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?

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...

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: 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.