Microsoft Ties Windows Live Services to OS

narramissic writes "Microsoft is tying its Windows Live services directly to Vista — a move that should sound vaguely familiar, as it is precisely what the company did to make IE ubiquitous among Internet users. 'A new unified installer for Windows Live services will help users download Wednesday's updates of photo-sharing, mail, instant messaging, online safety and other services, the company said on its Windows Live Wire blog. The new installer also will automatically update those services on Windows Vista and XP going forward.'"

Comments

Re:Another reason..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it be "another reason", considering this download's completely optional?

Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too

[vivaoporto]

what the company did to make IE ubiquitous among Internet users

Not only IE, but MSN Messenger too. Before Microsoft tied MSN Messenger to Windows XP, as the infamous Windows Messenger, ICQ ruled the IM world, and Yahoo Messenger was gaining a lot of traction. Months later, and every newcomer was using MSN, because "that is what comes with the computer", and everybody else had to get an account too, in order to stay in touch. Have in mind that I only know Latin America and Europe, so that may differs in other parts of the world, but at least in Brasil and Portugal, "MSN" is a valid substitute for "Computer Instant Messaging", the same for "give me your MSN".

hmm.

[apodyopsis]

It worked for them last time, and then only just. This time with most businesses staying away from Vista and many home users avoiding it because of compatibility issues, I think they sound slightly petulant and desperate.

However - the engineer in me reckons this is more about them wanting to support less platforms and trying to "get rid" (or obsolete) the older ones as fast as they possibly can.

Not unusual

[El Lobo]

It's not unusual, Tom Jones, that a company pushes web services to their current products. Apple does the same with the .Mac services. last time I checked, when you get a mac it comes ready to sign up to the .Mac services. And no, it won't work with OS9m it's ust tied to the latest OSX "whatever cat".

Google pushes for their gMail, gOffice (or whatever it's name is), just they don't "own" an Os (yet). When they do, besure as hell they will push and tie those service to it. Hell, I'm even tired of their toolbar being bunded with wathever proggy you download from the web.

So nothing to see here...Move on...

Re:Not unusual

[Adambomb]

And which of your counter-examples has been convicted of being illegal monopolies?

Theres a difference between unethically leveraging a product and illegally leveraging a product.

Both suck, but both are completely different beasts.

How does this help Microsoft?

[stoicfaux]

I understand that making something easy to use makes it more likely to be used. But unless MS force feeds it to you when you boot or install Vista and XP, why would people choose Live over the more established brand names such as MySpace and YouTube?

MS would need a big marketing push to gain mind share, and I don't think an optional web install will do it.

Re:Another reason..

[RobertM1968]

Actually, this is for Vista and XP from what the article seems to infer/state.

Regardless of what the other guy who responded to you said, Yeah, it is optional now... but it is also still in beta. Only time will tell whether this becomes another "Automatic Update" item... ah well...

Live Monopoly Reflex

[Doc Ruby]

Microsoft waited until the Feds and seven of 12 states let them off the hook for monpoly noncompliance. Then they flexed the monopoly muscle. And why wouldn't they?

And why should we stand for it?

Re:Live Monopoly Reflex

[dpilot]

Well if they were "let off the hook" by the Feds, then clearly the original ruling was in error, and so was this article, for using that legally loaded work, "tying."

Conclusive evidence of more of that Linux-biased, Microsoft-hating Slashdot meme at work.

(tongue so far into my cheek that it hurts, on this one.)

Re:It's a technically awful thing to do

[bheer]

That was never IE's fault. It was Win9x's problem. If an app hung under Win9x, there was a good chance of the OS going down (because of the weird remnants of cooperative multitasking lurking about in Win9x). By contrast NT4 (with the Active Desktop+IE4 Shell Update) and Windows 2000 never had a problem if IE crashed (and IIRC it crashed far less than NN4 did).

By the way, the problem in bundling IE wasn't technical: all they did was add a browser to Windows, and make the components + standard APIs available to all Windows apps. If you think that's technically awful you should go back to using VMS. No, the problem with bundling IE was the business practices that accompanied it.

these tools are nice

[icepick72]

From the perspective of using Windows Vista, I just installed the beta of this optional software, and it's very welcome providing a centralized desktop environment to manage my Live services. Makes life easier and faster. In the end isn't that what software should strive to do?

Re:these tools are nice

[ScrewMaster]

I'm one of the people (and there are many on Slashdot) that have been in the computer business since before there was a Microsoft, who have seen the incredible damage that company has done over the years, and who also hope to still be around after Microsoft's hegemony has run its course.

