Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




IM Licence to print more money

If this has come up before, just ignore it, but I noticed this today trawling through all the newslinks over the weekend.

http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=124386&liFlavourID=2  That now MS is going to require those that interface with the MSN IM network to pay a licence, the developers that is, not the users.

On the face of it this is reasonable, its Microsoft's network and the extra traffic and possible security issues from having n+1 different third party clients out there has to be funded somehow.  But, every user of an MS operating system not only gets a client and a licence for MSN but it is included in the standard install of the operating system and is difficult not to have an MSN IM account especially as a Passport account gives you essentially the same thing.

This is at least equivalent to the Windows Media Player issue that the EU is currently threatening to fine MS over.  In that case its the proprietary api calls that Sun et al want opened so that other players can compete.  If MS goes ahead and forces developers to licence to their IM then perhaps AOL will wade in with an equivalent claim.

Simon Lucy
Monday, September 01, 2003

There are peering agreements and service termination charges etc etc in any other communications business model. Why should IM be different? At least we will hopefully come to a point where all IM traffic and services interoperate. The current balkanized mess is a joke.

Just me (Sir to you)
Monday, September 01, 2003

Remember the recent deal between AOL and MS... I don't anticipate any suit by AOL against MS for a while... in fact, the timing of this announcement by MS is probably due in part to some agreement they have with AOL.

Of course, this is mere speculation on my part.

Scot
Monday, September 01, 2003

Considering IM is voluntary, free, highly competitive, AND Microsoft's not winning, I can't see how anybody can have much to gripe about.

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Monday, September 01, 2003

Microsoft DOES spend lots of money sustaining the network.

So, in my humble opinion, it is their natural right to change for it's use!

Jake
Monday, September 01, 2003

Ah, and about the "Microsoft is not winning" argument:

MS may not be killing all competition, but in my opinion their client is the best IM client I ever used.

And, I have tested all of them.

Microsoft simply got this part right.

Jake
Monday, September 01, 2003

Who do we have to pay for TCP/IP?


Monday, September 01, 2003

"MS may not be killing all competition, but in my opinion their client is the best IM client I ever used."

I've used Microsoft Exchange Messenger a lot at work, and it sucks.  It's more badly single-threaded than Outlook, and that is no compliment.  It hangs, it gets messages out of order, it drops messages without knowing etc.

Why they used UDP and not TCP is beyond me!  Large intranets with very remote users doesn't like UDP one bit..

To see IM done properly, look at jabber.

i like i
Monday, September 01, 2003

MS Messenger doesn't use UDP.

TCP roark:1702 baym-cs108.msgr.hotmail.com:1863 ESTABLISHED

Try again. :)

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Monday, September 01, 2003

MSN is winning the IM battle because Messenger is completley unlike the rest of MSN.

Stephen Jones
Monday, September 01, 2003

We don't have to pay for TCP/IP, but we have to pay for certain sites.

Jake
Monday, September 01, 2003

Ah, this is wrong - you DO pay for TCP/IP services - you pay your ISP!

Jake
Monday, September 01, 2003

"Considering IM is voluntary, free, highly competitive, AND Microsoft's not winning, I can't see how anybody can have much to gripe about."

The same thing was said with respect browser.  But that didn't stop Netscape/AOL from collecting over $1B over anti-trust issues.

Repeat after me:

The rules are different for monopolies.
The rules are different for monopolies.
The rules are different for monopolies.

Jim Rankin
Monday, September 01, 2003

Repeat after me:

Just because something is law, doesn't make it moral.
Just because something is law, doesn't make it moral.
Just because something is law, doesn't make it moral.

See: Slavery, consentual sex laws, etc.

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Monday, September 01, 2003

Continuing the trend of redundant sentences:


Immoral is an abstract word and is relative to the person saying it.
Immoral is an abstract word and is relative to the person saying it.
Immoral is an abstract word and is relative to the person saying it.

Mickey Petersen
Monday, September 01, 2003

<quote>
Who do we have to pay for TCP/IP?
</quote>

The relevance being?

Seeya

Matthew
Monday, September 01, 2003

I can see it now:

Microsoft begins to implement some sort of hash signature to authenticate their IM client.  They license other private keys to 3rd party licensees which also provide a successful response to the challenge.

How many days (hours) before this gets hacked and posted on an asian or eastern europe web site?  You'll probably get private keys as spam the next day.

Given the arrogance of the Redmond empire, they forget the blatantly obvious.  Good luck.

half baked
Monday, September 01, 2003

However, MS will achieve their main goal, which is to prevent AOL from accessing their network and to, at the same time, either make some extra cash for the warchest from Trillian or perhaps force Trillian to drop support for MSN and hope that people still keep with MSN.

They don't necessarily care if a few scattered users manage to get MSN messanger running under Linux after they block access.

Flamebait sr.
Tuesday, September 02, 2003

Except in this story it has always been MS tryig to start interopration with AOL, and AOL blocking out everything else.
I believe we are moving to interoperation standards (SIP) now. To be honest I can't see what Trilian as a pure client play will have to offer once interoperation is a fact. They could start their own network, but they are up against serious competitioin that treat IM as a commodity supplement to other business, so they will have to walk a seriously difficult peering/revenue/termination negotiations path.
They could buy bulk traffic on another network, but again the profits story there seems rather difficult to imagine.

Just me (Sir to you)
Wednesday, September 03, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home