Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Threatens Startups Over Account Info
HangingChad writes "According to Fortune, there are reports that Microsoft is trying to strong arm startups to give preferential treatment to MSN Messenger and are using account information as leverage. 'If the company wants to offer other IM services (from Yahoo, Google or AOL, say), Messenger must get top billing. And if the startup wants to offer any other IM service, it must pay Microsoft 25 cents a user per year for a site license.' Of course, if the company is willing to use Messenger exclusively 'fee will be discounted 100 percent.' Getting detailed information is difficult as many of the companies being approached are afraid of reprisals."
Open Identity systems such as OpenID are the way to go. But how do we break open the proprietary lock? Tim Berners-Lee told me to look at FOAF but we still need to complete the integration into the authentication systems.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Microsoft has always had a heavy foot, but waiving fees for those who cut out the competition requires another solution.
Drop Microsoft! Just drop them. Stop using them. They are old anyway. Let's come up with something NEW!
Backfires inc!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I'm very confused by the new comment filter overlay thing that's now used here at Slashdot. All I want to do is view all posts, from -1 up, nested. This was so easy to do before, but now I can't for the life of me figure out how to do it with this new system. Help, anyone?
Can I disable it without creating an account, and just go back to the old dropdown lists that actually worked?
Quote from the Fortune article: "This is a great example of why Google is the leader ... and Microsoft is not..."
Microsoft: Do evil if evil makes money? Or, Microsoft: Evil is our most important product, making money is secondary?
Why not use Trillian's format? Oh, wait...
In fact, if you think about it a bit, it isn't hard to come up with a design that would work a lot like email. You have a local IM server (or your ISP provides one). You have a record like mail's MX record in your DNS data that points to your IM server. When you want to IM me, your IM server looks up my IM server in my DNS record, and connects to my IM server, and our clients then talk to each other, relaying through our IM servers.
why are they still playing with MS? MS will ALWAYS pull these illegal actions. All the companies have to do is quit playing in MS's back yard.
What amazes me, is that MS does not buy companies who are on their platform. They just strongarm them and steal as be needed. Instead, they buy companies who could represent a threat to their platform or are making money hand over fist (the 2 tend to go hand in hand). So, by being in Windows, a startup not only pays much higher costs, but they also kill off a huge chunk of the market that would otherwise drive up their price, and then subject themselves to MS's hand.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Now seems like a good time to put in a plug for the Mess.be Mess Patch, which can strip out all the bloat, all the ads and all the 'extra services and features' that come with Windows Live Messenger and leave you with a relatively clean and usable client.
On a somewhat related note, have Vista users noticed the new 'Live' programs available optionally through Windows Update?
A piece of software without MSN integration is like a dog without bricks tied around its neck.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
That google is based on XMPP/Jabber, but even AOL is jumping onboard with it. I imagine it is only a bit of time before yahoo will also see the light. The ONLY one that will strive to remain off it will be MS. But you can bet that once they do, it will be with an interesting extension (and very closed one).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Your hotmail contacts are a data set. Reading them, even automagically using technology that was boring in 1975, is not a service but a natural human faculty.
"And besides, 25 cents per user per year?"
Not a huge number, but "25 cents per user per year per relevant dataset" would be a dealbreaker for every startup I know.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
An interesting position, if we the people would be allowed to claim it. Since I'm the keeper of the information in my computer, does it mean I own the intellectual property?!...
Yes, I know, there's a difference between "data" an "information". But my list of contacts isn't something that arose spontaneously, we aren't talking about phone books here. I worked for years to meet all the people in my list. That's information that has been carefully collected and organized, it's not like taking a list of everybody who lives in a city and ordering by last name.
That list of contacts is *MY* data, *MY* property and *I* should have the final word about it!
They should have been broken up after being found a monopoly. There is little to stop them from doing things like this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The article is a mess. It makes no sense whatsoever. Better luck next time.
Sometimes I really wonder why I bother to read news online...
