Microsoft Introduces IM Licensing 574
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.'"
What about non-profits? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry to say this. (Score:5, Insightful)
What difference does it make? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What difference does it make? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is where you are wrong. They may be using the same resources, but without any of the banner ads. So in essance the same resources are not being paid for.
Re:What about non-profits? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is bad security design for sure, but means no open source anyway, period.
AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Dropping support isnt the key (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Before we start MS bashing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't like it? Build your own system, or use Jabber.
Re:What about non-profits? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
And su you should be (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Re:Can't afford??? (Score:4, Insightful)
3rd party clients (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm sorry to say this. (Score:2, Insightful)
i mean this rhetorically of course(that means don't answer for those who cant figure out big words).
Re: i'm sorry (Score:2, Insightful)
Exponential Growth, Feedback Loop. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:bullshit alarm (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.)
why do they run MSN at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: i'm sorry (Score:1, Insightful)
as far as the road analogy, i have to say that if it is a private road and you let someone use it for a time, and then decide not to, they cannot legally use it without permission.
A good friend of mine did just this. He has a private road that happens to be in a convenient place for a business not very far from him. The businessman didn't slow down for his children, so he chained it off. The guy was infuriated, and took him to court on it. The judge saw fit to rule in my friends favor because well, it was private property.
so in short, yes, if the server/road is theirs they have every right to say that only licsenced clients/fords can use them.
Re:why do they run MSN at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but you see them encouraging exactly that. Unlimited PCS to PCS, anyone?
Re: i'm sorry (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't forget, every user they turn down creates an opportunity for their competitors.
Re:I don't see anything wrong with this.. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the surface, nothing. It's a reasonable request. However, not all 3rd party IM clients charge (GAIM and Kopete come to mind, gee, both for GNU/Linux...), so not all 3rd party clients' developers have money to buy a license, even if they wanted to. That puts free (beer) IM programs at an automatic disadvantage.
Quoth Microsoft person: 'Running an (IM) network is expensive,'
Yes, I don't doubt it. That's why the monolithic IM network concept is inherently flawed. Architecturally, I FAR prefer the design of Jabber [jabber.org], for precisely that reason. It's distributed, the same way the email network is. No one person/company bears the burden of maintaining it, and anyone can setup their own jabber server on their own domain, just as you can setup your own SMTP server. It's far more stable (no single point of failure like Passport), far cheaper (cost is the same as for email; time of whoever runs the server, which could be yourself if you want), and doesn't suffer from the potential for abuse from the company that owns the server farm (MS, AOL, Yahoo!)
I have a few issues with Jabber's use of XML as a message encoding system (very verbose for sending to per-KB-billed handhelds and phones), but the basic architecture concept is far supeior to any of the Big Four. As soon as I manage to get a working server going, I want to try and move my company over to Jabber for our online communication. (We've been using MSM, with me on GAIM, but that won't work for much longer...)
Really, I encourage everyone to take a serious look at Jabber [jabber.org] as what the future of IM should be.
Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know. As long as MSN works, why switch to another client? Well, the only answer I know is this: It doesn't work for everyone anymore. I don't expect to have a working MSN client for Linux or other alternative OSes soon. If any of my MSN-using friends need to keep in touch with me by IM, they'll have to use Jabber or ICQ (and there's no reason to use ICQ now, it sucks painfully compared to MSN or Jabber. Just try to remember your contact list when you accidentally deleted it, for instance.). I expect at least one of them to start using Jabber, because he sometimes needs help with Linux, and I'm often able to help.
I think I started using Jabber because I expected something like this from Microsoft. ICQ had already done it earlier: changed the protocol to force users to switch to a more bloated and ad-infested client. Unfortunately, MS is much more experienced in user lock-in than any other company, and they have a larger user base than ICQ ever had.
An undisclosed flaw? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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."
Jabber (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:WTF (Score:2, Insightful)
It'd be more like Tim Berners Lee charging people who access his website with clients that block banner ads.
Re:why do they run MSN at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, even if centralization is the reason for less spam, handing that level of control to a few big companies in order to avoid spam seems like a bad tradeoff. We have had large, centralized E-mail systems in the past and they were stifling and expensive.
