Comments on: Will Microsoft's antivirus move draw antitrust fire?

Microsoft's move to free is likely to win plaudits from consumers, but McAfee and Symantec won't likely sit there and take it.

[compudoc318]

wow, a company tries to give away free software, and people will sue them for it.....what the heck...yeah, there are lots of free antivirus apps out there, but half the country isnt even aware that they need an antivirus app.

[Penguinisto]

So tell me this: If Apple began literally giving away OSX for use on generic PC's for free, would you shout 'antitrust!' ? If so, why?

/P

[solitare_pax]

But Microsoft doesn't give their OS away free either - they sell it to all comers, good and bad to load it into whatever piece of hardware they can put together.

What Microsoft did was give away Explorer for free, driving Netscape Navigator from a 90% market share to - well, zero, now that it is obsolete. Same thing with other products. No wonder when Microsoft stirs, some people get nervous.

[ferretboy88]

Apple would never do that Mr Penguin. In fact they charge $20 for ipod updates so they can line their pockets. They are all about the money.

[DrtyDogg]

Penguinisto: No, free software is free software, use it if you want, there are always other options out there.

[Penguinisto]

The analogy wasn't restricted... it was meant to illustrate that Apple would destroy Windows' OS share almost overnight if it began giving away the software for free (esp. once the OEMs picked up and ran with it, as Michael Dell had once publicly dreamed about).

[Mark_Anderson]

There are plenty of free securityware packages. This doesn't seem to have put the likes of Norton out of business.

Plus, of course, Windows already comes with Defender.

[freemarket--2008]

It's a fallacy that MS gives anything away for free. It's all included in the price of Windows. It's not optional. You pay the same whether you need it or use it or not. That's the power of a monopoly.

[gp2792]

Penguin: "it was meant to illustrate that Apple would destroy Windows' OS share almost overnight if it began giving away the software for free"

Of course we have a great example of this exact phenomenon already, right? Linux has totally destroyed Windows' OS share...oh, wait.

[Penguinisto]

@gp:

You confuse Linux (which most folks still know nothing about) with OSX (which is a household name by now).

Please try to keep up, thx.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Penguinisto wrote:

"it was meant to illustrate that Apple would destroy Windows' OS share almost overnight if it began giving away the software for free-"

Interesting notion. Flawed and based in fantasy, but interesting none the less.

[ballmerisanape]

This is hilarious. The fact that there is an entire industry that exists solely because Windows is such a security nightmare is one thing.. but when the company finally does what it should have done years ago.. people get tiffy. Too bad antivirus companies the general public will be more than happy to dump your invasive bloatware. Adapt... it's called capitalism.

[myles taylor]

What makes you think Microsoft's won't be bloatware?

[Heebee Jeebies]

I don't know since Apple moved to Intel processors for their systems that have had to do a lot of security patching themselves. Both companies are evil monopolies, but ones driven by those that by their products. If everyone that hated Microsoft or Apple was to stop buying their products and went with Linux/open source both companies would loose it, Apple before Microsoft but Microsoft would loose it too it would just take longer.

The fact is the world is driven only by greed. Morals take a very far far back seat, like being in anther state back seat. If it isn't Microsoft or Apple screwing people it is AT&T, Walmart, etc. Until the world stops the greed and starts living like civilized people that want to ensure that all humans on this planet don't go with out the basics of life the world will keep slipping deeper in to hell.

Robert

[NewsReader_]

Yeah, it is pretty counter-intuitive to sue a company for giving away something that its customers need.

Not bundling it with Windows makes this a non-issue. I hope none of my tax dollars get wasted "investigating" this. The open market will decide which product gets used.

[BK216]

I just pisses me off that people begin to call MS a monopoly when they decide to include free software with their OS, yet Apple gets to lock down their OS with whatever the hell they want and lockdown the hard ware to completely eliminate any competition from competitive brands.

[sebastien.kalonji]

It just pisses me off when people use Apple as an example that to proof that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Apple doesn't even have a 10% share of the market. If they want to compare both why don't they point out that Macs don't even need anti virus software. OSX is now 8 years old and still noone has ever seen a virus for that OS in the wild. If Apple can pull this off why can't MS?

[NewsReader_]

No viruses huh? You are obviously either a blinded Apple fanatic or severly misinformed; maybe living in a cave with your Mac. I'll leave it to you to search the internet for instances of Mac viruses. It is so easy, even a caveman can do it.

OSX has the same type of security issues as Windows; another fact that you can discover easily with your favorite search engine. No one exploits them because until recently, it was not worth it. Why shoot at a mouse when there is a mammoth standing next to it (caveman analogy)

If you want to post fiction, find another site to do it on.