This is activity intent on stifling competition, MSN messenger has been bundled with windows for a while now and gives microsoft an unfair advantage on the IM market (nearly everyone buying a computer, gets windows and so windows messenger (which is a stripped down version of MSN messenger)). Now, Microsoft tries to /scare/ other companies into only allowing MSN to be used as IM client for their social network sites.
In other words: they're trying to use their dominant market position, which was gained by illegal means, to force companies to strengthen Microsoft's position in the market even further.
I wonder what the EU will think of this kind behavior from Microsoft.
We put the question to Brian Hall, general manager for Windows Live. "We want the user to be in control of their stuff," he told me. "We believe strongly that it's the user's data, it's the user's choice."
Oh really? What about Secure Audio Path and the other draconian DRM measures in Windows.
Microsoft must be running for public office. Say one thing, do another.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
It wasn't "social networking sites", but "webmail sites". And of the three big ones (Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google), only Microsoft try to use control of the mail contacts as a "leverage" for their other products.
When it comes to anti-competitive behavior, Microsoft really is worse than other companies. If nothing else, the number of times Microsoft has been convicted of illegal business practices (especially tying) should witness of this.
They mentioned they wanted to keep data secure, but there was no mention from anyone interviewed (anonymously), that MS was demanding a security audit of the companies' systems. That would be an interesting approach to take. You can access our data for $x/user/year, but we'll waive the fee if you submit to an audit to prove that you'll be handling the data in a secure manner. I still wouldn't agree with the practice, but it would have been a more PR-savvy move to take. "We're protecting this customer data, but still allowing the user to take their data with them, etc". During their audit, they might just happen to find that Oracle, DB2, PostgreSQL and MySQL aren't as 'secure' as MSSQL, and 'suggest' that companies use MSSQL in the mix as well for user data, but that's just a conspiracy theorist mindset at that point. :)
creation science book
I think you will find a satisfactory solutution by clicking this link
Please stop stalking me, bro.
$
hmmmm....
HMMMMMM......
*fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap*
*clicks post anonymously*
I used Messenger a few times? Then I found out that my user/pass was the same for my Hotmail account, AND my Passport. I remember I was using my Passport account to purchase something, when I suddenly realized, "Hey...my credit card info is tied to my Hotmail and MSN Messenger password..."
I promptly deleted the credit card info, changed the user info, scrambled the password by mashing the keyboard with a copy&paste and changed the email to a free Hushmail account that would go away in 30 days.
They've since changed that practice, but MS hasn't offered me anything worthwhile to bring me back.
[End Of Line]
Make Microsoft look like assholes and make sure users know it's MS's fault.
On your social networking/Web 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, whatever site allow users to import from AIM, YIM and Google. However for MSN, grey out the option and next to it in red put "Due to legal pressure by Microsoft, if you use MSN, you must manually import your contacts" and give a link to a tedious page that restates this reason and make them upload them one at a time.
Naturally users are going to be rather upset at MS and wonder if maybe they should switch to AIM instead.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Currently my company uses Spark(LGPL), not fancy, but it works http://www.igniterealtime.org/projects/spark/index.jsp
last company used MSN(seemed stripped down), didn't do any more than spark
(There is a link which says "Get updates for more products" which takes you to a page where you can download Microsoft update (as opposed to Windows updated) which presumably would give you updates to Live products, but you have to actively choose to install that).
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Msft advocates are fond of saying "everybody is doing the same thing." But the truth is that nobody is brazenly breaking laws, and otherwise scamming like msft. Not even close. Msft is in a class by themselves.
Msft scams include: outright lying to the US-DoJ in video taped testimony, letters from dead people campaign, the scox scam, the acacia scam, outright stealing stacker technology, fake benchmarks, use of shill "journalists" like Enderle, fake "independent" benchmarks, fake "independent" reviews, and on and on.
Msft == corruption, like no other company.
LOL, I'm sorry, but I must say, your post seemed to me a little like this:
'The blade on ole' Excalibur here is a bit scuffed, and just before I go battle the Green Knight (read: RIAA, Microsoft, whatever)'
'Well, here, try this Ginsu knife!'
