thats a relief.

Billing Windows Mobile-users for Windows Live sounds absurd, I've already paid for the device and it's operating system.

The desktop client is free, but ad-supported. There are much more users of the desktop client than there will be mobile users, so I don't expect much income from mobile users.

It won't boost mobile Messenger usage either as there will be no easy way to connect. Yeah, I can use mobile eBuddy, but I have a client on my phone, why shouldn't I be able to use it?

It is absolutely insane that MS would start charging for these services direct to consumer.  I have a hard enough time convincing people to use Messenger now and it is totally FREE!!

Also, if they also plan on charging for mobile access to Live Mail and contacts then they need a realitity check.  Hotmail doesn't even offer POP access unless you pay for Plus $20/yr.  To think that there would be no free mobile access to Live/Hotmail is an absolute deal killer for a product that is trying to compete with GMail and others.

After putting full loyalty into Windows Live services for the past year its a reality check for myself and a reminder not to solely support a single company for all your communications channels.

The fact that they couldn't think of any way to use text based ticker ads or something similar is also dissappointing.

Unfortunately time to export my contacts and keep my eye out for a worthy competitor (or maybe just a free mobile IM client).

Wow, this is the first I have heard about "Charging for wlmobile Messaging"  as soon as they do, I will not use it. nice to have on your phone but it is not worth paying for it,. Too many users allready do not want it on there phone, now having to pay for it?????

If that idea really is implemented here sometime, that would be a big mistake.

I could see a big surge in Google & Y! Mobile apps. Live will have to offer it back for free again, but most people will have already lost confidence by then.

Dumb move on Live's part. Windows Live is suppose to be mainly free services for users. Doing this will just hurt MS's reputation more than it should.

Though the last statement in the quote, "Traditionally, customers have been billed by their mobile operators" sounded interesting. Does that mean paying the Live Service to do things, will actually be more cheaper than depending on mobile operators? Would paying $2 be worth it to IM, read e-mail, and do all those other Live services without being charged by your mobile operator?

"Though the last statement in the quote, "Traditionally, customers have been billed by their mobile operators" sounded interesting. Does that mean paying the Live Service to do things, will actually be more cheaper than depending on mobile operators? Would paying $2 be worth it to IM, read e-mail, and do all those other Live services without being charged by your mobile operator? "

That's a good point, quikboy.  If that was the case I'd be more than happy to pay the $2.  Don't think Verizon would let me do that though.

The difference here is the OS.  Symbian is used almost exclusively for mobile phones, whereas Windows Mobile is still used on standard Pocket PCs.  If the charge covers access fees only, then I'd be glad to pay for it.  If, however, the charge is only for access to the Live network on a mobile device, then I say this is a bad idea.

I'm just hoping they'll release a fully featured iPhone/iPod Touch client when the SDK comes out.

I've tried the webmessengers, and they kinda suck tbh.