Probably they are going after commercial IMs only (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm sorry to say this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and what's the deal with telephone companies? I don't *want* to use a telephone, I *have* to use it if I want to talk to anyone else using one.
Sigh. You can always count on someone to come up with an insane analogy.
Yes, I have a telephone - and I pay for it. If I wanted to call someone in the USA (unlikely I know) then I am not expected to also have an account with AT&T. If they want to call me, they don't have to have an account with Telstra Australia. This is essentially what the state of Instant messaging is at the moment.
Would you mind having a room full of telephones - one to call each different country? Or each different network?
The point is that if I want to communicate with someone using their medium of choice, then I have to deal with the costs. MSN doesn't have to do anything like setting up a server-to-server architecture because the problem is not them: it's the person you want to communicate with.
Again insane. There is no cost to use MSN - Microsoft provides it for free (because they are trying to screw AOL over). They just want you to use their client (and hence their OS). This is like AT&T only allowing you to use their phone (sort of).
Why don't you just get them to install a Jabber client and have them hook up to your $9.95/month Jabber server? By the way, hope you don't mind when another few million people start using your server, 'cause that's what's happening to MSN right now...
"They" can and do. There are millions of people all over the world connected to the Jabber network. Go here [jabber.org] if you want a free one.
Zilch
Re:Before we start MS bashing... (Score:2, Insightful)
One thing all you people forget is that Microsoft abused their monopoly. I can remember a few years ago, everyone used ICQ. Microsoft starts putting MSNM into Windows. These days, everyone uses MSNM. Addmitedly, this situation differs from area to area, but I can't replace all my friends here in Melbourne with friends in NY just because they use AIM because NY is in a totally different country...
This is no different to Netscape. (Actually, it is, but it's worse, because there are free and suprerior offerings around, but Microsoft still wins out.)
Re:I'm sorry to say this. (Score:5, Insightful)
The MS Intant Messenger protocol is a propriatary protocol of that private network.
This is the very issue, is it not?
Your ISP already knows your ip address (did you know that when you're on the net you're broadcasting your ip?) and how to send stuff from their servers to your machine. That's how you get your email.
How do you suppose web pages appear on your monitor? It isn't by magic. You send out a signal saying "here I am, give me that," and what you request gets passed hand to hand across the net until you've got it in your hot little box and all sorts of people along the way know who you are and what your ip is if they want to. My firewall tells me all sorts of people already know my ip, nor is it possible to hack a box with a plain text message ( a buggy client may be another matter).
The idea of a centralized server is antithetical to very idea of the internet. The internet is a distributed network of servers, some sitting right in people's own homes. With publicly knowable ips. Fancy that.
That's what Microsoft doesn't like, the fact that anyone can setup a mail server and resolve ip addresses, and thus they can't force a piece of every pie into their own bank accounts. That's the intended function of MSN.
It would be easy enough for MS to promote an internet standard protocol. Then every ISP could put a 486 in the corner somewhere to deal with routing the traffic. It really doesn't take much computing power, or even bandwidth, to simply pass along ASCII text without storing it.
That's what the internet is for and way it's designed to work. That's why can contract with any ISP to connect to it and recieve email from any other connected computer or view web pages made available on any connected computer.
It's free and open.
It's noncentralized by design.
"They" already know who you are or it wouldn't work.
Does this create security issues? Sure.
The alternative is a world where only AOL and MSN exist on centralized systems and duke it out for absolute control of all network traffic.
That's the world both of them would like to see.
For my money I think my old granny said it best:
"Fuck that shit!"
KFG
The machines in matrix (Score:2, Insightful)
IS this the same company? (Score:3, Insightful)
I will start using jabber instead and lobby to everyone i know to do the same.
I would agree entirely, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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...
IRC (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. That's why we have IRC. It's venerable, open, extensible, has all the features, and allows distribution of load/cost.
IM Interoperability (Score:4, Insightful)
And Microsoft was complaining that AOL should open their AIM network to other IM clients? A Microsoft [aspnews.com] 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?
Re:I'm sorry to say this. (Score:3, Insightful)
You (and Microsoft) seem to be forgetting that Microsoft has already been convicted of using their monopoly in an anti-competitive manner. They cannot do whatever they want, specifically the anti-trust settlement with the US Government requires them to open their protocols and APIs to competition from third party software.
