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?
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!
"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...
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.
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.
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...
'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
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.
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.
'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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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!"
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
"'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.
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
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
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
If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
Please God, let me find my blue hat with the red trim. (Frances Farmer)
"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.
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.
No, but you see them encouraging exactly that. Unlimited PCS to PCS, anyone?
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.
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
...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...
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."
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?
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
Me
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.
... 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.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
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.
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.
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
You want to control humans? OK... just give them the illusion that they have choises!
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.
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.
HTTP/1.1 400
...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...
``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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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?
"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.
.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.
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
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.
Lucky, that people like Vint Cerf don't say "you are using our protocol, you must therefore use our software".
Check the trillian fourms. AOL tried this sort of thing before and failed. The trillian guys just patched to keep up.
We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I think I'd pay extra to read Slashdot with all the analogies filtered out.
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.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
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)
But that would be like a baseball game without crackerjacks ;)
Jason
ProfQuotes
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.
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
When all is said and done, nothing changes...