IM and the value of the network

Scoble not only misinterprets me, he puts words in my mouth:

If I go into a Toyota dealership to look at a Corolla, I wonder if they'd agree to sell me one of its Avalons (a much higher priced car) for the price of the Corolla? No? Of course. Now isn't that evil!

But that's what James wants Microsoft to do. He wants Microsoft to invest in the network, pay the bandwidth, the salaries of the folks doing everything, wants a state-of-the-art data center so his IM always stays up and doesn't get flaky, but then wants to use it from any third-party client that can attach to the network. That, and he wants Microsoft to leave open a security flaw so that his third-party network can get access.

Not what I said, or what I meant. Here's my post - I'm happy to see MS patch security holes - maybe if they patched more, I wouldn't be buried in the "ms security" (yes, I know they aren't from MS) virus emails. But back to IM - if cost mattered much to MS, they would be charging for access to the IM network - because making sure that only MS clients access it simply doesn't address the supposed concern.