Live OneCare Is Dead, but Life Comes to 'Morro'
|
News Analysis. Years ago, I said this day would come. Microsoft will offer free anti-virus software. But the company plans to stop short of bundling with Windows. |
After market close today, Microsoft announced that Windows Live OneCare would be permanently retired on June 30, 2009. Microsoft is moving out of the paid product/service security suite market and will instead offer a free malware engine, including anti-virus and anti-spyware technologies, starting in second half 2009.
The new security software, codenamed "Morro," incorporates new anti-malware technologies. But the big difference is the price, which won't excite many Microsoft security software partners. Morro's free pricing is a hugely significant move, and there's big market expansion behind the strategy. Microsoft is developing Moro primarily for Windows sold into emerging markets or to people in mature markets that don't regularly update—or even have—security software.
Implications I see:
- Many consumer security software companies now rely on subscription revenue; free and easily available Microsoft software could further reduce the number of anti-malware developers. Who can compete with free? From Microsoft? Fewer products, in a category as crucial as security, could in the future create even greater security risks.
- Microsoft is going to get blamed for Windows security vulnerabilities, whether or not the company is at fault. So given a situation of doing nothing and being blamed or doing something and still being blamed, action is the better approach. Unprotected consumer PCs are a threat to everyone, including Microsoft business customers. Better protecting consumers protects the Windows brand.
- Emerging markets should be a security priority. Security software is even less likely to be bundled with new PCs than here, and there are huge piracy problems. If Microsoft is truly committed to security, Morro will be freely available to any Windows PCs; pirated or paid for. But I don't expect that Microsoft is really committed enough to put security before commerce, which is shortsighted. The reduction in Windows malware should improve commerce, as the operating system becomes a safer consumer choice for computing.
- Morro is as much about netbooks and other non-traditional PC devices as emerging markets. Windows Live OneCare is resource-intensive, but Microsoft plans on Morro being much lighter weight. There might even be a future for Morro on smartphones.
Meet "Morro"
Earlier this evening, I spoke with Amy Barzdukas, Online Services and Windows division senior director of product management, about Morro. She explained some reasons for Microsoft developing the product and how it will be distributed.
On distribution: "Morro will not be part of the operating system," Amy said. "Morro will be a separate solution that sits on top of the operating system." Separate? No doubt, following Microsoft's Morro announcement, some security software executives cracked BlackBerrys asking subordinates: "Do we have antitrust attorneys on retainer?" Amy didn't say this—we didn't discuss antitrust matters: Microsoft is most likely to sidestep antitrust problems by offering Morro separately rather than part of Windows.
So, why Morro? "The security threats are more pervasive than ever, but in many cases quieter than ever," Amy asserted. "Our concern is that many consumers no longer have a degree of concern around security that leads them to keep their consumer security protection up-to-date." Microsoft estimates that in the United States, 60 percent of consumers "either don't or won't pay for anti-malware protection."
I don't understand Microsoft's strategy and told Amy so. If Microsoft is so concerned about malware infestations in emerging markets, why wait? Why not give away OneCare for free now and replace it with Morro later next year?
She said that "the suite solution that OneCare delivers is really optimized for broadband connections [and] high-speed, multi-PC households and in many cases is too large to meet the needs of emerging economies where the broadband speed is a fraction of our broadband speed."
Her response sounded like double-talk to me. Years ago, Microsoft touted how well OneCare was optimized for slower connections, by trickling down updates bit by bit. To that Amy responded: "That certainly is the case, that updates trickle down." She shifted back to "there's a lot of weight in there" argument against security suites' appropriateness for emerging markets. But there are other OneCare shortcomings. "We're not engineered with netbooks in mind, for example," she said. "We don't want to give people a sub-optimal solution." That means no free OneCare for emerging markets.
So, is Morro for everybody? "I think Morro will be the right solution for consumers that just want core anti-malware protection," Amy said. "We don't expect Morro to meet the needs of every consumer."
What is core anti-malware? "What we're talking about is the full range of anti-virus, anti-spyware [and] anti-rootkits," Amy responded. "It does not include firewall, for example." Instead, during installation Morro checks for a firewall, which would be present and (my words) adequately functional on Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Windows Vista PCs; Morro also makes sure the security function is turned on.
