Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
...could best be served by simply dropping support for MSN. Who uses it, anyway?
"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...
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!
...
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.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
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
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.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
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".
"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.
"Derp de derp."
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
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.
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
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.