Why Windows Messenger is not a killer app
Microsoft sees its instant messaging product as being the gateway to .Net My Services. They would like it to be the conduit for a new wave of services, such as stock tips, weather updates, etc. Microsoft eventually would like it to be used in conjunction with Passport, allowing them to collect revenues on any subscriptions or transactions that use the Windows Messenger/Passport services.
I use ICQ as my instant messaging system. It seems to cover all the bases pretty well and is fairly simple to use. I have also used AOL's version on occasion. None of these apps is markedly better than the other, but since most of my friends and family use ICQ, it has become my default. I think Microsoft has misread the market, as have a lot of the folks hyping instant messaging as the next "killer app." IM will remain a useful tool used by friends to keep in touch, but in my opinion it will never drive the market. Here's why:
1. People are tired of a nickel-and-dime job.
Most Internet users are already paying for at least one Internet account and possibly a second line or high-speed connection. Then there are the costs associated with purchasing a computer, paying for OS upgrades, and obtaining software. At some point, people will tire of paying. They will be tapped out. It has already become clear that few people will pay for subscription services on the Internet, you would think Microsoft of all companies would understand this.
2. Microsoft is generating a lot of public resentment.
The average home user might upgrade to a newer version of Windows or Office once during the lifetime of their computer. In the past, they would buy one copy of the software and install it on all of their computers or on the computer they eventually buy to replace the old machine. Now Microsoft has laid down the law with the institution of Product Activation and said "One computer, One copy", increasing the cost of computer ownership by hundreds of dollars. Now whatever your personal take is on the morality or legality of using a single copy of software for your own computers, the public is becoming aware that it is going to become more expensive to own a Microsoft based system. They are also becoming aware of some of the more obnoxious tricks Microsoft has used to create and extend its monopoly and this little sleight of hand won't help spit shine Bill Gates' image. They'll use MS software because there is no real alternative for the average user, but they will not pay for a service they really don't need.
3. Businesses will be reluctant to use it (Part A).
Part of the marketing of IM is that it will help companies become more productive. Large companies tend to be very conservative regarding software. Before an operating system upgrade can be undertaken, they will test it with all of their software to make sure that there are no compatibility issues. A large company cannot afford to have their computers or their networks cease to function. This means that Win XP will probably not rollout into the top half of the Fortune 500 for at least a year, possibly longer. If this is the case, instant messenger will not reach critical mass for over two years, in the enterprise environment, assuming that they even decide to use it.
4. Businesses will be reluctant to use it (Part B).
I don't think Microsoft really understands how concerned large companies are regarding network security. For the past two years, we have been bombarded with security threat after security threat, much of it caused by Microsoft's sloppy programming. Everything from hackers to viruses to employee misuse of company property has hit the industry. Security is THE main concern for anyone in a large IT department. Even Human Resource departments are concerned about it since the misuse of company computing assets could open the path for potential harassment lawsuits or employee theft. IM is just one more pathway for security trouble.
5. It offers nothing worth paying for.
Need to be in contact with someone immediately? Call them on their cell phone or their pager. Need to send content to a subscriber? Put them on an e-mail list. There are already custom applets that sites use to advise their subscribers that there is new content for them. Would I pay to have instant sports scores? Not if I can get them for free by going to ESPN's Web site. Will anyone pay to have eBay alert him or her that they've been outbid on a Beanie Baby? Perhaps a few will cough up the dough, but not enough to support the service.
6. There is more to life than shopping.
If the services that are offered are just different ways to spend money, the service will fail to get home users excited about using it. When the Internet first started taking off, people used it to express themselves or communicate with others. It is now rapidly becoming the electronic equivalent of highway billboard clutter. All sorts of people are trying to sell us something we probably don't need or want. If this is just another channel to market more junk, it will fail.
There are probably a half dozen other reasons why Microsoft should not bet the farm on IM. Is it useful? Of course it is. It's nice to be able to send a quick note to my father when I see he's online.
The issue is whether it can or should be used as a pathway for paying services. Would I pay to be able to send a video transmission to my father? No. Would a company use it for the same thing? Probably not since there are so many other options for them that offer better quality than a grainy, jerky window on a desktop. Would I pay for instant stock tips? No, and I don't think the average user would either. Microsoft seems to forget that not all of us are day traders or spend all of our waking hours on eBay.
Bill, Steve, and the rest of the gang at Microsoft need to keep the revenue coming in. They realize that the computer industry is going through a negative growth period and they are trying very hard to come up with ways for keeping revenues more or less constant. They have seized upon this idea of becoming a service company as a way of decreasing the cyclic nature of their money flow. While this makes sound financial sense, some of their ideas are just plain bad.
I'd be willing to pay for a service I need. I might even be persuaded to pay for a service I didn't really need but offered some unique benefits. The problem is Windows Messenger/Passport offers neither.
Tom Gladstone is a 35-year-old technical services analyst. He has been a computer hobbyist and avid gamer for 11 years, and he builds and maintains all of his own computer equipment and servers.
Disclaimer: 'Your Turn' is a commentary column written by a ZDNet News reader. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, not those of ZDNet, ZDNet News nor its editors.
We want to feature "you" as a guest columnist! Got a column for Your Turn? Submit it here.