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

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.

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.

[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.

[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

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.

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

[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.

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?

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.

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: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: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.

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: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?

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."

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

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...

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.

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: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: 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.