Morro will interact with Windows in similar fashion as OneCare. "It basically replaces [Windows] Defender, and we would anticipate that Morro would operate in a similar way. But until we get to beta, I would be premature talking about the architecture."
What's with the Name?
I wondered if Microsoft would distribute Morro through Windows Update, seeing as the goal is to protect as many PCs as possible. Because consumers might have other security software for which there could be negative interaction, "It wouldn't be anyone's best interests to jam it down," Amy said. "It will definitely be an opt-in model. Our goal will be to make it very broadly available internationally, and we'll have a bit more to say about distribution as we get closer to the beta."
Behind every Microsoft codename there is a story, so I asked Amy about Morro. "There is a beach town in Brazil," she said. "We like our codenames to be named after cities. We were sitting around talking about different cities, and I had just come back from a trip to Brazil, visiting down there and really looking at what the consumer security situation was in Brazil."
The trip's host had told Amy that "Morro Sao Paulo was a fabulous place and the next time I came in I needed more time so that I could go to the beach. We chose that [name] because I just got back from Brazil and it sounded like a great place to go."
Will Morro be a great place for Microsoft customers to go? Maybe if the security software does what Amy expects of it. "We see this as a strong step making consumers more happy with their overall Windows experience."
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at live.com].
Comments (32)
Microsoft: "OK, we admit it, sort of....OneCare is a failure. But wait, we have a new security product. Well it doesn't really exist yet....
It's still vapor -- er....in the Cloud. You'll all get it Any Time Now.
Well, sure, it's based on the OneCare engine, but this one is smaller and faster, like the we told you OneCare was years ago."
Posted by mgo | November 18, 2008 11:49 PM
I am really looking forward to test this. Great interview Joe. I see a lot of users benefiting from this, especially with the increased security in Windows Vista, sounds like more good times ahead.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | November 19, 2008 12:21 AM
Microsoft offering a free anti virus, anti malware "engine" (program) is a step in the right direction. This should have been done 15 years ago, its a bit late...the horse has left the barn.
Right now there are free alternatives like AVG, but the better alternatives are now Linux and Apple.
The article says it will be released in the second half of 2009....(maybe at the same time Windows 7 is released?).
Chalk one up for Microsoft, now can they deliver when they said they will deliver? Stay tuned
Posted by Ralph | November 19, 2008 12:29 AM
Sounds to me like this fits in Microsoft's strategy conceirning 'cloud' software. They are not going to bundle anything but instead provide direct download links in their OS.
Like they are going to do for other live products. And with an AV being just one click away customer acceptation will grow. People like stuff to be easy better than they would want to go out and evaluate different AV's. Ease of use has always been Microsoft's key selling point and I reckon now they can add another notch to that.
If I were a 'simple' comsumer I'd rather have this full fledged AV bundled with my new PC than a 30 day Norton trial. Norton gets removed as soon as the trial ends. This trial will not end. Smart move on Microsoft's side imo.
Regardless of wether you like the AV as a product you got to give credits for a solid distribution plan.
Now lets go and imagine some more things that could happen. A wide spread user base would deliver way more information about the product. Making it easy for Microsoft to improve their product and getting it up to par with the best AV's out there.
Secondly, why do corporations look at Open Source software? Because it saves in license costs. And now so does Morro. I guess development of this product will go into a OneCare package for corporations. ISA Firewall, Morro AV and all governed by System Center.....
At any rate at least you would probably not have to worry about Morro eating user32.dll....
Posted by Charlie | November 19, 2008 2:28 AM
One care joins long list of Microsoft's discontinued products. Playfor sure, Portable media center, web TV platform, soonly Zune and XBOX.
They always rename old products and make money. That's the strategy of Microsoft.
Posted by crux | November 19, 2008 2:30 AM
Quote "If I were a 'simple' comsumer I'd rather have this full fledged AV bundled with my new PC than a 30 day Norton trial. "
-
If I were a simple consumer Id rather that the Windows system were secure in the first place, without having to rely on other software to keep my computer clean.
-
Quote "Secondly, why do corporations look at Open Source software? Because it saves in license costs."
-
No. The fact that you ask this question shows that you dont understand. It doesnt just save money, it allows the company complete control over the software they run. Open source is not just about saving money, its also about giving the end user options wihout hooking them into a product range, and if they wish, customising the software to their exact specifications and having no copyright/legal issues when doing so.
