- Related Stories
-
McAfee sets Falcon free
August 1, 2006 -
Microsoft shakes up security fray
June 7, 2006 -
Symantec challenge to OneCare faces delay
May 31, 2006 -
Microsoft security product makes official debut
May 30, 2006 -
Microsoft security service to ship in June
February 7, 2006 -
Microsoft moves into antivirus realm
June 10, 2003
The antivirus and PC care package nabbed 15.4 percent of security suite sales at retailers such as Best Buy and Amazon.com, according to NPD's data. The average price was $29.67, well below Microsoft's list price of $49.95. Online at Amazon.com, OneCare is available for only $19.99.
"Microsoft's penetration pricing strategy is clearly working and they are capturing significant unit share," NPD analyst Chris Swenson told CNET News.com. "I think many in the industry were surprised with how well Windows Live OneCare did in its first month on the market."
OneCare hit U.S. store shelves in late May, three years after Microsoft announced its intent to move into the antivirus realm. The product combines antivirus, anti-spyware and firewall software with backup features and several tune-up tools for Windows PCs. Symantec and McAfee have both announced new products to rival OneCare.
"We see our comprehensive 'PC Care' approach as a new and important direction for consumer PC services and are encouraged to see that more consumers are taking steps to effectively protect and maintain their PCs," Samantha McManus, a business strategy manager at Microsoft, said in an e-mailed statement.
Microsoft took market share from all incumbents in June, according to NPD's data. It particularly gained on market leader Symantec, which saw its unit share drop 10.1 percentage points from May. At the same time, McAfee lost 3.3 points and Trend Micro dropped 1.3 points.
Symantec noted that NPD covers retail sales only, and does not include consumer sales through Internet service providers and PC makers, for example. "We just had a record June quarter in consumer sales," said Mike Plante, a marketing director at the company. "You can't really draw market share conclusions from the NPD data alone, particularly with just a month of data."
Symantec also remained the clear leader in the retail channel, with 59.8 percent of security suite sales, NPD said. Microsoft was second, followed by Trend Micro with 8.9 percent and McAfee with 7.1 percent.
See more CNET content tagged:
NPD Group Inc.,
Microsoft Windows Live,
Symantec Corp.,
pricing,
McAfee Inc.




symantec is thought as a bigger evil of the two
Thats like Toyota selling you a car that they know is subject to catching fire via faulty electrical system THEN charging you to fix it.
Nobody in the world would put up with this type of unethical behavior in any other industry - so why are we putting up with it here?
If Microsoft knows the OS is unstable because the registry (which was a BAD, BAD idea to begin with) becomes cluttered with crap and must be cleaned up to restore the PC to optimal operating efficiency - they should just build it into the OS.
The same goes for antivirus. If they know that they have flaws in the OS (and who in the world doesn't know there are flaws still to be uncovered) then antivirus should be a part of the OS - just like air bags are required equipment on automobiles.
Microsoft should NOT profit from thier own mistakes while we suffer the consequences.
They wouldn't be selling this crap if you weren't buying it.
OS X - five years and still NO viruses. Not fewer viruses:NONE.
Before some bonehead claims it's because of marketshare,
remember that OS 9 had viruses AND a smaller number of users. It
isn't how big the target is, but how soft it is. Windows is as soft as
it gets.
It impossible to make complex software like an OS totally bug free. Though malicious software can exploit flaws to infect system the can also exploit the user. Just look at the people that get infected because they run programs sent to them as attachments. Viruses aren't necessarly the result of bugs, though they often exploit them. The product designed to correct bugs in Microsoft's OS software at least, is Windows Update which is free.
"Thats like Toyota selling you a car that they know is subject to catching fire via faulty electrical system THEN charging you to fix it. Nobody in the world would put up with this type of unethical behavior in any other industry - so why are we putting up with it here?"
No one is forcing you to buy this, there is other anti-virus software avaliable and some of it is free. Besides designing and building a car is different from building software. It's simply not feasible to test software for every thing it might encounter and under every configuration it may run under.
