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."
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.
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.