-
Quote "Regardless of wether you like the AV as a product you got to give credits for a solid distribution plan."
-
No. Too little to late.
Posted by goblin | November 19, 2008 3:27 AM
@goblin: you are not serious, are you? 99% of the companies don´t want to play around with kernels and open source software, they want to focus on their business and therefore IT should deliver them solutions - the cheaper the better. They don´t buy it, because it is "open"!
Posted by Haider | November 19, 2008 5:09 AM
Quote "@goblin: you are not serious, are you? 99% of the companies don´t want to play around with kernels and open source software, they want to focus on their business and therefore IT should deliver them solutions - the cheaper the better. They don´t buy it, because it is "open"!"
-
I didnt suggest for one minute that any or all companies would want to. What I suggested was they COULD (and that in itself is an advantage. I would like to see where you got your 99% figure from, as I know 3 companies that use "personalised" open source software as part of their solution. If a company is using open source and IF they require a more personal version of it, they can. Try doing that with MS office or anyother proprietary package. The other point which I was trying to make, is that there are no legal/license issues to give the company problems, and they can "sleep easy" distributing it to as many of their users as they want.
-
Im not sure what you are implying at the end, of course its open, and since helping on a few open source projects I can say that I know of companies who emailed me to say that they had their in house programmers modify existing open source code.
-
Yes in the main companies want to focus on business, but part of the "open" bit you mention is the fact that the code is available. Is that not an advantage in general? It doesnt matter if its used or not.
-
You seem blissfully unaware that there can be costs to business, and I am presuming that you have never been with a firm who has adopted open source in part. There are retraining costs, there's deployment costs (if the adoption is outsourced) its not just a case of someone surfing the net and downloading a few RPMs.
-
The above are considerations to any business considering adoption, and business does not work on a "cheaper the better" philosophy, more of a "suitable functionality at the best price" that is why the source code is an issue to consider as an advantage, "personalised" coding of a specific app can be outsourced too and CAN be a consideration of any firm to tailor software to them.
Posted by Goblin | November 19, 2008 5:34 AM
Sorry for the double post, my last bit was cut off.
Please read my post carefully Haider. I said "Open source is not just about saving money, its also about giving the end user options wihout hooking them into a product range, and if they wish, customising the software to their exact specifications and having no copyright/legal issues when doing so."
-
Note the keywords there? "not just about saving money", "if they wish", "no copyright/legal issues"
-
Where did I imply all companies wanted to modify open source?
Posted by Goblin | November 19, 2008 5:40 AM
@Goblin
In regards to your response on my comment:
- Open Source does not mean you cannot get in trouble for copyright infridgements. Open Source does not mean you may extend it. The various licenses make it less clear instead of easier.
- It does not give companies complete control as most companies that just use software do not wish to program themselves. It is not their core business and they wan't something that just works.
- As for it being to little to late. I would have liked it if this was done sooner. I would have liked it better if AV was not needed at all.... But there are development cycles and cost evaluations to keep in mind. No way will Microsoft ever recreate the kernel on a regular basis because there are virusses. It is just nog a cost efficient thing to do from a commercial point of view. I appreciate em going for a workaround like this.
I appreciate open source software, and without it we'd be nowhere as far as where we are right now. But ease of use, coherentness in installation methods, no regressiontesting is what companies want. Users want control, companies want ease of use and management.
Posted by Charlie | November 19, 2008 5:58 AM
If everything is moved to 'cloud' what'll happen if cloud gets infected.
Does anybody know who's protecting the cloud, which will host these security softwares.
Posted by cloudshine | November 19, 2008 6:48 AM
Thanks for responding. I do like a debate, and this is ideal.
-
Quote "Open Source does not mean you cannot get in trouble for copyright infridgements. Open Source does not mean you may extend it. The various licenses make it less clear instead of easier."
-
Im not sure what youre getting at here. The GPL is quite clear. Infringements should be made clear on the license that they belong to. I fail to see how a modified/tailored open source package released under a GPL would cause problems for the company in question. Maybe you could elaborate on this?
-
quote "It does not give companies complete control as most companies that just use software do not wish to program themselves. It is not their core business and they wan't something that just works."