[Penguinisto]

When did Apple get 90% marketshare of the desktop realm, then decide to start squeezing out existing competitors by using their dominant position to distribute competing software?

[rquinn7]

Yes. We know there are viruses for Mac OS. In my 15 years of using both Macs and Windows, both for business (Commercial Printing) and home. I have encountered 1 instance of malware on a Mac. Recently, I tried hooking up a Windows machine for my teenager. Within 3 days it was unusable due to viruses. His Mac? No problems. The Windows machine will not be plugged in again.
Oh. I hear you already..."Why shoot at a mouse when there is a mammoth standing next to it (caveman analogy)"
Love it! I'll take better productivity over being more popular anyday.
Simply amazing that a MS must develop software for their software.

[Penguinisto]

@NewsReader: So you can point something out that isn't a convoluted trojan? Please do - we're all eyes.

[NewsReader_]

rquinn7,

I have used Windows almost daily for the past 13 years and Macs occasionally. Despite the enormous amount of malware that exists on Windows, I have only been infected < 5 times, most recently by a social engineering attack via Messenger. I suspect that we both have low infection rates for the same reason, because we know the proper way to use our computer.

Sounds like you need to teach your teenager what you know; unusable in 3 days is pretty extreme. You would not send him/her out driving without training. Treat the internet the same way. You can get injured in any car, from Yugo to Mercedes if you do not know what you are doing. Same goes with your desktop OS and falling victim to malware. Learn how to use it and protect yourself; don't place a false sense of security in your car or your OS.

Another thing, if people were not productive on Windows, 90% of PC users would not buy them so that productivity claim does not carry much weight.

[SeizeCTRL]

@ rquinn7,

Perhaps you should stick with OS X because apparently you are an idiot when it comes to Windows. I've had XP since day one and in that time, I have only seen one of my boxes get hit with any sort of spyware, and it took all of 3 minutes to remove. I've never encountered a virus, never had any of the problems that Apple fanatics always hit on. Maybe next time you will do Windows Updates and tell your son to avoid the midget pr0n... and he might have a safer computer.

I'm running OS X, Ubuntu, XP and Vista 64 at home and never had a problem on any of my systems. The XP box runs 24x7 with an open port for ShoutCast and runs just as well now as the day I put it together. It's running ZoneAlarm, Firefox, Avast, Winamp and ShoutCast and it's been running for well over 3 years. So if you and your kid ruined a PC within 72 hours, it was either unprotected, unpatched and running old versions of IE... or you are full of BS!

[alegr]

rquinn7,

the recipe is simple: DON'T GIVE YOUR TEENAGER ADMINISTRATOR PRIVILEGES ON THE COMPUTER. Keep admin password for yourself, make everybody else (including yourself) a simple Limited User. That worked for me since Windows 2000, with two teenagers.

[rquinn7]

SeizeCTRL et al,

Tsk. Tsk. Such animosity...
I was simply responding to "NewsReader's" comments about the multitude of OSX viruses. My experience only.
Why on earth should I be concerned about installing anti-virus software on a computer, when there is a platform which alleviates the necessity?

[ferretboy88]

Most users are so stupid they can't use the computer for more than a week without getting raped with spyware and viruses. People should have a test to see if they are smart enough to know where to click and not to. Last time I had a virus was when I was stupid 5 years ago and downloaded bareshare videos.

[gwilo]

I so agree with you BK216, Apples selling point works right out the box with everything you need. This is what got MS in trouble.

I am no MS fan, I buy what works for me, and the world does run on Windows.

I am one of those people that do run "FREE" antivirus, one supplied by my IP, and other on my old laptop (they free one from my IP is so blotted, to much RAM).

The MS antivirus will be looking at but I will give it a few months to prove itself as a worthy program.

[neovader]

I think a lot of people also forget that back in DOS/Windows days, Microsoft actually provided a free DOS and Windows version of antivirus software. So they used to have it built in almost from the start, and dropped it. I'm thinking it was DOS 6.0 and Windows 3.1. Surprised nobody ever mentions this when questions about Microsoft's AV software comes up.

[rwm72]

I am having trouble understanding how MS offering it for free is an antitrust issue. If they were bundling it then maybe, but a free download sounds like a shrewd business move. It does not bode well for competitors perhaps but it does not seem unfair. Bundling Internet Explorer did seem unfair, at the expense of competitors. Perhaps any bundling of MS Office could also be deemed unfair to competitors. A different approach like the downloading for antivirus software, may have helped avoid the eye of antitrust watchers, as there is still a choice involved I guess.

