta]

So I don't have 4 different IM clients running at any one given time. And until MS offers that kind of functionality, they can bite my bag.

That's exactly what MS wants, but they'd rather go about it by eliminating the competition than interoperating.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[IamTheRealMike]

It has near 100% penetration in Europe. I only know one person (in England) who still uses ICQ. The rest are all on MSN.

Haha, "creates opportunity for their competitors"

[Anonymous Coward]

What competitors are you talking about??? Are you entitled to use your brain? What competitors - in case I use Trillian, huh? Are you saying AOL? AOL hates Trillian just as much as MS does. So there's no competition here, my friend. Trillian will be squashed like a bug or would cost $100 to buy after AOL, Yahoo and the rest of them start asking for licensing fees too.
Think more before you post this.

Microsoft Antitrust

[Jun81]

Microsoft is just using an excuse to squeeze out the competition. The purpose of IM is to be able to connect with your friends while online, but there is no point if we are not using the same program. They think by forcing people to use messenger by linking it to outlook express, they would gain the full IM market, just like what they did against Netscape Navigator. They sure do not need the extra money

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, all the people I met in Spain use it. No Messenger == no way to chit-chat with them.

Why instant messaging in the first place?

[harmonica]

It's not fully on-topic, but why do people use IM, and not simply email? In my experience, IM leads to a lot of unnecessary conversation. People see that you are online (unless you want to play hide and seek with those invisibility features) and feel the need to say something. You are forced to reply, etc. A lot of unnecessary email gets sent too, but I have the feeling people need at least some small reason for a mail, while there are no obstacles for sending IMs.

If there is a real need for a real-time conversation and telephone is too expensive or unavailable, or more than two people are to be involved, a private IRC channel could be opened.

I'd just like to know if others here have had a more positive IM experience. Are there any advantages I'm not aware of?

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Zebbers]

wrong
cell companies sell fones that are locked into carriers cause they sell them or give them away way below cost in an effort to get you to sign the contract

you can buy brand new unlocked fones for retail price

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[operagost]

The Bell phone company was split up in the 1980s, not the 1970s. I remember around 1981, my mom ran to unhook the extra phone in the basement (my dad got it from work- the ringer was busted so it was probably a writeoff) before the phone repairman came to look at our line.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Anonymous Coward]

When you were a kid, your parents probably had illegal phones. Mine did too.

(Well, the phones weren't illegal, but plugging them into Ma Bell's wire was.)

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[VivianC]

best be served by simply dropping support for MSN. Who uses it, anyway?

Ah, another person who doesn't work for a large American company. Sorry, but I do work for one and we use Microsoft Messanger, not because it is the best, but because it works with all the rest of our Microsoft stuff. So how are my Linux boxes supposed to communicate? We need to look at options, but we also need to work in the real world.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[TwistedSquare]

Zebbers speaks the truth... In the UK at least, many phones (made by major manufacturers such as Nokia) are sold with mechanisms that "lock" them to the network of the company selling them. Unlocking is possible but probably technically not allowed.

nothing undisclosed about it

[raboofje]

It's a well-known fact that the older versions of the MSN protocol didn't use SSL yet, and this one does. This makes the new MSN protocol significantly more 'secure', in certain aspects at least.

They think everyone should start using SSL, to which I agree. To accomplish that, they'll be cutting off everyone who isn't using the new protocol yet.

(note that this has little to do with the issue of paying license costs for non-MS clients: gaim, for instance, already understands the SSL-based protocol)

Not enough momentum

[raboofje]

The small percentage of users using Free MSN clients is too small. Not high enough to be a big enough 'shrink' in people's access lists.

If I look at my contact list, I think I would continue to use MSN if all non-MS-MSN-users would quit. And i'm in a geeky environment. Now imagine what the effect would be in a non-geeky environment. Probably too little to really notice.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Jason1729]

But that would be like a baseball game without crackerjacks ;)

Jason
ProfQuotes

Act now - email this to all your IM friends:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, everyone.
We need to oppose Microsoft's action. One way to do it is to email all your friends explaining exactly what's happening. I wrote a well thought-out (I think) email that I sent to all my IM buddies about the threat that Microsoft poses. I understand that it took me a good 2 hours to write this and I know every one of you don't want to waste that much time doing the same thing so I decided to post my email here so the interested ones can send that to their friends. The email does not contain obscene language, and is intended to be informative. Here it is:

Hello, everyone!
This is especially important to all of you who use more than one messenger
service to chat with friends (MSN Messenger, AOL Messenger, Yahoo Messenger,
ICQ, IRC) or intend to use one in the future.
There are several software applications out there that will connect to all or
most of the messenger services listed above. That helps users to run just one
piece of software that connects to all their friends on all these different
network services which is very handy. Trillian (www.trillian.cc), GAIM
(http://gaim.sourceforge.net) are just a few of them. The other cool thing
about these programs is that they don't have the flashing ads that programs
like MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, the ICQ client and AOL Messenger have.
However, a few days ago Microsoft released a license policy for third-party
software vendors (like the guys who make Trillian) that requires them to pay
license fees to Microsoft for having these vendors' software connect to the
MSN messenger network. Read more about this here:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/19/H Nmsnloc kdown_1.html
or here:
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/08/31/00592 34.shtm l?tid=109&tid=126&tid=187&tid=95
or here:
http://gaim.sourceforge.net/msn.php
If Cerulean Studios (the maker of Trillian) did not pay Microsoft for having
its software connect to the MSN Messenger Service who would be in violation
of that license - you or the company that gave you the software? What if
that third-party software company doesn't exist anymore? Who would be liable?
Also, you may kiss your favorite application goodbye (Trillian used to be my
favorite one until Microsoft took us apart) when your free application vendor
turn the same free application into a paid piece of software because they
have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft.
Like it or not very soon you will have to pay for something as trivial as
convenient all-in-one messenger service - something you used to get for free.
And now if you have a friend at AOL, another one at Odigo, a third one at
ICQ, another one at Yahoo you would have to run the separate messengers for
each service. Do you know what mess that would be?
And guess what? Very soon AOL, Yahoo, and even ICQ would follow Microsoft's
example, you can quote me on this one. If you just go, "oh, I am on Yahoo
Messenger so i am not affected", I say - you are :). Just wait and you'll
see.
Among you I have friends that use MSN Messenger and this concerns me. How am I
going to connect to you if I do not want to use MSN Messenger to connect to
the MSN network? Doesn't that sound like: "hey, I don't run MSN Messenger (or
even Windows) - therefore I can't (not allowed to) talk to you over the
Net."
This licensing move by Microsoft is very disturbing. I am emailing this to you
to inform you of the dangers you can put yourself in by using software other
than MSN Messenger to connect to the MSN Messenger network. You may say, "oh,
well, no biggie! I'll connect anyway" but, yes, it's a big deal. It's like
using pirated software.
Please forward the current email to your friends so that they know what is
going on with their messenger service.
And if you are not one of those who just don't care how their consumer rights
are being stumped there is a solution - look around for another service that
is just as good or even better than the MSN Messenger service. My suggestion
to you is to look at Jabber, here is a link:
http://www.jabber.org/user/clientlist.php
My jabber nick is "your_jabber_id". Add me :).
My_Name.

Read THIS, because it's secret information!

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago when Microsoft suggested the open protocol and the fights with AOL heated up, Yahoo Messenger was already toying with adding support for the new protocol to their client. Yahoo Messenger almost fully supported what they called the "IMUnified" protocol back in 2000 and 2001. My registry was full of keys and such related to IMUnified, all filed neatly under the Yahoo Messenger section, so it's likely that some code was written before a standard was completed. After tearing apart the Windows executable with IDA Pro on these early releases of the Yahoo client, you can actually see the procedures to enable IMUnified traffic. You couldn't flip a 0 to a 1 in your registry though to turn on the new protocol, because the client lacked the code necessary to extract those values from the IMUnified registry keys.

I haven't looked at any newer releases of the Yahoo Messenger client, but they might contain the same "functionality". IMUnified was mainly Microsoft's idea, and now they're backpedaling because their poor network is bogged down with Passport users sending messages to each other with open clients that don't show advertising. Here's the truth: Microsoft, your shoddy Windows client has been stripped of advertisements for some time now. On Windows XP (and possibly any other Windows version) the rotating ads can be disabled just be following the directions originally shown on TechTV's website this March (click here). For other versions of Messenger and Windows, you can always visit this site and download patches to your heart's content which'll destroy those ads right where they stand.