-
Completely agree and that was my point. IF they wish they can outsource coding issues, but if they dont, they are no worse off than if they had proprietary. Talking about something that just works, would you like to elaborate on an example of an open source alternative that doesnt?
-
quote "No way will Microsoft ever recreate the kernel on a regular basis because there are virusses."
-
I agree. Its reasonable to suggest that the reason why there are so many exploits with Windows is because it is such a mainstream platform. All the more reason why MS should have been bundling decent AV/firewall software from day one. As I say, too little too late. How many victims have there been over the years? Unless of course MS want to take the stance that Windows is unprotectable, and in that case future investors in its systems may want to consider that.
-
"But ease of use, coherentness in installation methods, no regressiontesting is what companies want. Users want control, companies want ease of use and management."
-
Oh dear, lets not mention Vista then. I see no similarity between what youve just mentioned and the Vista platform. When you mention installation methods, lets take Ubuntu's for example here. Lets see I click on applications menu, I click on add/remove software, then I find the desired package in an organised list in the repositories and click to install it. You want it easier? Thats for the home user but highlights the old MS argument that Linux is not user friendly, is a myth, and since most servers run Linux its also bordering on false information to imply Linux is "out of reach" of business.
-
Im glad you mentioned about ease of use and management though , as these are two issues which have cropped up numerous times on reports about the MS platform. You mention about cost effectiveness, and Im pleased you did, as a company who has invested in custom software for XP has a better chance of running it through Wine than it does through Vista and most likely Win 7. Imagine that, Linux more Windows backward compat than Windows?
-
"I appreciate open source software, and without it we'd be nowhere as far as where we are right now."
-
A very clever comment. Praise Open source in an attempt to make a comment against it without being challenged. I have news for you, MS is still trying to learn from it, or are you suggesting that companies/users found Vista great without issue. Open source will be the thing that reduces MS's market share. Not only is it just as functional but rightly or wrongly its more fashionable. DivX/Xvid? Ring any bells? What about OGG?
-
How about MS trying to get in through the backdoor of the open source world? (Novell, Sun for example)
The biggest enemy for MS though, is not just open source software itself, its the thousands of coders out there who want to release software for free for no other reason than the satisfaction of people using their work. That ethos is MS's biggest threat, and that is what will ultimately lead to a reduction in its market share (IMO)
-
If your legal implication above was hinting at the patent issue MS waves about, make no mistake they wont (IMO) follow through. I believe they would fail in court (theyve already been burned by the EU) and once they've failed, their entire portfolio will be worthless.
Posted by Goblin | November 19, 2008 6:53 AM
@Haider, the benefits of open source software go beyond simple twitching of the code. BTW Linux is open source, but open source isn't Linux. There is a whole lot more you can do and benefit from open source than a simple kernel fix.
Some of the benefits I see outside the programming arena are:
a)Clearest of all: per seat license costs, usually free
b)Most controversial: stability and performance. Since the main selling point is quality not ad budget. Quality on open source is stricter if for no other reason than having no EULA to limit your benchmarking and the publication of such results. It's not easy to hide poor performance.
c)Better internationalization support. A plus in my case. I'm still waiting for Andre to tell the folks at Microsoft to fix the typo in wake up from hibernation Spanish message.
d)Adherence to international standards, this is very important as it provides long term stability and better interoperability with other products.
e)Alternatives <-- important as a consumer! Based on d) you have more flexibility as a consumer. Any one product can be replaced by a standard compliant alternative easily.
f)You're not alone. If you think your problems are unique to you you're mistaken. A lot of people have the same issues. So you can expect some sort of open source solution to emerge for some particular problem and you can expect the solution to be stable over time. In the closed source model if there is no niche market you're out of luck.
Believe me if you're coding the last thing you want to do is recode the thing again because a new(forced on you) API came out. I see less product fads in open source than closed source solutions. And that is good because it concentrates me on what you mention, doing business. Rather than fiddling with technology fads.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | November 19, 2008 9:51 AM
@Goblin
I enjoy a proper discussion too, so thanks for getting back on this.
