The Active Network
ActiveWin Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | Career Portal | Users Online: 330  
 

Sponsors: Search Engine Optimisation
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Optimisation
Cheap Web Hosting
Webanalyse
online credit card processing
Lenovo Laptops
Text Links
Business Gifts
SEO Services
SEO
Search Engine Optimization
Quick House Sale
Electronic Medical Records
Practice Management
Windows 7 Themes
how to unlock iphone 3g
android on iphone
search engine optimisation
wooden gates
Network Software

neowin.net

Amazon.com

  *  

  Microsoft Charges for IM Interoperability
Time: 03:42 EST/08:42 GMT | News Source: PC World | Posted By: Alex Harris

Microsoft is contacting providers of instant messaging software to try to cut licensing deals before it boots the clients from its MSN instant messaging network. Advertisement Microsoft isn't targeting rival IM network operators such as America Online or Yahoo. Rather, the software giant is seeking licensing fees from the makers of clients that use the Microsoft MSN IM network and compete with Microsoft's own MSN Messenger client.

Cerulean Studios, maker of the Trillian IM client, is at the top of Microsoft's hit list. Trillian enables users to consolidate multiple IM accounts in one client and is available in a free version, as well as a $25 Pro version that offers additional features. Trillian has been downloaded more than 10 million times, according to Cerulean Studios. "Running an [IM] network is expensive," says 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."

Write Comment
Return to News

  Displaying Comments 1 through 21 of 21
  The time now is 10:06:56 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
#1 By Halcyon-X12 (4929 Posts) at 8/29/2003 5:32:20 AM
"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"

How do they sustain it themselves? With the banner ads? If so, perhaps a free solution would be to serve MS's banner ads in Trillian (or whatever).

Microsoft is providing the service for "free," what would it matter if someone uses another client to get the same service, as long as it provides the same functionality (including banner ads and links to MSN/hotmail)?

"Running an [IM] network is expensive," but what does it matter whether the users use MSN Messenger or Trillian? If Trillian users just switch to MSN because Trillian isn't supported anymore, it'll be the same number of clients connected regardless.

I'm not sure I understand what the difference in clients has to do with the fact that they are using the service in the first place. If they're using a different client to access MSN, it might as well be MSN with a skin, since it's the exact same thing (assuming that they put in the ads or whatever to seal the deal with MS... I wonder why they didn't provide this option?).

#2 By tmaxxtigger (24 Posts) at 8/29/2003 7:54:56 AM
Yeah, $25 is quite a lot for Trillian, I think if they had charge about $10 they would have had far more people buying the pro version. Now the price will be even higher, sorry, but most people will either get a crack or just use the MS version...

#3 By mOOzilla (1009 Posts) at 8/29/2003 8:05:38 AM
If they copied MSN 100% they would be unable to boot them from the network. Simple. If theyre able to do that, it shows the lacking quality of the 3rd party clients.

Pay for something and get less yet you get more from a free client. I don't think so.

This post was edited by mOOzilla on Friday, August 29, 2003 at 08:06.

#4 By Zeo01 (321 Posts) at 8/29/2003 9:45:52 AM
Microsoft is already behind the count in the IM marketplace, doing this will only annoy users and allow AOL to continue to grow. This is just a bad business move on Microsoft's part. The technical offerings of MSN IM is barely on par with AIM, not to mention the fact that Microsoft is not trying to leverage a way to open up AIM's users to MSN. What do you think??

#5 By Mr.Humpty (299 Posts) at 8/29/2003 9:53:18 AM
I think alot of you are not thinking this through fully. First of all MS runs the service and has kept everything pretty free of regulation... however MS does have their banner adds and other fee's they collect from companies providing content etc to the MSN Messenger program. I think they are right to go after trillian for a reasonable license fee. Trillian (though I doubt they are making a much money or even a profit) is making money creating apps that run on MS' service. In doing so it goes after the ONLY revenue stream MS has for running the IM network. Even if that revenue stream seems small it is the revenue stream. I think Trillian should pay license fees if need be since they are charging for their client...

With that said... it will be interesting to see how the structure a license with someone like Trillian since their executable can run all IM networks and in some cases isn't used for MSN.

The other interesting thing is MSN wanted to be open with AOL... I wonder if they were going to pay license fees to them?

#6 By Halcyon-X12 (4929 Posts) at 8/29/2003 10:33:26 AM
#5, what about the suggestion of providing MSN interoperability and serving Microsoft's banner ads in exchange? Perhaps that would be a solution for the free version and the Pro users could pay the license fee and have no banner ads.