Your solution is funny, but just not effective.
That was more or less what I was going for. But the question was 'I don't want to use solution A that is provided for me. Are there other solutions?' And my answer was, 'Of course! Solutions B through Z!'
But I was dabbling in a bit of jerkofferry, I admit.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Microsoft 'to sleep'.
They make nothing except for inadequate OSs and threats.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
All your Word(s) are belong to us. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Bow before your god! Hmmm, they all apply quite nicely to MS.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Back at the peaceful Simpsons house. Homer is reading "Internet for Dummies".
HOMER
Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!
MARGE
Homer, Bill Gates is here.
HOMER
Bill Gates?! Millionaire computer nerd Bill Gates! Oh my god. Oh my god. Get out of sight, Marge. I don't want this to look like a two-bit operation.
Marge groans and rolls her eyes. Bill Gates and two "associates" enter.
GATES
Mr. Simpson?
HOMER
You don't look so rich.
GATES
Don't let the haircut fool you, I am exceedingly wealthy.
HOMER
(quietly to Marge) Get a load of the bowl-job, Marge!
GATES
Your Internet ad was brought to my attention, but I can't figure out what, if anything, CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet does, so rather than risk competing with you, I've decided simply to buy you out.
Homer and Marge step aside to talk privately.
HOMER
This is it Marge. I've poured my heart and soul into this business and now it's finally paying off. (covering his mouth) We're rich! Richer than astronauts.
MARGE
Homer quiet. Acquire the deal.
HOMER
(to Gates) I reluctantly accept your proposal!
GATES
Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
Bill Gates companions begin to trash the "office".
HOMER
Hey, what the hell's going on!
GATES
Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!
Bill Gates lets out a maniacal laugh. Homer and Marge cower in the corner as the room continues to be trashed.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
I'm not an economist, but placing barriers on the export of contact information from Hotmail reduces the value of the Hotmail service. If the cost to move a particular piece of data from within one system to any other is higher than moving it in the other direction, its value inside that high cost system is lower by that amount.
Have gnu, will travel.
You can access our data for $x/user/year, but we'll waive the fee if you submit to an audit to prove that you'll be handling the data in a secure manner.
How is this acceptable? It's like paying an indulgence to the Pope for your sins every year so you can keep committing sins. If I'm entrusting my data to someone else then adequate security should be MANDATORY.
During their audit, they might just happen to find that Oracle, DB2, PostgreSQL and MySQL aren't as 'secure' as MSSQL, and 'suggest' that companies use MSSQL in the mix as well for user data
So "Pope William III" directs us not to eat "oracle fish" on Fridays? Aside from the claim MSSQL is somehow superior is terms of security being ludicrous, I don't think PR people could spin this away from the blatant attempt that it is to use their leverage in the database market.
We need a Martin Luther of the digital age it seems.
Anyways, we are still in the dark ages, with silos of replicated, dated information all over the place. Our personal data is replicated, transmitted, sold and resold as if it was THEIR data. It's OURS and WE should have full control. We're approaching the age where we could technically have meaningful control our personal information--we could all keep all our own data and easily see who we've given it to and what it's used for. It would be a monumental task to achieve a standard, interoperable yet secure infrastructure to do this, but it is quite possible to do. But being the dark ages, we still have "data lords" and a feudal system of digital serf identities, and those "lords" are using that very technology that could lead to a "renaissance" to try to maintain and expand their kingdoms. Instead of "open IDs" and standard protocols and sane encryption and authentication policies we have hidden protocols, "25 cents per user anuually", draconian DRM so the "MafIAA" can control data created by artists and used by honest paying customers.
I still hold out hope--if things get REALLY bad people will revolt.
Parallel Translations of 1 Timothy 6-10:
"For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." -- New American Standard Bible
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows." -- American Standard Version
But most of the other translations leave out "all kinds of" and say "all".