First of all let me respond to the end of my previous post and your response to that. I had no intention in making an "I appreciate open source comment to avoid challenge". I appreciate challenge. We need developpers putting ideas forward. If they visualise em and others use em they get more attention. More attention means more people evaluate them and that is when they start to develop those ideas. No way this would happen with propriatary software seeing you have no platform to develop to (easily) unless you work for them.
That been said I have to disagree with one of your statements. "Microsoft should have bundled an AV". In regards with the antitrust cases making them remove bundled software this would have been viewed upon as unfair competition. Also if they would have bundled it, wouldn't it be so widespread that the AV too would have been a worthwhile pray for malware writers? The fact that there are different AV providers and we all use different ones is why they work in the first place. This is one of the parts where without competition there would be no market.
And as a clarification on my previous post to where you responded with "The GPL is quite clear". Yes it is. I am wrong on that account. Just checked the licenses and what I was referring too does not fall under GPL. My bad.
Lastly In regards to open source software that doesn't 'just work'. They mostly all work, but then need parameterisation that is not always done via an easy to use wizard but has to be set in a config file. While this way offers more configuration it is not as straightforward as a wizard that gets launched after an install. And thus it gets viewed as something that does not work out of the box.
Getting back on topic though: do you reckon it is a good thing Microsoft decided to give out an AV for free or not?
Posted by Charlie | November 19, 2008 10:41 AM
@Charlie,
Ill start at the end of your post and work backwards. Unlike "he who cannot be named" when I am asked a question I like to answer it.
-
Yes, I think its a good idea that MS gave out an AV for free. I think its about time, I think its a little bit of a kick in the teeth for people that a/in the past have fallen victim and/or b/paid for their own package, but none the less a good thing it is being done now.
-
Linux of old was certainly a case of "but then need parameterisation that is not always done via an easy to use wizard but has to be set in a config file.", not so relevant now.
-
Lets look for a minute at an area of the market that requires this type of fiddling most of the time. That would be games on the Windows platform. Ask most 12+ year olds who play the latest games on the windows platform, and Ill think you'll find numerous stories of patches, workarounds and config files. Now, Im not for one minute suggesting that the games market in anyway reflects the business one, but it highlights something which MS IMO have failed to recognise. People are not stupid. People are no longer computer illiterate, and I believe MS does a great dis-service to the average user when it presumes that they are incapable of running anything without nannying them through the entire process.
-
I agree with the anti-trust issue and to be fair, as I said before Windows is the most popular system (at the moment) and therefore the most likely target. But then the question I ask is that by definition if its an anti-trust issue for MS to include AV protection as part of say Vista, then surely that would apply to every other package that is part of the platform? The reason I ask is that I do not have experience of these anti-trust issues other than what I have read.
-
Finally going back to what you were saying "We need developers putting ideas forward. If they visualise em and others use em they get more attention. More attention means more people evaluate them and that is when they start to develop those ideas."
-
Firstly I would like to make it clear that I am presuming in my next statement, but I cant believe Im the only one doing this.
I work 9-5 writing code for a diverse selection of companies. I get paid, the company I work for gets paid. In my spare time, as my hobby I embrace the ethos of open source/free software whatever you want to call it, and give my time for nothing. I have even assisted small companies by modifying open source software (as I hinted on above) to better suit their needs. I do it because I enjoy it, and I do it because I get a "kick" out of someone finding my efforts useful. I do not get paid, I do not ask for money.
-
This is why I see the open source world to be such a threat to MS, the idea of a coder giving away their time for free is, IMO so horrible to MS, they will do anything they can to put a stop to it.
-
This is why I have a silly handle. I dont believe my employers would be happy if they found out I was giving my work away for free, and more than likely I would called upon by their customers to work for them for free. MS and companies like them are completely incompatible with open source ethos, they do it to make profit. I, and im sure thousands of others do it for an honest held belief that people should be entitled to functionality and decent software without money even factoring into it.
-
Freedom of software, its the future.
(Good God, Im sounding more like an open source version of Andre De Co$ta everyday!)
Posted by Goblin | November 19, 2008 11:22 AM
It is doubletalk. MS doesn't want to have to deal with the issue of refunding subscription fees to those of us out here who have paid them already. It's not that it would be a lot of money, it is just the *principle* of giving back money that MS can't fathom.