#7 By CPUGuy (1772 Posts) at 8/29/2003 10:53:31 AM
Halc, I actually think that is a great solution.


Zeo, I think you have no clue at all. AOL's IM service is BY FAR behind the times, not to mention it's annoying as hell IM client that puts icons everywhere, that steals you from whatever you are doing to display an IM, etc.... not to mention that fact that the FCC has had, until just a few days ago, regulations on what AOL could do with their IM network, namely no voice or video. MSN IM is far more advanced (as is every single other serious IM client) than AOLIM.

#8 By bluvg (1860 Posts) at 8/29/2003 11:38:35 AM
I agree, CPUGuy... I used AIM recently and wasn't very impressed. I'm not really sure what Zeo means... maybe he knows something I don't.

Personally, I think Yahoo has the best messenger out there. The offline messages feature is slick, and the support for multiple fonts and formatting within the message is nice, too. And (personally) I think the Yahoo emoticons are much better... for those that use emoticons. ;)

#9 By sodablue (5246 Posts) at 8/29/2003 12:09:28 PM
So let me get this straight.

Trillian charges $25 for this software, which allows you to connect to a MSN messenging service that Microsoft spends millions of dollars on to maintain.

And somehow it is unfair for Microsoft to charge a licensing fee to Trillian to allow them to utilize their service?

Fascinating... I guess this is what they mean when they say leeches of society.

#10 By mOOzilla (1009 Posts) at 8/29/2003 12:35:39 PM
You can add the yahoo smilies on MSN using tools->create emotes...

#11 By bluvg (1860 Posts) at 8/29/2003 1:02:52 PM
True, you can add the Yahoo ones--that is pretty cool. But can you replace the existing MSN ones? If you try to create one that uses a keyboard shortcut that is already in use by Messenger, it doesn't allow it.

#12 By PhilippeCM (2 Posts) at 8/29/2003 1:22:43 PM
Microsoft is at it again...
Do you have to have a XXX radio receiver to listen to XXX radio station?
I have no problem with MS deciding to charge for the service. However, I can't accept MS imposing the software I use to access the service.
And by the way, I cannot use MSN messenger. I have been unable to use it for about a year or so. MS has been unable to provide any more assistance than "un-install the program and the re-install it." (Kuddos for support...). I have no problem signing in to MyMSN using passport or any MS site using my MS passport account. It's just messenger that does not let me sign in ... FROM ANY PC where it is functionning properly with another account.
Which is why I moved to Trillian (free v071b).
With Trillian I can use simultaneously my MS accout and my Yahoo account. Yahoo account that I pay for...
Again, the problem is not paying... But what MS wants to charge for.
They own the service and can charge for the service. Period.

#13 By dkg_ctc (468 Posts) at 8/29/2003 1:43:45 PM
Again, the problem is not paying... But what MS wants to charge for.
They own the service and can charge for the service. Period.


lol...well, I'm sure MS will be happy to know what they can charge for, and what they can't according to the almighty PhilippeCM.

#14 By PhilippeCM (2 Posts) at 8/29/2003 5:20:28 PM
lol...well, I'm sure MS will be happy to know what they can charge for, and what they can't according to the almighty PhilippeCM.

Glad I made you lol dkg_ctc...
In any case, this is just my point of view. At least, I contributed to the thread with something related to it.

I will just say that I starded using Trillian when I became unable to use MSN Messenger directly. If Microsoft makes it impossible for me to use Trillian or any other third party software to access my MSN messenger account, I will DISCONTINUE my use of MSN messenger. I will have no choice. Remember? MSN Messenger does not let me log in any more (from any PC anywhere) and MS does not know how to fix it.
And I would be really surprised if I was the only one in this situation...

#15 By mooresa56 (2863 Posts) at 8/29/2003 6:09:24 PM
Zeo01 - " Microsoft is already behind the count in the IM marketplace"

I strongly disagree. In the past year, I would guess that I've added 2-3 AOL IM contacts. In that same time, I would estimate adding 30 or so MSN IM contacts. And MSN version 6 is light years better looking and better functioning than AOL.

PhilippeCM - have you tried MSN version 6? And still cant log in? Check your firewall software. Turn it off for a minute, and see if you can log into MSN then. If you can... you'll know its the firewall.

Regarding MSFT's charging for access. Whats wrong with that? Nothing. Its there asset. They can do whatever they want with it.

#16 By dkg_ctc (468 Posts) at 8/29/2003 6:50:57 PM
In any case, this is just my point of view.