"If Microsoft knows the OS is unstable because the registry (which was a BAD, BAD idea to begin with) becomes cluttered with crap and must be cleaned up to restore the PC to optimal operating efficiency - they should just build it into the OS."
Built what into the OS? Part of the reason the registry gets messed up is because of sloppy uninstallation software, and not just from Microsoft. It could be done like it was pre Windows 95 with individual config files. As far as harddisks and file systems go, it's usually more effcient to make one large file instead of a bunch of smaller ones. Microsoft did include a registry maintaince utility in the form of scanreg in Win9X and WinME. They also release Windows based utility as freeware called regcleaner.
"The same goes for antivirus. If they know that they have flaws in the OS (and who in the world doesn't know there are flaws still to be uncovered) then antivirus should be a part of the OS - just like air bags are required equipment on automobiles. Microsoft should NOT profit from thier own mistakes while we suffer the consequences."
Why don't you tell that to Symantec and other companies that would gladly sue them for being anti-competitive if they made such a move. That's what happened when IE was included and it's what's being done for Windows Media Player. Our courts and the European courts have said competition is more important.
them to cleanup their operating system. I read in another article
that conveniently, other vendors are getting locked out of their
latest kernels. However, I'm sure their own products won't be
locked out.
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
I looke at onecare as more of ongoing protection.
There is no OS that is inherently bug free and no OS can gaurantee that it is not prone for virus attack.
You have lots of choice. You can go and buy Mac OS X and be happy instead of buying microsoft OS.
Of download opensource anti virus for microsoft os!!!
people call Apple people fanatics, but I must say, this takes the
cake.
MS has officially waved the white flag concerning virus' and now
they are going to make money off the fanatics that must have
anything and everything with Microsoft written on the box. Let's
face it, they are the number two anti-virus maker at this point
with a totally immature product - this says a lot about their
customer base. Pathetic.
There are two alternatives: a myriad configuration files in different formats, stored all around the disk and with no consistent tool to edit, secure and access them, or a single configuration database, searchable, with access control and consistent tools to manage it.
Face it: the problem is not with the registry. The registry is just the place where you see the problem.
The problem is with applications (and the OS) not being consistent in the locations and formats they store the configuration information. But they would be doing that regardless of the registry. If the registry didn't exist, it would be even worse. Much worse.
Now, to your point: the analogy with Toyota is wrong. Microsoft is not selling the fixes. They give the fixes away, for free, and they have always done so.
What they are selling is help in managing your OS, doing backups and blocking attackers.
A more correct analogy would be Toyota selling you theft insurance, a localizer system or an alarm. Which would be OK even if they knew their cars can be stolen by a determined individual.
It shouldn't be put up with here.
Microsoft should be held liable for their own mistakes... like everybody else!!!
Walt
absurd that the industry is so blind to the
shenanigans of Redmond that they actually think
this is a "Great Deal."
I have always said this about AV, anti spyware,
and all the other anti this and that which is
required to operate a Microsoft OS.
It got to a point in my company where we simply
got rid of Microsoft and went with Linux/MAC on
the desktop and Linux in the server room...
Problem solved for us.
Hopefully others in the indrusty will wake up
and realize that all Microsoft wants is more
money. They don't care about us as individuals
or as CEOs or CIOs or regular staff; all they
care about is their bottom line.
OpenSource is the answer to that.
Take up people and smell what they are
shoveling...
If the outside world was given insight into how software development is performed at symantec, there would be a rush on the market and symc would tank forever. Not a company that is capable of creating world-class software. Microsoft (or hell, anyone... Even McAfee if they can continue their current trend and continue slimming down their products) will continue to erode symantec's market share. The execs and sales people within symantec can continue to spin and talk their way out of it, but the numbers don't lie.
In McAfee's just released 07 line, two of their four products look pretty reasonable, in terms of what they try to do.