Posted by bbneo | November 19, 2008 11:29 AM
@BBneo
Quote "
It is doubletalk. MS doesn't want to have to deal with the issue of refunding subscription fees to those of us out here who have paid them already. It's not that it would be a lot of money, it is just the *principle* of giving back money that MS can't fathom."
-
LOL. Give back money? Lol but.."It will be better next time" to coin an MS phrase.
-
Bbneo, its a good job MS dont run the world. You would be put on trial for even mentioning the phrase "giving back money"
-
Talking of which, does anyone have a comment or more news on the rumour mentioned here about our mate Billy Gates selling his shares? It seems he's getting his money while he still can. (If the story is true)
Posted by Goblin | November 19, 2008 11:37 AM
@Goblin;
I understand that you enjoy coding with no monetary reward, and that is fine. However, assuming that others should think the same way is going a bit too far. I am a programmer, and as much as I enjoy it and do code for personal projects outside of work, there is no way I would code for my company, or an outside company, without monetary compensation. Why would I? We work in an industry that it is very easy to make money in doing something that we love doing.
And just to comment on your aside that people are not computer illiterate anymore, this is just flat out wrong. Before working as a software engineer, I had 2 years in a technical support facility. I can tell you right now that the average computer user has no idea how to change a config file, or even what it is ;). Yes it is true that more and more people, especially the younger generation, are become very adapt at what their computers are capable of, the older generation remains blissfully unaware.
Posted by sithspwn | November 19, 2008 3:30 PM
Most open source code is written by companies who pay for it to be written. There are hundreds of companies who support OS development, and make money from it. Just because something is open source or free, does not mean the programmer was not paid.
1999 called and wants its FUD back.
Posted by billybob | November 19, 2008 3:36 PM
Amazing site! I found your site very interesting.Thanks! Windows Live OneCare is resource intensive, but Microsoft plans on Morro being much lighter weight.
Posted by pc service guide | November 19, 2008 4:04 PM
@Billybob, yes there is payment in the open source world, however does the average end user care? I wouldnt think so. (See end of post)
-
@sithspwn
"assuming that others should think the same way is going a bit too far" - and I didnt, I said Im sure I cant be the only one (and I did make it very clear I was not stating fact)
Of course people have the right to pay for work done, if we didnt alot of the projects today would never have been completed, but that sort of brings me onto the point I was making, and if I may quote you: "We work in an industry that it is very easy to make money in doing something that we love doing." - Is it? I personally find most of the coding in my workplace dull & uninspired and the only reason I do it is for the paycheck. I did not study at Uni to be no more than a developer of software "solutions" that in reality could be done by an A-level student in their first year.
Get a new job! I hear you say! Well yes, but since happyness in the workplace is secondary to providing for my family, I really have no choice, until a better offer/contract presents itself.
-
The work I do for hobby is something else. I enjoy doing it and I dont believe anyone could make money from it since alot of it is centered around z80 and Ricoh5A22 emulation (that and the demo scene involvement) when I have lent my services to others for free, its when they cant afford to have custom software made for them (small business). No its not charity, its called being a decent person, and yes I do get satisfaction from helping others and giving them a solution that they would otherwise never have the chance to get. Maybe Im stupid. But I get a kick out of doing it. I blame my days in the PD scene on the A500.
-
Although Billybob is correct and that there is money in open source, it is wrong to say that everyone makes something out of it. I certainly dont, and Id guess the vast majority of the FSF dont either, and I can quote many software solutions where no-one has made anything from them.
If people want to charge for their time when engaging in hobby coding, fine, all power to them, but I would put money on projects such as MAME never existing if everyone had that opinion.
It sort of goes back to why proprietary is rotten to the core, nobody will do anything for anyone unless they are paid. I would like to think there are many people who, like me, believe it that this shouldnt be the case.
-
@sithspwn maybe my comment was a little general, however the point I was getting over was the fact that overall the level of "computer savvyness" is far higher than it was say 10 years ago, and Linux for example is stereotyped as being for the experts and geeks only.
-
Fact is, it isnt and if the thought of having to learn something new is so awful for any would be user of Linux, then they are better off with Windows, as thats where they will have the better chance of being totally led by the hand, just dont come crying on an open source forum when you are hit with the other issues that surround it.
-
Posted by Goblin | November 19, 2008 5:12 PM
@Goblin I'm not planning on getting into this huge debate, but there's just one point of yours I want to come back to.