It was, until you made your complaint an absolute. Remember? "They own the service and can charge for the service. Period"?

I will just say that I starded using Trillian when I became unable to use MSN Messenger directly. If Microsoft makes it impossible for me to use Trillian or any other third party software to access my MSN messenger account, I will DISCONTINUE my use of MSN messenger.

Personally, I think that from MS's perspective it'd be no big loss. After all, you aren't viewing their banner ads...you're simply leeching from their service. Not only that, you're using software made by a company which makes money off of helping others leech off of the services. I don't think they will be terribly hurt to see you go.

#17 By eldoen (306 Posts) at 8/29/2003 8:08:01 PM
#14,

in an earlier comment you stated a radio station analogy.

There is a big difference there.

Once a radio station is a passive service. IOW it broadcasts a standard package with no active return to the broadcast to know that it is being recieved by said reciever.

So the Broadcaster is in total control of what it sends out, and Is in total control of what is recieved on the recievers. (passive recievers they don't remove the advertising etc)

So there is no lost in advertising dollars.

Now if MS set it up where every message on IM had advertisment in the message itself. than the anaolgy would hold, the difference is that the Client (reciever) is the one with the advertisment or the return on investment.

Also there is bandwidth issues on IM platform that isn't involved on the radio platform.

So this isn't even remotely compareing apples to apples.

El

#18 By Halcyon-X12 (4929 Posts) at 8/29/2003 9:51:26 PM
#15, Not to add to an IM holy war or anything, but realistically, I believe most people only use MSN Messenger to quickly access their Hotmail account. My friends and I are all on MSN, but that's not what we use to talk to each other.

#17, like radio broadcasts, the more "viewers" exposed to MSN ads, the more revenue for Microsoft. Exchanging IM interoperability for ad serving is a viable solution, as it doesn't interrupt MS's revenue.


FYI, I use Miranda because I can carry contact lists for every IM subscription I have around on a floppy disk and access it on any PC I want. I mostly use the ICQ protocol because it allows me to send messages to users who are offline, and Miranda allows me to switch away from the distracting split-window messaging format.

#19 By dkg_ctc (468 Posts) at 8/29/2003 10:04:15 PM
FYI, I use Miranda because I can carry contact lists for every IM subscription I have around on a floppy disk and access it on any PC I want. I mostly use the ICQ protocol because it allows me to send messages to users who are offline, and Miranda allows me to switch away from the distracting split-window messaging format.

Miranda is a great little client...my only wish is that it used the Oscar protocol to communicate over AIM, and not TOC. Right now, I'm using Gaim for Windows, which really sucks. The only thing that sucks worse than Gaim (or GTK in general) on Windows is knowing that it's still the best multi-protocol client there is (in my opinion). I think if someone ever decided to make a Gaim for Windows which uses native window controls, as opposed to GTK, it would easily be the best. But oh well.

#20 By Halcyon-X12 (4929 Posts) at 8/30/2003 4:15:58 AM
I agree 100% :) GTK looks really ugly (with the default theme/fonts anyway, dunno how to change it) and native GUI would just be a lot better and have a lot less overhead.

I also wish it would use Oscar... I miss the features of Direct Connect, etc. I'm still forced to use AIM at the moment, but I miss the 2MB footprint of Miranda (as opposed to 16MB of RAM AIM takes). It's too bad, I really hate AIM... every version seems to get worse (and more bloated). I like the way Miranda notifies you of AIM messages by system tray instead of interrupting you with an IM window. It's a lot less frustrating, especially if you're talking to many people at once and don't want to see a billion taskbar buttons blinking at different intervals, makes me want to rip my hair out!

#21 By mOOzilla (1009 Posts) at 8/30/2003 4:53:32 AM
I don't support GTK for one reason, versioning problems. Application A requires vA and App B requires a diff version, I ran into problems with a few GTK apps and since then I refuse to support GTK on windows. Its pig ugly, the API sucks goats and its just a mess like alot of opensource software. Until they can get the UI right, they will never be taken seriously just look at the GIMP fan club, theyre blinded by shit.

If only Yahoo and MS documented the COM Typelibs then I code wrap it up in a nice little C# client very easily and fast.

This post was edited by mOOzilla on Saturday, August 30, 2003 at 04:54.

Write Comment
Return to News
  Displaying Comments 1 through 21 of 21
  The time now is 10:06:56 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
Please Enter Your User name and password:

Sign Up For A User Name

 

  *  
  *   *