The point of all this? Only complete morons (or those living under a Mac) haven't patched their official MSN client in some way to kill the banner ads. Microsoft, you're not making any money from them, because no one is looking at them! You may have forced Trillian and Odigo to buy licenses for your protocol and network usage, but don't think that this money will compensate you from lost ad revenues due to patches and simple workarounds. Trillian will kick your ass if you jerk them around and no one on Odigo speaks English, so they don't need your North American-centric network to keep in touch with friends. There are plenty of alternatives to Hotmail, many of them don't require Internet Explorer to work properly.. and while we're talking about IE, why not tell us why when Messenger is installed and a user visits hotmail.com in IE to check their mail, that Messenger loads in the background (look at your tray)? What's the point of that? Oh, wait, you don't need to tell us, we already *cough* *monopoly* know :).

Great, this means..

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, this means we can't communicate with MSN messenger people without getting Microsoft's IM client.

All six of them.

Jabber

[Cranx]

Yeah, I said Jabber.

Damn it.

RFC for IM DNS record

[alexborges]

Okay. What if we make a record in DNS not unlike the MX record to support jabber-like protocols right into the DNS standard?

That would effectively make it possible to make IM kinda like the mail service, easyer to adopt from the perspective of large and small ISP's and webs ervices providers.

This way, you could sort of 'ask' your ISP what IM servers are running throughout their networks, it could be propagated all the way to the top (thats the nature of DNS), so we could all probably find each other one way or another....

Ideas on this matter anyone?

Re:RFC for IM DNS record

[sylware]

Yope, it is the way to go, full throttle! Jabber support should be done by our ISPs. And as a matter of fact, there are some functions that are more or less made for that: moving your jabber account from one server to another for instance. We have to hurry now... I already started to tease my ISP on this matter... everybody should do the same. But the jabber guys should come up quickly with the final draft of the protocol with the same features than MSN. Server implementations and clients should follow very quickly. Then the MSN messenger will just be a bad souvenir. Assuming that Jabber will be the standard, DOJ should force MSN to inter-opertate with it. Indeed anything that M$ ships with its OS must be checked. Their market share makes the competition unfair in any case.

Re:Hey, Remember When...

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll my nuts mother fucker.

Re: i'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad response. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly over the Internet, nor IM protocols, nor IM clients. You're perfectly free not to use their service.

And even if they achieved one, nothing stops you from setting up your own IM service. Say, why isn't there a free, open source IM server farm? Not just a client, mind you, but the back end software, hardware, and staff?

Because it costs money to operate, of course. If you're not paying for the ride, there's no reason you should be on the road. Roads are paid for (in the US) by taxes on gas; that is, a user access fee. I have no problem with IM services also charging an access fee for their service, if that's what they want to do.

Trillian

[Izanagi]

I just loaded Trillian and got a cute little message:

".NET Messenger Service Staff: You are running a version of messenger that requires an immediate security update. Please visit http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Upgrades.aspx to complete the update."

Re:Trillian

[toriver]

The Trillian Pro 2.0 beta 3 does not trigger that warning from MSN - at least not for me.

Re:Microsoft should acknowledge what they're selli

[cute-boy]

Yes. I'd probably pay $10 per year to access the network, and claim it back on tax later, since job (work at home) job requires I use IM to communicate with other team members (all who have Windows).

As it is, I have to try and persuade the whole team to to change messenger product simply becuase I'm the only team member who works in a non-windows environment.

After all the problems I have telling them our internal systems really shouldn't be MS IE specific, it's another hard sell that make me sound like a whiner...

RG

Re: Relax...

[rimmon]

... it's called "social contacts" and "small talk". It' s perfectly normal to most people who have something that is called "life" and sometimes even happens to geeks.
Relay, enjoy, talk to them and try to get one of these "lifes" :-)

Re: i'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Say, why isn't there a free, open source IM server farm?

You mean like Jabber?

Security update?!

[redgrue]

I just logged into my MSN IM account with Gaim and immediately received this message:

(01:55:49) messenger@microsoft.com: You are running a version of messenger that requires an immediate security update. Please visit http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Upgrades.aspx to complete the update.

What the hell is going on here?

This is Netscape all over again..

[nomad_monster]

So Microsoft has been declared a monopoly, by the way of their market penetration on the desktop. So they bundle the IM client in, which through the monopoly gains marketshare artificially. (Think IE) Then they close off the system to kill competetors (think proprietary extensions, and all the other crap in IE)

Is this legal? Yes. But I would think this would be something the DOJ would pick up on.