"If a company is using open source and IF they require a more personal version of it, they can. Try doing that with MS office or anyother proprietary package."
That's how a lot of companies make money. They personalise Microsoft technologies. MS builts platforms that give most businesses the capabilities to do most of what they need. But Microsoft can't build programs that are absolutely perfect for the needs of, say, pharmaceutical companies, retailers, hospitals, theme parks, universities, and every other possible company in the world. That's what the partners are there for.
There are a huge number of companies that make a very successful living by customising MS technologies to suit whatever niche market they specialise in. Personalising MS products isn't just a possibility, it's a fact of life for a lot of companies.
Right. I'll let you all get back to arguing about anti-virus and Open Source now.
Posted by Jess Meats | November 20, 2008 4:02 AM
@Goblin
I'd like to respond to your comment on games and on the one about antitrust.
Games: yeah they are lacking. But that's mostly cos there is an update option built in. So they reckon there is no need for proper testing. This is getting worse and worse with games. Consumers won't sue, companies will. Business software needs to be less buggy and this needs testing. (That's why there are no beta games!)
On the antitrust matter. The line between core OS and add on is thin. Because there is already an entire AV market it will be very (and I mean VERY) hard to contest that AV is a part of the OS.
Now way they will win that arguement.
Gotta run, got an appointment now :)
Posted by Charlie | November 20, 2008 4:47 AM
Since Jess doesnt want to get into this debate, I will aim my response at everyone. As I said before I believe in responding to a question or point, as I believe not doing so is rude.
-
"That's how a lot of companies make money. They personalise Microsoft technologies. MS builts platforms that give most businesses the capabilities to do most of what they need. But Microsoft can't build programs that are absolutely perfect for the needs of, say, pharmaceutical companies, retailers, hospitals, theme parks, universities, and every other possible company in the world. That's what the partners are there for."
-
Yep completely agree, although they cant do it at a source level and they certainly cant distribute those modifications without coming into licensing issues can they? I think the customisation of MSoffice you are refering to, and the one I am talking about are two entirely different things.
-
Quote "Personalising MS products isn't just a possibility, it's a fact of life for a lot of companies. "
-
and that IMO is the best advert for open source ive seen here. If companies have a requirement for customisation they there is no doubt that the Open Office suite is the best choice for them as they can do it at a source level. If by customisation you are simply refering to a few forms and asthetics of the package itself (along with a little VB script) then really thats nothing unique to MS packages and I think you'll find most packages offer that type of customisation.
-
Quote "Right. I'll let you all get back to arguing about anti-virus and Open Source now. "
-
I hope I am misreading you, as if you were a first time poster I could be forgiven for thinking that you were belittling a reasoned debate here which, the MSwatch site affords with its comment facility.
Regardless of your viewpoint, everyone is welcome here (i believe) and to suggest that a debate was in some way petty or minor, would be a very cheap way of stifling free speach.
Like I say, I am sure that wasnt your intention.
Posted by Goblin | November 20, 2008 4:49 AM
@Goblin
I wasn't meaning to belittle anything. I would define an arguement in much the same way as I would define a debate. People make points and try and convince others over to their view. This is probably just a slight variation in dialect, because a debate, to me, is a lot more formal than an argument, usually with someone chairing the discussion, determining who gets to speak next and trying to keep things to the original subject. An argument is a lot more informal, with everyone speaking their mind. I guess this is the problem when people from all over the world get into a discussion (or argument) because the connotations of words can be subtly different depending on where you grew up.
The customisation I was talking about is a lot more than a few forms and asthetics. Companies add specific capabilities based on the requirements of their customers. They might not do this in terms of modification to the source code, but they create programs which run on top of Microsoft products, using the MS software as the foundation for whatever it is they need to do.
Now, to save any potential offence, I'll let you get back to debating AV.
Posted by Jess Meats | November 20, 2008 10:17 AM
Charlie says:
"They are not going to bundle anything but instead provide direct download links in their OS."
----------------------------------------------------
As far as providing direct download links embedded into future windows operating systems (Seven), this could also be a problem that will come home to Microsoft. It is still bundling in a different form, and I would expect one of the two largest commercial antivirus vender's to bring Microsoft to court if they do this.
crux says:
"One care joins long list of Microsoft's discontinued products. Playfor sure, Portable media center, web TV platform, soonly Zune and XBOX.
