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.'"
I think the interests of the Open Source community (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Dropping support isnt the key (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [profquotes.com]
Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun (Score:3, Funny)
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
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 think the interests of the Open Source commun (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun (Score:3, Informative)
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 muc
Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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: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
Re:its about blocking linux/*bsd etc access (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think the interests of the Open Source commun (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
What about non-profits? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:AOL already tries to stop 3rd party clients (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesingly enough, if licenses are being sold, MS has a fire lit under them to a.) keep it up and running and b.) to keep it working.
I don't see the BFD about licenses either. I'd rather read that MS wants money to log in than to read that MS is constantly mutating to keep people off, not unlike another monopoly Slashdot hates.
Ah well, it's about MS, there's no such thing as the silver lining.
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: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.
Re:What about non-profits? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Unfortunately for your argument you've very succinctly described the very raison d'etre of MSN.
KFG
Re:What about non-profits? (Score:4, Interesting)
AOL, bless it's little soul, at least has the excuse that they preexisted the internet and are simply trying to hang on to life in a world that has made an end run around their bread and butter.
I think the head of MS's Office division put it rather succinctly when they went after WP and Lotus:
"We want our fair share of the market and we consider that fair share to be %100."
They feel much the same way about the internet and MSN is their overt attempt to get there.
They're kinda used to getting what they want too, by hook or crook, as it were.
What's their share of the Office Suite market these days?
Mind you that they'll find the internet a bigger piece to try to chew, but they'll give it their best shot.
KFG
Re:What about non-profits? (Score:3, Interesting)
The first group are making money off of Microsoft, while clearly the second group are not, although it could be said they're indirectly adding val
Re:What about non-profits? (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't that a little premature? This seems like normal behaviour. Start off with a small fee (is it small?), then once they're locked in, pump up the price, eliminating unwanted competition and bleeding cash from the rest.
As they say, put a frog in hot water and it leaps right out, put it in cold and boil slowly and it will die.
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...
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:What about non-profits? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also see this article [about.com]
Security? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't seem to remember the last time a malicious programmer bought a license to write his exploit...
I'm sorry to say this. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:And su you should be (Score:2)
I would question whether Microsoft made the service completely free OR just didn't object when programmers reverse-engineered their protocols.
Now they're objecting. I don't think it's so much a matter of security so much as liability and cost of maintaining the network. Still and all, it's well within their rights to terminate outside clients that aren't licensed.
Not saying it's a good thing, it's just what is.
Re:And su you should be (Score:3, Insightful)
MS wasn't the first one to do something about this issue.
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 to say this. (Score:2)
I can see MS's point if other (non-free) clients are using their network to make money. Those clients SHOULD pay MS a fee for connectivity to their network.
They should however, retain a free path (possibily with more limited features?) for those who use clients t
Re:I'm sorry to say this. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'm sorry to say this. (Score:2)
However, to offer PAY licenses for 3rd parties is just freaking nutty. The logic "Running an (IM) network is expensive" is incorrect to assume that *your* free software is somehow more profitable then someone else's free software, which technicaly could be true if the adverts pay for the service.
Ok then... allow license to use the service but conform to the advert system.
Re:I'm sorry to say this. (Score:2)
If they used an alternative technology, like say, oooooooooh, the internet, they could save themselves all that trouble and expense. Sending text over the internet doesn't seem to be a great deal of trouble. It's so easy that one might even deduce it was designed for the purpose.
Ah, but they can't control, and can't charge extra for, the use of the internet, now can they?
This is
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
Re: i'm sorry (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: i'm sorry (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: i'm sorry (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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 l
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'
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.
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 difference does it make? (Score:2)
Re:What difference does it make? (Score:2)
Not ZD (Score:2)
Excellent news (Score:2)
Money (Score:2, Funny)
good they only have about $40 billion (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not like making it free would even dent their economy..
Just another exuse for "we want to be alone".. oh well
Whaddya gonna do (Score:5, Informative)
I encourage everyone to support the Jabber protocol, open and free for many clients to use, including the next revision of Trillian Pro.
Re:Whaddya gonna do (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Time to make your friends switch to Jabber. (Score:5, Informative)
I recommend Psi [affinix.com] for both Linux and Windows, but I'm sure there are other clients that are just as good.
Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber. (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you going to set up and maintain a Jabber server for all of your friends to use?
Everyone piling off MSN and onto jabber.org or jabber.com is not the answer. For Jabber to work, people must run their own servers.
Centralized messaging sucks [slashdot.org], but decentralized IM will never work for the masses unless it's peer-to-peer and "just works".
Re:Time to make your friends switch to Jabber. (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, I'm going to write to my ISP and ask them to do this. Thank you for this inspiration.
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
OSS Competition (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Althoug
Lost. So very, very lost. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Lost. So very, very lost. (Score:2, Interesting)
That's odd, I don't know anyone on MSN anymore. I think I had as many as 2 people on there, once, a few years ago, that I actually wanted to talk to. Now, everyone I know (tech savvy to end-users) -- my mom, my sisters, everyone -- uses AIM. After all, its what AOL users use. I guess someone uses it...
(Perhaps it doesn't help that I pretty much mandate that anyone who wants to talk online gets and uses AIM. Then they stick with it.)
Otherwise,
Re:Lost. So very, very lost. (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if AOL followed with a similar move, actually...
Before we start MS bashing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't like it? Build your own system, or use Jabber.
Re:Before we start MS bashing... (Score:3)
What I don't understand is why they don't just send the banner ads to every client then still claim the revenue for i
I don't see anything wrong with this.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't see anything wrong with this.. (Score:2)
As a previous poster stated, it has nothing to do with cost, it has to do with control.
Re:I don't see anything wrong with this.. (Score:2)
Maybe the bit will not be little? I can see other problems for third-party clients, such as being restricted to a subset of functionnalities, being forbidden to reverse-engineer other parts of the protocol (if it evolves, for example), well actually all the problems you can have being a licensee to such a corporation, especially since you have no strength on your own and completely rely on the licensor goodwill.
Don't get
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 mon
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
gee what took'em so long? (Score:2)
like it or not you are using MS servers and maintaing those servers running costs money, and if you are using a third party client you can take out the ads. and that is simply not acceptable.
so they secure the client first,next step charge you for access, and I have more bad news for you...
bullshit alarm (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:bullshit alarm (Score:5, Insightful)
3rd party clients (Score:2, Insightful)
MSN Freedom (Score:2)
Scroll down to MSN messanger, click add\remove, if it tries to add click cancel, if it starts the script to remove MSN just keep clicking yes. End of MSN software problem. When daugthter or other person installs it again just repeat procedure. They will get the idea, sooner or later.
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.
Havin
Re:Exponential Growth, Feedback Loop. (Score:2)
security reasons... right. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:security reasons... right. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 p
Here's why this is bad... (Score:2, Troll)
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 progra
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:why do they run MSN at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Converting users to another protocol... (Score:2, Informative)
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."
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
Duh! Centralization is a bad idea for IM! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
IS this the same company? (Score:3, Insightful)
I will start using jabber instead and lobby to everyone i know to do the same.
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?
Its not really so bad (Score:3, Informative)
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:Can't afford??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can't afford??? (Score:2)
Re:Can't afford??? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:p2p IM (Score:5, Informative)
Not P2P, but it's decentralized like e-mail so anybody can run a server and chat with people on other servers.