Microsoft is notorious for leaving the consumer hanging when it comes to security issues with it's current OS, XP, how doe they plan to maintain a valid secure environment for it's clients.
FYI, the only reason Microsoft's sales of LiveOne Care has escalated is do to market up-sales and spiff's given to those the pump OneCare instead of a VALID ANTIVIRUS and ANTISPYWARE solution like Norton's.
Coming from a computer expert like myself, I would continue to invest in Symantec as well as Lavasoft's AdAware and Spybot Search and Destroy. It's just a matter of time before a security issue gets exploited in OneCare leaving the consumer to suffer once again. Maybe Microsoft should have left this in the "door stop idea" category!
JUSTIN
could be (and this is questionable) a little more expensive to buy,
but in the long run I would say they are much cheaper to own.
I think it was AUS-Cert whom said that 80% of malware slipped through the premium antivirus solutions, so how great are they compared to Microsoft? Not too good I'm afraid - I'd go with Microsoft anyday.
After all they care about the people that made them what they are today - software developers. How many development environments like Visual Studio does linux have? None!
Symantec's past popularity was only due to the fact that it was included as the defactor pre-installed standard.
Personally, I never liked Symantec, but now that Microsoft is shafting them too... my sympathy goes out to them.
Regardless of what Microsoft claims as their pre-installed defacto standard WILL become a bit hit only due to the shere number of shipping OS's with that product included as standard.
Only thing is that older burned CD's are still shipping with Symantec and thus these figures must be a farce for future shipments... and not actual sales to-date!!!
Walt
Besides, the data presented in this article is from the retail stores like Bestbuy. So this time, MS is not riding it's market share. Perhaps brand name and low price are doing the magic
Frankly, many users, and YES even Windows users are going to continue to switch to Macs because they pay just a LITTLE bit more, but they don't have to buy anything else to protect themselves.
User's are getting smarter about this topic. Bill better change some things before he leaves MS.
OneCare was meant for the average user who has no clue (like my sister) how to put together a protection suite and keep it updated.
- cyberhawk (behavorial IPS) = free
- Antivir ranked advanced+ (seehttp://www.av-comparatives.org/) = free
- Prevx home (windows shield) = free
- Defense Wall = protection for P2P (e.g. limewire, mail, internet) by virtualisation, see what the experts tell you on wilders and catlecops = 30 dollar lifetime (shareware)
You do not need an ANTISPY with this freeware/shareware, no pop-ups all easy to use and a very high safety level
I don't like Microsoft, but, in this case, when will Symantec wake up??? The above is NOT the reason it lost any shares. Symantec lost shares because it screws with the operating systems and is almost impossible to remove!...and they will continue to lose shares as long as there are groups willing to get the word out.
I have contact with over 200 people that wouldn't touch Symantec products if you paid them to use the products!!! I'm sure many of you do too.
'Newbies' use Symantec until they learn the hard way.
If a foreign country tried to price anything that was listed at $49.95 for $19.99... they would be brought up on anti-competitive charges...
So where are the charges against Microsoft?
FWIW
There are all sorts of products that have the competition priced all over the map (cars, computers, clothes). Is Kia then anti-competitive versus Dodge or Chevy? Is Dell anti-competitive over Mac? Levi over Banana Republic? If Symantec truly has a better product (which it doesn't), then people would pay more for it.
If after a year or something MS suddenly raises the price to 50 dollars after it takes a big chunk then you might have a case. However, MS still has the right to have an introductory offer for a few months also. Being too concerned about what you consider "fair pricing" will often do the exact opposite of what you want and actually stifle competition.
- That's stupid
-
by firstlast
August 13, 2006 8:53 AM PDT
- Instead of making Windows less vurnerable to viruses and spyware they introduce their own antivirus? It's like you buy a new car with crappy tires and seller will include very cheap glue to fix them everytime they break.
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (133 Comments)---
Pixel image editor - http://www.kanzelsberger.com