They always rename old products and make money. That's the strategy of Microsoft."
--------------------------------------------------
Name change for MS products that don't quite seem to make it: MSN to Windows Live. Longhorn to Vista to Seven. Onecare to whatever.
--------------------------------------------------
Which brings us to the basic problem of Onecare. First you have to know what Microsoft wanted to do with Onecare. They bought an inferior product already in place, and tried to "improve" it, to compete with Norton and McAfee. Seeing the money that these two products made, had to be enticing for MS to come up with a product like Onecare. The problem with Onecare, is that it was never even close to becoming a good product or good protection from malware. The free AVG was, and still is, a far superior solution for windows users. And the free versions of Avast and Avira are better than any commercial antivirus software out there for windows, period.
My guess, is the sales figures of Onecare were disappointing, to say the least. My second guess is that Onecare was causing many users to complain and ask for their money back from Microsoft.
The bottom line is, Microsoft should never have been in this market at all. They were trying to sell a cure, to the disease that they allowed to happen to windows, by not installing the proper security by default, in Windows operating systems. You know, limited user accounts set up by default after a windows installation. Onecare is just another example of the failed greed that is Micro$oft.
Posted by chips b malroy | November 20, 2008 12:23 PM
There's an interesting point...
Is adding links to download bundling? If so google is sure to be sued too. It has links to chrome, to google docs etc.
The fact that Symantec has links to their firewall software embedded in their AV software, is that bundling?
Although it does give Microsoft an advantage (it'll be the easiest way, (@Goblin apt-get for Windows ;)) I don't know if this counts as bundling, seeing there's nothing on there.
If providing links is deemed illegal I think the internet as a whole will have a damn big problem.
Posted by Charlie | November 21, 2008 2:16 AM
If you want to see more about Morro, have a look at this.
Posted by Morro de São Paulo | November 21, 2008 10:27 AM
When you want to visit the Morro de São Paulo island, you can book hotel on this site of a local cia.
Posted by Morro de São Paulo Hotel | November 21, 2008 10:30 AM
So Microsoft could not compete with Norton and McAfee with their substandard antivirus program Onecare by selling it. So the play Microsoft is now doing, is one that MS used to beat Netscape, give Onecare away for free with a name change, until you have market penetration and destroy the other commercial applications. Later on Microsoft will somehow make the other "free" programs incompatible with future windows versions.
Posted by The Hand | November 24, 2008 5:35 PM
Very interestingly of the Microsoft.I have been met because of the way of thinking of Microsoft.Hardly wait that Morro arrives on my computer.Now use OneCare which I have saved several times of the Trojan virus. Wish will thanks all in the Microsoft which has brought the such decision.
Posted by Nenad | May 23, 2009 3:04 AM
So basically what this has boiled down to, is that it's not about the Open Source (GPL) price, or what Microsoft chooses to charge or not charge in this case...this is yet again, another boring Microsoft vs. Linux argument.
Here's the problem with all of those arguments.
99% of most businesses are so familiar with the Microsoft Windows and Office Platform, that switching over to Linux and Open Office is simply not a solution. You have to relearn all of this again.
Case and point...
Linux is a Geeks OS (Not bashing here, because I too am a geek and have played with Ubuntu, Gentoo, Red Hat and others). Windows is a widely accepted normal "Average Joe's" OS.
Sure bash Windows for all its past mistakes, but it does not have the security vounerabilities that it once had...and every linux user keeps bringing this up. Look guys, Microsoft is here to stay, end of story. Deal with it. Honestly I prefer Windows over Linux...much easier to understand and use, compared to Linux. Plus the learning curve isn't as bad.
Companies don't want to retrain their employees to relearn a command prompt based os with a pretty GUI. Yes Linux is powerful in it's own right, yes it can do everything Windows can do with it's own applications, but in the end, if you don't know anything about how to run it on the command line, you're screwwed...literally.
Plus, you can end up screwwing yourself by putting in commands that you shouldn't, where Windows doesn't allow this to happen...
Just my 2 cents worth...
Posted by Orion | June 8, 2009 11:28 AM