So is Microsoft an enemy? Depends: if I were a company trying to get into the operating system or office suite business I'd certainly have to contend with the barrier to entry posed by Microsoft. They aren't my personal enemy either (chair-throwing bald men aside) ... but that doesn't mean that I deliberately blind myself to all to bad things Microsoft has done, and is continuing to do. They're a profitable organization, to be sure, but they're not a good one.

Microsoft's success comes at a price, and we're all paying it.

Re:Depends on the region and age group

[JediLow]

Heh, well... the number thing did work - I still remember my number from... 11 years ago.

The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[Jon.Laslow]

Common, people, actually go and look at what they are doing for a change. This isn't something that is being bundled with Windows (Vista or otherwise), it's a download, just like the Google Pack. You can still get the programs seperately, or you can use this new installer to pick and choose. This isn't something that will come in the form of an Automatic Update, because not only is it from different product group ("Windows Live... is branding and nothing more), but things like Live OneCare require a Paid Subscription past the trial period. Rant over. Karam down the drain. I'm just sick of seeing so much FUD on Slashdot, anti-Microsoft or otherwise. I know it's not going to stop, but can we at least calm it down a little?

Re:The Slash-FUD rolls on....

[RobertM1968]

Puleeez! Stop, relax, then get a clue... there was no FUD involved in my speculation - just simple track record, and plenty of facts that I go into below.

MS has OFTEN tied their services together (MSN, IE, components of Office, etc). Almost every part of their new little package is something they are trying to tie to Vista.

It currently isn't part of "Automatic Update" - but it IS still beta. That it ISNT a part now, doesnt mean that it WONT be... kinda like the whole Messenger thing for a while. Oh wait, I thought you said they dont do things like that since it's a different product group. Just like how their original intention with other parts of Windows Live (from different product groups) was to tie them into Vista. And how they have filed patents to tie them all together - and into the OS - for the purpose of gathering demographics and other info on users of any of their products.

While my post was speculation; they've already filed patents that support it, they've already done similar things with products from other groups in the past (and antitrust pressure seemed to be the only thing slowing it), and the software can easily (as they mention) update the applicable components - of which, numerous are not subscription based (and some of those, like Passport used to be in order to use many services, can become required subscriptions).

Your only supporting speculations seems to be:

• This isn't something that is being bundled with Windows (Vista or otherwise), it's a download, just like the Google Pack. You can still get the programs seperately, or you can use this new installer to pick and choose. You probably meant "Until they change that... and after all it's a beta - and they better not be FORCING it on anyone at this point."?
• This isn't something that will come in the form of an Automatic Update, because not only is it from different product group ("Windows Live... is branding and nothing more), You probably meant "Oh, that's really irrelevant, what was I thinking? They've done that in the past with products from different groups - especially if it extends them into another area in a monopolistic way."
• but things like Live OneCare require a Paid Subscription past the trial period. You probably meant "Since the program updates and changes services that are installed, I dont know why I wrote this - it's a moot point"

Sorry, that's what I read in your post...

-Robert

Huh?

[Gavin Scott]

Sorry, I RTFA and it was the worst heap of rubbish I've read all day.

It's author seems to be utterly and completely clueless about everything mentioned.

There's not a single thing that justifies the word "tying" that I can see. Microsoft have some OPTIONAL add-on set of services that you can install if you feel like it. It's not mandatory and they're not saying it will be. It's no more "tied" to Windows than any other piece of software.

I think I'm going to start a blog where I too post nonsensical tech stories with headlines solely designed to push the buttons of reactionary Slashdot readers, then clean up on the Google ad income.

G.

Re:Another reason..

[Ucklak]

IE used to be an 'optional' download - back when Netscape came in a box and was $49.95.

Re:Another reason..

[ozmanjusri]

having to compete with yourself in order to not be a monopoly seems a bit stupid.

It's actually the clearest evidence of Microsoft's monopoly we have.

In a competitive market, producers are forced to continually improve their products so customers will buy them in preference to anyone else's.

In the computer OS market, Microsoft is having to coerce people into "upgrading" to their newer versions because there's no improvements their customers actually want.

Re:It could be worse

[EraserMouseMan]

and they are definitely testing their boundaries constantly

Who wouldn't?

Who's just going to roll over and die? When somebody lable's you as a monopoly that means that you are an extremely agressive company and doing so well that everybody is scared of you. Why would a company in that situation just give up and let everybody take back their market share? I don't understand why people act surprised that MS would continue to constantly test their boundaries.

How is Apple Different?

[bxwatso]

So, when MS bundles small applications with Vista, it's evil, but when Apple bundles similar applications with OS X, it's "all the stuff you want."

If you don't want what MS is selling, just don't buy it. MS is hardly a monopoly for the individual user anymore.