I know I am pretty ignorant and uneducated on these matters, but I think it's the fact that Apple do lock down its hardware, OS and software that helps avoid any Antitrust issues, because they are not supplying anything to anyone else. They would be deemed as not unfairly preventing competition as they are a manufacturing entity unto themselves. That, along with a comparatively small market share of course.

Perhaps I think of it like a car manufacturer or similar industry. BMW don't have to licence out their engines, iDrive interface or any technological advancements with components on their cars. Things would be different if they did licence them out, or chose to supply other manufacturers. If they then tried to unethically force other manufacturers to use their components over someone else's, that would be deemed unfair to competitors. This would be seen as trying to lock competitors out of a market, rather than offering a different take on a product aimed at a common market.

If and when Apple ever open up their OS, then watch the restrictions and potential Antitust issues come flying in from all corners because of their business model. Bundling of decent software is one point Apple sells its product on, but with an open OS they would face the same issues MS faces, especially outside the US. Until that day though, perhaps buy Apple if want a BMW packaged with the most things you need (good but paying premium price), or Windows if you want a custom hot rod you can tune to your liking.
Oops.. I wrote a lot... mostly off topic! Quiet day at work :) Sorry about the rant.

[Penguinisto]

"I am having trouble understanding how MS offering it for free is an antitrust issue."

It might be, but again may not be.

It might be because they are using their market position (Windows) to squeeze out competitors in a market that they do not have dominance in (A/V). See, nearly all A/V software out there is written for one platform - Windows. Most of the rest (e.g. ClamAV) is wrritten to scan for malware that affects Windows. Only a tiny handful of anti-malware is written for OSX, Linux, or the like - simply because on OSX and/or Linux, such software is considered (and at this time rightfully so) a waste of time, money, and system resources (unlike Windows, where A/V is a near-necessary tool for system survival on any public network).

Now... it might not be because it's not being enforced (e.g. it's not pre-bundled, although Windows Defender is, BTW) and it's sort of something they naturally should've done anyway (well, they should've written a halfway securable OS architecture, but I digress). Problem is, they should've done it before an entire industry arose from the act of keeping a typical Windows machine from becoming some script kiddie's b!tch.

Either way, no skin off my nose. It'll be fun to watch, though. :)

[medezark]

@Penguinisto: viruses and malware exist for every computer system, rates of infection are geometrically proportional to penetration of said systems. Most viruses and malware for windows systems are designed to attack flaws in third party software, or systems that have not installed the latest security patches.

OSX has had many patches and updates since it's inception to fix serious security vulnerabilities, the fact that few of the attacks against those vulnerabilities has been able to survive and proliferate in the wild says more about OSX's true market penetration than it does about any inherent lack of vulnerability in OSX.

You mention that Microsoft should have written a more securable OS? Well, Apple didn't write a more securable OS, they took an OS already written by others (BSD), took a lot of other code from the open source community without returning anything, and added a tiny bit of eye-candy to it. And they still have to go back and issue security updates because the eye candy they add keeps creating vulnerabilities and instabilities! At least Microsoft writes or pays for the code for Windows. I wonder what OSX would be like if Apple programmers had actually written it instead of riding on the backs of the open source community?

[Penguinisto]

@medezark: Actually, not true. OSX had one (seriously, just one) bit of malware in the wild, and it required a lot of user cooperation to get it working. A look through the patches put out show that any possible (not even probable) exploit still requires the user to go out of their way to install it 99% of the time - a far cry from the simple act of viewing a rigged webpage (which is common with Windows viruses).

"Well, Apple [...] took a lot of other code from the open source community without returning anything..."

http://www.apple.com/opensource/

...you were saying? Hate to break your argument, but they do give back - in spades. They even give you all of their development tools (Xcode) for free. The very core, Darwin, is 100% free and open source. They only built one proprietary bit - the GUI, Aqua. That said, X11 is right there on the page I listed.

(and to be honest, BSD is one hell of a secure base from which to build one's OS.)

The beauty of using OpenSource is that OSX is not this amorphous locked-down monstrosity of code that Windows is.

When Microsoft releases the source code to its core (without demanding a metric ton of money and NDAs first), then we'll talk. Until then, sorry... your argument doesn't fly very well.

/P

[Mark_Anderson]

Penguin, if OSX is so secure then why do Apple release security patches at all?

[Penguinisto]

Because there's no such thing as perfection.