It says the author is Paul of Tarsus. The source we have of the writing is from the Peschito Syriac of the second century. -- Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Judging from one example, Bill Gates, the idea is supported. Bill Gates is said to suffer from depression. Depression is certainly a "sorrow".
I'm aghast!!!!!!!
and, naturally, if they weren't being deceitful
Submitted this to the original article; no idea if it'll show up.
I think rob/ahoutx/maddawg are missing the point. Exclusivity and top billing have nothing to do with security.
MS COULD demand certain security measures or, more uniformly, require the service to send the user to MSN where they must agree to a warning about how this startup may do lord knows to their info. It should be up to the user.
Keep in mind that if this article is accurate, they are NOT doing this. But they ARE saying that it's totally fine to do whatever you want IF you only use MSN.
Generally these types of services at least require you to enter your IM info AND PASSWORD for them to get all your contacts. And if you give _anybody_ this info they can sign on using an IM client and get all your contacts.
Not exactly a lot here that this policy is keeping safer.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
From the New York Times September 3, 1995 article Running on the Fastest Track: "Gates, suddenly reassured, interrupted, 'So they have finite greed.' " Finite greed, it seems, is a term of derision in the Gates vernacular.
It seems that Bill Gates is admired for only one thing, being the richest person. I have never heard of anyone admiring Bill Gates for anything else. Apparently people don't want to be him.
I propose the one-finger solution.
Social networks only use the contact importing feature to jump-start new users. Once the initial batch is out, most new links are added through mutual friends. It wouldn't be a huge loss to get rid of the Hotmail import and just expect people to manually add 3-4 friends at first, or search for them by name.
Microsoft needs to be reminded they're not indispensable in this world. The internet existed for a long time without any MS input, and I personally don't use much of what they offer - none of the "Live" services except for MSN Messenger, and I could easily coax most of my contacts to switch over to something else.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The support for it was a little buggy (HTTP cookies used for login identification don't traverse domain names) but Blogger has supported at least two methods for using your own domain name: 1) "FTP publishing" and 2) Pointing a domain name at Blogger. Obviously if you want to use your own host and not just your own domain name then you were limited to option "FTP publishing," however for many web hosting plans that meant giving your plaintext login credentials to a third party. Yikes.
Personally I use Blogger simply for its publishing front-end and somewhat-spam-guarded blog comment subsystem. I "publish" via an RSS pull method, because neither methods #1 nor #2 gave me the power I wanted.
For those of us who don't use any of these services, could someone please clarify what is at issue. As I understand it, the problem is that people who have a contact list on a Microsoft service want to be able to use that contact list for some other company's service. Can't they just save their contacts in a file that the other services can import? Surely Microsoft has no claim to the data itself and therefore no way to interfere with importing such a file. It sounds like the other services are trying to connect to the Microsoft service and that that is what gives Microsoft something to say about it. Why do they need to do this?
It's amazing to me that we're now beginning to see the practical limits of the Frankenstein monster known as The Web. The Web was supposed to make information flow more freely. Yet due to its poor design, only tech-savvy users are capable of doing things like transfer their contacts from one service to another without there being some kind of automated behind-the-scenes linkage between the services. The fact is that Web clients (mostly browsers) have access to both the ability to pull your contact list data from a service, and the ability to push new contact data to another service. In theory then, shouldn't the platform be capable of allowing any developer to write a client-side web app that is easy for a novice to run and ensure his data security that would perform the transaction for him, and even reconcile discrepencies between contact list specification formats? Why is something as notionally simple as contact list transfer so technologically complicated that we actually consider it to be a great service to us when two giants like Microsoft and Facebook bless us with the ability to synchronize our contact information between them?
The web needs rethought if we really want to use it as a vehicle for efficient and unimpeded information transaction.
This actually could be turned against them. If I was a start up I'd widely publicise the fact that MS is doing this and pass the cost on to the user. If you want to use MSN with my system then you have to pay the 0.25 fee. No other messaging system is charging, so I would think that over time in the interest of consolidating services, and people generally not wanting to pay for what they can get for free MS would be squeezed out.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
From the article, it seems that the social network sites that let users import their contacts from Hotmail do so by having the users type in their Hotmail username and password. So the social network site then actually logs in to Hotmail and retrieves the data.