Re:I don't see anything wrong with this.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at. Having a multitude of servers is optional. There are a number of public Jabber servers around that anyone can sign up to. All of them interoperate with each other.
For instance, I use IM to talk to people I work with and my friends. To connect all of them, someone would need to have a Jabber server set up that could connect all of us.
Which any Jabber server can. The Jabber network is not lots of independant monolithic Jabber servers, it is a distributed network of Jabber servers (although you can run a private closed server if you want). You seem to be confused about the capabilities of Jabber.
Re: i'm sorry (Score:1, Insightful)
If your premise were true, no company would ever go bankrupt since everything they did would be to their benefit, involving "undoubtable profit".
Companies take risks every day pursuing ideas which are expensive but have the possibility of becoming profitable ventures. Sometimes the risks bear fruit and sometimes they don't.
Also, lay off with the "whilt" and "visa vi" window dressing. It isn't concealing the fact that your post is pretty damn weak.
You can't polish a turd.
Re:I would agree entirely, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Free isn't the point... the point is that when you buy a new PC it's there already. As we all know, people will use what's put in front of them if it works... so the competitors don't even get a look-in.
Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about blocking alternative clients that do not offer links into their web shops and do not offer an ad banner pointing to their ads. I imagine that if Trillian (Pro or free version) offered an ad banner than all IM services could submit into, then they wouldn't make such a stink about that access into their networks. I for one would still not want to see that, so my solution is going to have to be to wait and see what Trillian developers do or just drop contact with my MSN messenger pals.
Re:And su you should be (Score:3, Insightful)
MS wasn't the first one to do something about this issue.
Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun (Score:2, Insightful)
The simple fact is that, like everything else, they are the de facto owners of this market because of their monopoly OS. Otherwise, everybody would just laugh at the idea of an IM client that refuses to interoperate with anything, just like some new email client that makes "special" emails only readable by itself. Kinda makes you shudder to think what the Internet would be like if MS had bothered to participate in its construction instead of clinging to the notion of distributing everything on CDs.
Re:Whaddya gonna do (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: i'm sorry (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Microsoft should acknowledge what they're selling (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access (Score:1, Insightful)
Says who?
Have they approached Microsoft and been refused?
The article even specifically mentioned "companies who are selling clients". Can we wait until their is actual evidence before sending out the lynch mob? Perhaps the GAIM people will contact Microsoft and recieve a license as long as they don't charge for their client...
Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole idea of having to pay for messenger access is fairly ridiculous anyway, user records dont need alot of space on the server, clients could message p2p.. so you only need a very thin server side daemon. The idea that its more secure ... ms is using its own flaws in its own defense.
I dont normally see things in a ms vs open source light but in this case there is little other reason evident.
Re:I'm sorry to say this. (Score:1, Insightful)
They don't lose it immediately, but in the long run if people aren't looking at the billboards, magazine ads or TV commercials, the advertisers will stop using that medium and the billboard rental company, TV network, magazine or Microsoft will lose money.
PS - I may not be able to figure out big words but at least I can figure out the shift key and apostrophe keys.
Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:1, Insightful)
You're full of shit. Something isn't property -- intellectual or otherwise -- unless property rights are attached. Something against which property rights cannot be enforced has no capital value. Intellectual property is a convenient synonym for "intellectual capital."
A protocol -- which is nothing more than a process -- is not protected by copyright law nor by trademark law and can only be protected by patents in limited cases (and this isn't one of them).
The MSN protocol, in other words, is not "intellectual property" in any commonly accepted definition of the term any more than... the English language is "intellectual property." IP, as such, is a legal fiction that is of very recent coinage. If you do any research into the facts, you will find it is applicable to a much less broad set of things than you think.
Re:Whaddya gonna do (Score:3, Insightful)
That means
1) an I.M. to every existing MSN user saying there are alternatives, with a link to a jabber client (the one specified by the author of jabber)
2) make MSN messenger a separate product, which has to be BOUGHT SEPARATELY (ie NO DUMPING)
3) no advertisements inside windows for MSN messenger.
AFTER they do that, they can close their network all they want.
Typical Micro$oft (Score:2, Insightful)
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