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...
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.
This is bad security design for sure, but means no open source anyway, period.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I doubt that MSN messenger's ease of install will be beaten- it's preinstalled by default in Windows XP home.
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
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.
"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?
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?
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.
...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?