It doesn't seem too unreasonable to worry about that leading to potential security breaches. If nothing else, the social network site's admins could easily mess with the user's in-box.
But wouldn't the most secure (and desirable) solution be for Microsoft to allow Hotmail users to export their contacts list as a tab-delimited text file? No security issues. Maximum portability. Users are in control of their own data.
Reading the article, the crux of MS's concern is that some 3rd party (e.g., start-up) will store your username/password and thus weaken security as that is not "a best practice." Not that MS follows many good security practices... assuming the start-ups didn't store the user name and password, and there isn't any real reason to either... all should be good.
:)
MS also makes the claim that the users data is the users' data and then out of the other side of their mouth make a claim about how it took them 12 years to build up all the data in Hotmail and don't want to share it with a start up... (unless they get favorable terms).
Then they also talk about using the Live Windows tech to be able to share contacts across applications... that is something I DON'T WANT. I mean is I'm happy to bring a few across when I sign up for some new service like NING or Linked-In, but then I don't want them cross breeding with each other with or without my permission. I want to keep my business contacts seperated from my family contacts and my personal contacts and I want to keep my b2b contacts seperated from the customers I work with on a b2c basis.
This is a last in a long seris of mis-steps by MS to try to limit users and gain monopoly; in this case of users data. Of the many things I do have some trust in MS for (like I trust they make a good word processor and presentation software), I would NEVER trust them on a security matter nor would I trust them to develop and mantain open standards.
Let's hope users leave hotmail in droves over time due to market forces
http://www.hawknest.com/
MS Mafia 2008. Buy now and get a 50% discount on "protection".
Seriously, if this is allowed in the software world, it's not a world I'd like to live in.
Welcome to what happens when you offload your software into web apps. This is why I use Thunderbird for email, not Hotmail or GMail. Sure, people can get angry if Microsoft holds onto their contact data, but for heaven's sake, what did they expect? If you want control of your contact list, keep your contact list on your own hot little PC.
Par for the course for MS.
Serious question: Has anyone ever worked with MS and hasn't been fucked with?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In general, plenty of (often technically superior) alternatives exist, but getting people to use them is a problem because if tying. Mainly to and between MS Windows and MS Office.
As long as MS is allowed to get away with its anti-competitive behaviour, the MS products really is the practically best products for a lot of people (because of the tying, and because it is what other people use). It is not something we can solve with a technical fix (the technical solutions already exists). The best bet is make people and politicians aware of the long time bad effects of tying (disabling the market), allow the already existing laws against anti-competitive behavior take effect, and adopt standardized protocols and formats for public institutions.
[ And the problem that concern you so much, namely your friends sending your invitations to social sites, it not really something that can be solved with a technical fix either. You have to teach your friends not to do that, or teach yourself to ignore them. ]
The article's comments talk about people freely giving out their MSN account passwords. This practice of giving away your credentials began way back in the 90s when certain webmail websites would offer to "collect" your pop or imap mail and aggregate it into their own mail. We used to lock the accounts of anyone we caught doing this because it violated our AUP about revealing your account credentials to third parties. Eventually we just gave up and simply removed access that that id/password would give to anything but email (e.g., no more unix shell accounts although no one really cares anymore).
It's scary how easily people will type in their account info into any ole website.
willy, i'm at a loss to explain why no one modded this one up like the other recently two. can you hazard a guess?
I really, really hope so. However, can you name one thing Bill Gates has done that was purely good? Everything that he has done, apparently, has had the hidden intention of being adversarial toward the user. Bill Gates has been VERY self- and other-destructive.
Companies like Microsoft and Coca-Cola have found that pretending to be charitable is a very good way to get people to ignore their extremely predatory business practices, in my opinion.
All your list are belong to us