Comments on: Will new Microsoft add-ons trigger new antitrust charges? No. http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=478 Helping PC users make sense of Microsoft software since 1991 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:54:09 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ken http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=478&cpage=1#comment-891 Ken Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=478#comment-891 I like Symantec's attitude, but I am not so confident that Microsoft will be immune from antitrust pressure even if the Justice Department decides to allow the add-ons. As far as I know, the government's decision would not be binding on private litgants such as McAfee, Trend Micro, Computer Associates, Symantec, etc. Besides, if the Microsoft free antivirus software is good enough -- and it will be, even if other vendors promise additional features -- why would the average user want the additional bells and whistles of these third party antivirus programs? Having said that, I couldn't agree more that security software should be a standard part of Windows. As a user, the one thing I can expect is that Microsoft security software will work with a Microsoft OS in a way that strikes a reasonable balance between performance, stability, and security. Most third party vendors -- did someone mention Symantec? -- seem to be all too willing to sacrifice performance and even stability to get a bit more security beyond "already good enough." Security is great, but if it is already good enough, I don't want to sacrifice performance or stability to get a bit more security. Ken I like Symantec’s attitude, but I am not so confident that Microsoft will be immune from antitrust pressure even if the Justice Department decides to allow the add-ons. As far as I know, the government’s decision would not be binding on private litgants such as McAfee, Trend Micro, Computer Associates, Symantec, etc. Besides, if the Microsoft free antivirus software is good enough — and it will be, even if other vendors promise additional features — why would the average user want the additional bells and whistles of these third party antivirus programs?

Having said that, I couldn’t agree more that security software should be a standard part of Windows. As a user, the one thing I can expect is that Microsoft security software will work with a Microsoft OS in a way that strikes a reasonable balance between performance, stability, and security. Most third party vendors — did someone mention Symantec? — seem to be all too willing to sacrifice performance and even stability to get a bit more security beyond “already good enough.” Security is great, but if it is already good enough, I don’t want to sacrifice performance or stability to get a bit more security.

Ken

]]> By: Ed Bott http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=478&cpage=1#comment-892 Ed Bott Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=478#comment-892 Well, I'm not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly the gist of the complaint against Microsoft was that their "middleware" products were anti-competitive. The definition of middleware included the possibility that a competing product could conceivably become an "alternate platform" to Microsoft. Thus Internet Explorer, the Java Virtual Machine, and Windows Media Player (to name just a few examples) are middleware because they enable new capabilities and can become platforms for entire businesses. Security software may be a large business, but it isn't middleware, and it certainly isn't a platform because it doesn't enable expansion. Well, I’m not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly the gist of the complaint against Microsoft was that their “middleware” products were anti-competitive. The definition of middleware included the possibility that a competing product could conceivably become an “alternate platform” to Microsoft. Thus Internet Explorer, the Java Virtual Machine, and Windows Media Player (to name just a few examples) are middleware because they enable new capabilities and can become platforms for entire businesses. Security software may be a large business, but it isn’t middleware, and it certainly isn’t a platform because it doesn’t enable expansion.

]]> By: Zaine Ridling http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=478&cpage=1#comment-893 Zaine Ridling Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=478#comment-893 Good for John Thompson. Don’t forget that historically, Microsoft products — especially add-ons and middleware — have often not been the best in the market, but “good enough.” Symantec can continue to compete as long as they build a better product (or are perceived to). Even Google’s software isn’t the best in the market, but that doesn’t prevent a large majority of people from using it.

]]> By: Ken http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=478&cpage=1#comment-894 Ken Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=478#comment-894 I agree that there will always be a market for vendors, such as Symantec, who offer software that they claim does something that Microsoft software doesn't do, or does something that Microsoft does do, but better. The question is whether they can compete once Microsoft begins giving away for free software that for years has been the domain of third party vendors (e.g. antivirus software). If not, you can safely bet the ranch and your first born that someone will sue Microsoft. I agree that there will always be a market for vendors, such as Symantec, who offer software that they claim does something that Microsoft software doesn’t do, or does something that Microsoft does do, but better. The question is whether they can compete once Microsoft begins giving away for free software that for years has been the domain of third party vendors (e.g. antivirus software). If not, you can safely bet the ranch and your first born that someone will sue Microsoft.

]]>