Re:This is Netscape all over again..

[demon]

Think about who's running the government right now. Consider how the previous case against Microsoft pissed away to nothing after the current administration took over. You really think they give a rat's pink, fuzzy ass about having the DOJ go after Microsoft? They'd probably rather give them an award, for cripes' sake.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[BlackHawk]

...could best be served by simply dropping support for MSN. Who uses it, anyway?

I do. Or at least, I use the MSN protocol to speak to other users who do use MSN Messenger because they already have it installed. So when the block goes into effect, my Gaim will lose the ability to talk tothose folks, and I have no other outs, as I use Linux for the desktop. Unless someone's had luck getting Messenger to work under Wine.

MSN Messenger and X-Box Live

[toiletsalmon]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the announcement thatyou can link your passport login to your xBox Live id? You can login to the xbox website and see which of your buddys are online and what their playing...Pretty cool stuff from a usability standpoint, but at what cost?

Re: Relax...

[harmonica]

I enjoy doing that in real life, but 'typing small talk' seems to be a major waste of time to me. Simply because I have to put on hold what I was doing and answer, then go back to work, and so on. I'm not that good at multi-tasking. Real life small talk is nothing like that.

Another reason against the online version of small talk: tons of people tend to pile up in IM buddy lists, leading to a lot more small talk than you would ever have in real life.

actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see telephone companies selling phones that won't work unless you call someone with another phone made by them, do you?

Actually, if you looked at the early history of phones you'd be surprised.

Come to japan...

[Karpe]

...those "cool" cell phones that everyone talks about are proprietary to each phone company.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe his parents were paying to lease those phones. I sure didn't know about all my parents financial dealings when I was 7.

Great News for OSS IM Networks

[serutan]

The competition just made itself more expensive. Thanks, Bill!

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Darren Winsper]

But thankfully, not everybody does lock the phones. O2 certainly don't.

Centralized contact lists and preferences

[melted]

I like this feature. Do you?

P2P Chat

[AndreyF]

When ARE they going to come up with a scheme of P2P chat... something as simple to use as AIM, but without a central server?

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Darren Winsper]

It's not quite that bad in England. Most of my "geek" friends have an ICQ as well as an MSN account and some of my friends are starting to move to Jabber. However, it seems that AIM has virtually no market penetration in the UK.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[andrewscraig]

Yes they do, at least if you get the Pay-As-You-Go options. If you get the Contract phone options you get a SIM-Free phone, but the Prepaid phones are generally locked (they'll send you an unlock code if you ask for it and put a big chunk of credit on the phone).

Re: Relax...

[Anonymous Coward]

Smile, I was just teasing you because you sounded like a 100% true nerd :-)

Typical Micro$oft

[Karem Lore]

This is the typical behavior of M$. They bundle applications with their OS, wait a while, then it becomes a pseudo-internet standard and then they charge for it!

If other browsers other than IE had not been around, I am sure that IE would have eventually become pay-to-use.

On another note, how can M$ claim that it costs them money? MS IM is a protocol, nothing more. There is no middle server or anything like that, unless you count the passport that is needed to log in to the IM. Oh, wait, I forgot, they forced that one on to us! I can log into hotmail, create a passport, use IM with Windows Messenger and there is no cost to me. However, when joe bloggs uses client x, suddenly there is a cost? I don't get it!

Karem Lore

Reasoned Response

[Wardish]

Point: Microsoft owns the servers that msn runs on.
Point: Microsoft does impose a fee for using this in the form of banner ads.
Point: Alternative clients avoid this fee.

Reasonsed soulution:
1. Microsoft should introduce a fee based method of avoiding the banner ads payable to them via individual subscriptions or via a license fee paid by the client developer.
2. Microsoft should publish a protocol that includes the delivery of it's ad based fee.
3. Third party client programmers should be required to support the ad based network fee if they do not pay a license fee. This includes a mechanizm of inserting a subscriptions key to avoid the ad fee.

That takes care of the "network" fee. Then third party programmers can move on to making the best interfaces out there.