But here - let me put it in easy terms for you, Mark: You're trying to say that a modern Norwegian Cruise ship's architecture (OSX) is just as vulnerable and sinkable as the eras-old architecture of RMS Titanic (Windows). Sure, the modern cruise ship holds a lifeboat drill before each sailing, and sure it gets patched and updated now and again. OTOH, It has yet to sink, and nothing has yet to sink it. Its internal structure and operations are built specifically to make it very hard to sink - unlike the historical hubris and haphazard tech that --in spite of being the acme of its day-- RMS Titanic suffered under.

Get the picture now? :)

/P

[Vegaman_Dan]

Penguinisto wrote:

"Only a tiny handful of anti-malware is written for OSX, Linux, or the like - simply because on OSX and/or Linux, such software is considered (and at this time rightfully so) a waste of time, money, and system resources (unlike Windows, where A/V is a near-necessary tool for system survival on any public network)."

In case you are curious, this is the sort of comment that earns you the reputation of being a troll. It's also very irresponsible for anyone in an system administrator role to believe this. It's the mark of an amateur or incompetent one if this is the case.

But you are right, it's no skin off your nose- you've got a bit too much brown now from another source.

[Mark_Anderson]

@Penguin

But it can be sunk.

Now that we've cleared that up let's move on shall we? :)

[rmva]

Perhaps this will motivate Symantec and McAfee to offer their AV free to home users.

[SamCPP]

Well I can't say I have any sympathy for Symantec and McAfee. Symantec in particular - their product line is way too bloated. They are going to have to actually release products WORTH the money... heaven forbid.

Anti-trust? Give me a break... there is a whole industry dedicated to giving software away for free where there are paid alternatives. As long as it isn't bundled with Windows then the anti-trust people should keep their greasy hands off.

And kudos to MS for the move. Security should have been the focus the moment they decided to develop the NT kernel. Don't praise 'em often but this is a move in the right direction.

[gggg sssss]

RIP symantec.Maybe they can buy Yahoo?

[sargear]

Microsoft? They still kicking around?

[tm_anon]

Microsoft creating an antivirus program is kind of funny, especially when every person I've read about, talked to or heard about who tried their payed version all uninstalled it within a month of installing it. They should stick with making money, it's what they're good at. I currently use another program, recommended by Microsoft, but not built by them, Malwarebytes' Anti-malware. I back that up with Avira, since AVG crashed my system by running a scan. Running both of these programs has kept my system cleaner than Microsofts attempted bloatware problem solver and running them both actually uses less system resources than Microsofts single program. I also switched off of IE and since then, my registry remains cleaner, my system needs defragmenting less and I have much fewer spyware cookies. In other words, by keeping Microsoft away from any area other than the basic OS, my computer runs better. I use a third party defragmenter which does a better job, I use a third party system cleaner, again, it does a better job, I use a third party web browser which runs less system resources, renders pages at least as quickly as IE and does more with the resources it does use. Basically, Microsoft should stop expanding into other fields because it's no good in those other fields. It's like when Michael Jordan tried playing baseball. He was ok at it, but not good enough to do it professionaly. Microsoft is ok at searches, they're ok with IM programs, they're ok at making web browsers and they're just ok at making antivirus programs. Why settle for ok at lots of things when if you take all that extra crap out you can learn to be truly great at something?

[ferretboy88]

Without windows none of these companies would make money selling software. MS should sue them for a cut of their profits.

[AppleSuxLeo]

AVAST ! works great and is free. Anti virus should be a core part of an OS. Nothing wrong with it at all.
Norton and the others make bloated crapware..Just ask Leo LaPorte.
Windows Live One Care scanning tool works great. I use it just for fun but I never get any viruses anyways.
Viruses and spyware are caused by what we call PEBCAK. Problem Exists Between Computer And Keyboard. Four and a half years virus/spyware free on XP.

[medezark]

Thats PEBKAC, Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair.

[sythara]

lol

[kheechun]

It is Microsoft's responsibility to make sure their OS is secure from virus attacks, and they shouldn't be charged for patching holes that makes their OS insecure. Afterall, they are not supposed to leave the holes open and let the third party folks who profit based on the security holes to settle it. If the solicitors think that an OS shouldn't have antivirus capability, then Apple should be punished for campaigning based on virus vulnerability of Windows.

[Mark_Anderson]

Sure and Apple should be punished for the seive like qualities of Safari.

[kheechun]

Indeed, the anti-virus software category shouldn't even have existed. In a way, antivirus softwares are same as spywares: they benefit from OS vulnerability.

[medezark]

I remember back in '98 - '99 there was an e-mail distribed virus that A: told the user they were infected, and B: told the user that the only anti-virus that could remove the infection was from a specific company. The virus had actually been written by one of their programmers. AV software should be intrinsic to the OS, IMHO.