Free Instant Messaging is not free
by Volker Weber
Microsoft started sending out notifications via their IM network to non-MS clients yesterday.
.NET Messenger Service Staff: You are running a version of messenger that requires an immediate security update. Please visit http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Upgrades.aspx to complete the update.
Of course this is not about security. It's all about business:
"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."
Trillian, Odigo et al. are having a free ride on other companies networks. So, I will have to side with Microsoft on this issue. I understand that it bothers people like myself who use Trillian to bridge the gap between the different networks. In the past AOL tried to lock out Trillian and spurred a number of small, fast updates that took Trillian from 0.74 to 0.74d until AOL gave up. From the Trillian forums:
This message is indicative of Microsoft's recent announcement that all users of MSN Messenger must upgrade to a newer version of the software for security purposes. While Trillian is not affected by the security flaws in question, Trillian does use an older version of the MSN protocol; this is why users of Trillian .74 and Trillian Pro 1.0 are also being alerted to upgrade.
We will be putting out updated versions of all of our product lines to comply with the newest MSN Messenger protocol. Currently, only Trillian Pro 2.0 Beta is up to date, but all versions will be updated before Microsoft's October 15th deadline. In the mean time, this message can be safely ignored.
Microsoft now uses a different scheme: They are offering a license to use the network. It is going to be interesting to see how the people behind Trillian will react. If they try to pull the same trick as with AOL, they can start hiring some lawyers.
For now AOL will take the windfalls from people moving off of MSN onto ICQ and AIM. But when the dust settles, I expect them to follow suit.
Comments
This will be, technically, legally and politically very interesting to watch. AOL never said they were trying to bar Trillian access. They also said they were merely closing security holes. If MS progresses down the same path (Trillian lockout), will they prove more adept at it than AOL was? My guess is yes, but ...
I see any legal action by Microsoft against Trillian as being extremely fraught on both legal and political grounds. Legally, MS will have to show that they are being harmed financially by Trillian. Since, MSN Messenger and the MSN IM service are free, this will merely come down to loss of advertising revenue. It is certainly the case that accessing a paid service without paying (by employing an unauthorized de-scrambler) violates copyright. Whether bypassing commercials has a similar standing remains to be resolved by the courts (vide the various ReplayTV cases). If it does, MS could claim this as a precedent. If it doesn't, it's not clear what basis their action would have. The there is the whole issue, of how such an action would make MS look ...
Right. One problem though: Trillian is a mom-and-pop-operation. They cannot afford a legal battle with MS.
Maybe I'm too common sense to get this... As I understand it, Trillian simply allows Non MSN IM users to connect to MSN IM users... as it does for Non AOL client users with AOL messenger accounts.
So if it's a question of advertising capital via the MSN IM client, MS is still getting a few coins in the cup. If MS really wants to ensure advertising revenue, they could always send 'sign on' ads to any chat client as normal chat formatted text.
If it's about network badwidth, well, aren't they hosting a certain amount of bandwidth to allow MSN to MSN IM traffic? Sure they are, and I do see how the Trillian client is seen as 'not paying' for this by subjugating the user to popups and whatnot. But, and I suppose this is one of the bigger questions, does MS want to exclude / alienate folks from using their IM service by taking some sort of crippling action?
I'm not so naieve to suspect MS is all about customer choice, they're all about the money, of course. Seems like, as the old addage goes, you attract more flies with honey than vinegar, though.
Your assumption is false.
Trillian allows MSN users to talk to MSN user. It also has clients for AIM, ICQ, IRC and Yahoo built in. So it allows AIM users to talk to other AIM users and so forth.
You run it all from one client and you don't have to watch any ads.
Actually, my phrasing on the first paragraph was poor. I forgot to edit the second sentence (fragment) after adding the third:
"... as it does for Non AOL client users with AOL messenger accounts." (And me having English as my first language - you'd think I could do better. :-) )
I do understand that part, just didn't make it clear. I myself have an AOL messenger account and use trillian, so I'm aware of the prerequisite... and I don't miss the ads - I'm happy to not have to see them.
I think the argument that this is a form of leeching or freeloading is valid only in the sense that an AOL or MSN server is negotiating the connection from my chat client to another and routing the messages - the bulk of the connection, the packet routing, isn't handled there, though - it's handled on the internet at large. AOL and MSN just pick up the ball where they connect to the network.
So, if the argument can be made and defended that a license fee should be charged for this service, then all the internet should be taxed as we daily ride on the backs of the big network providers who glean money from ISP's using their backbone. I stand by my statement - if they insist on advertisment exposure for use, simple send a 'sign on' add and maybe an additional one every 15 minutes or so strait through the chat chanel.
Rather than licensing, MSN could require a subscription to use their chat client or have a IM account. There's less of an argument to make there, both legally and idealistically.
Go on, call me a freeloader... capitalism gives me a rash most of the time anyway. ;-)