Obdisclaimer: I'm a trillian pro user myself. I've a small number of family and friends scattered over all the IM networks and the convenience of ONE client for all of them far outweighs other considerations. Personally, I've no objection to ad based usage fee's, but it would be nice to have an option of paying a fee to opt out of this.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[jack_csk]

Oh ya... if the cellphone is manufactured by M$

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[Malc]

My workplace uses it extensively. It is the IM platform that they standarised on over 3 years ago. I'm the only one who doesn't use the MSFT client so my complaints won't go far. Why would I expect them to when five us were over-ridden back then when we said Yahoo IM was better and we'd been using for several years already.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[blixel]

im 23 and i can remember phone rentals /shrug

I actually e-mailed my mom and asked her because I was so curious. The "green" phones that we had - which were the earliest ones I could remember - were actually leased from the phone company. I was never aware of it. Learn something new all the time, eh?

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[dnoyeb]

They charge extra for the extra 'service' they provide. In other words, they are not chargning for the cable or the signal, but for maintainance.

So if I say my TV upstairs is fuzzy, but they only had me down for 1 TV downstairs, they will charge me installation on the upstairs TV. I think thats how the scam works.

no its not recurring charges though.

OH SO VERY WRONG INDEED.

[plover]

You may be almost positive, but that hasn't stopped you from also being completely wrong.

You're thinking of an "easement", a legal right granted by a property owner to another, frequently for right-of-way purposes. They're written into contracts, and if it's not in a contract, there is no right. There are many forms of easements, and an "easement of necessity" may be forced upon a property owner by a legal action. Typically, this is used on landlocked parcels. But that's not dependent upon any specific amount of time of usage; rather, they're decreed by a court out of necessity. There are also easements called "implied easements", which generally are granted due to the existance of previous easements (if a city vacates a roadway, for example, the property owners who previously enjoyed the use of the road may still retain easement rights to operate that road.)

If I had a driveway across my property that allowed my neighbor access to his garage and then chained it off because I wanted to build my own garage on that bit of land, we'd probably end up in court. If my neighbor had other ways to get to his land via public roads, the judge would probably say "tough luck, build your own driveway." However, if that garage were on the back corner, inaccessable to the public roads because of a pond, other neighbors, or because he built it on the wrong side of a cliff, the judge would probably say to me "Please be a nice neighbor and let him use the road for another week, just long enough to move his stuff out of his garage." If I refused, the judge would be within his powers to grant my neighbor a temporary easement anyway. He might even consider a permanent easement, if the situation warranted it. Judges are usually very reasonable people, and they like the claimants to act reasonable as well.

I've gotten involved in this situation once before. I bit on a stupid forfeiture gambit without realizing that I already had a legal right-of-way easement over the property I bought (a cul-de-sac.) I fell for a shady lawyer's letter saying "if you don't hire us, a shady lawyer will buy your cul-de-sac when it comes up for forfeiture and charge you to access your own house." Fearing that the guy who wrote the letter was quite the expert in shady legal tricks (instead of simply recognizing that he specialized in writing shady letters), I went to the county and bought it myself for back taxes owed. I did get reimbursed via my title insurance (yes, that stupid title insurance racket was actually good for something.) But then I ended up with a cul-de-sac which required payment of taxes, snow plowing, accident insurance, etc. The neighbors and I finally formed a homeowners' association to take care of it.

I also fear that the situation is about to come up again: my neighbor parked a junk car next to his garage many years ago, then built a nice fence around it to hide the ugly monster so I wouldn't have to look at it. In the meantime, the tree I planted on my property has grown to pretty much block the path of anything leaving his fence via that gate. I'm not sure what's going to happen when he finally needs to drag that piece of sh!t away, but he may need to tear down his fence to do it. I'm not cutting the tree down. Personally, I hope he takes a torch to the car and cuts it into gate-sized pieces, and solves all the problems that way.

Anyway, the moral of the story is: if you ever type "IANAL but", you should really hit the cancel button and STFU. If not, at least research your topic before spouting off things you think should be right.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[plague3106]

Like the telcos, cabling within your home is your responsibility. They also usually charge for a service call (inside or out). The installation charge is just that; a charge to hook everything up for you. If you did it yourself, i suggest you call your cable company and disupte the charge.

Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun

[dnoyeb]

Yes, thats the scam. If you tell them you have 3 TVs. They will "turn" on each one. Remember, homes are mostly already wired for cable. Our cable TV stayed on a year after we moved into the house. So when we called them, all they had to do is flip the switch.

They insist on sending out a tech. Thats the first part of the scam. THen they ask how many TVs do you have? They dont tell you they intend to charge you for each one. All you knew about was the free installation. But it was free for 1 tv.

So each TV they push the power button on gets an installation charge.

its stupid.