Microsoft vs. * Antispyware/Antivirus programs?

[drka]

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/08/1946219&from=rss

[iago]

Haha, I like the first response, "Is this like the Mafia's 'protection'?"

But yeah, Microsoft created the market for a lot of the anti-virus/anti-spyware products, now they're trying to clean it up? 

If the protection is free, then that's helpful, and I'm glad they're providing.
If the protection costs money, then they're pretty low. 

Will it cost extra, or does it come free with Windows?  Anybody heard?

[drka]

the article(or the link in the article) says that it comes bundled with Windows Vista(or w/e they will rename it to). that kinda sucks since other companies will prolly lose money on the fact that a user cant use 2 antivirus programs at once

[Newby]

If it comes bundled, good for them.

[Ergot]

the article(or the link in the article) says that it comes bundled with Windows Vista(or w/e they will rename it to). that kinda sucks since other companies will prolly lose money on the fact that a user cant use 2 antivirus programs at once

Are they making it so that you can't install another AV ;O ?!? (I don't feel like reading) but if so that's fucked up.

[drka]

if they do, Symatec will prolly file a lawsuit or some other random shit. but i dont think they will

the reason i said that the other companies will prolly lose money is because Anti-Virus/Spyware comes bundled with windows so there would be almost no point in installing another AV

[Newby]

if they do, Symatec will prolly file a lawsuit or some other random shit. but i dont think they will

the reason i said that the other companies will prolly lose money is because Anti-Virus/Spyware comes bundled with windows so there would be almost no point in installing another AV

God damn, please set your title to "Captain Obvious", because you fit the position perfectly!

[Armin]

the article(or the link in the article) says that it comes bundled with Windows Vista(or w/e they will rename it to). that kinda sucks since other companies will prolly lose money on the fact that a user cant use 2 antivirus programs at once

Are they making it so that you can't install another AV ;O ?!? (I don't feel like reading) but if so that's fucked up.

That would be highly illegal, and Microsoft will get sued to death by every single AV company in the world.

[Newby]

Technically, it is their product.

If I made a business that sold cans specifically designed to hold coca-cola beverages, and they decided to make their own beverage holders, there isn't much I can really do. I could sue, but they'd laugh at me.

I could make beverage holders for orange juice, though. An alternative beverage, though a smaller market.

(Shitty comparison, but eh, blow me. )

There are always alternatives. OS X and *nix you can install whatever anti-spyware / anti-viruses you want. Hell, Kaspersky knows that. They have an anti-virus for linux!

[Ergot]

Yea, but wouldn't the consumer be ticked off if the beverage holder had a major flaw while yours didn't?
Shouldn't the consumer have the right to use your beverage holder instead of the flawed one which put his beverage at potential risk?
Then again, he could switch to orange juice, which is better and healthier anyways ;P
But the orange juice is delivered with a hard to break seal and is tough to swallow at first

[Newby]

Yes, but it's nothing you can sue someone over. If you don't like what you have to drink the beverage with, go blow a goat.

If we had karma, I'd +1 ergot for finding hidden message in comparisons.

[Armin]

Comparisons are bullshit here, yours is a total different degree. Just take this as it is, which is Microsoft illegaly using their monopoly to kill all other anti-virus companies.

[Newby]

They don't have a monopoly!

There are alternatives. OS X and *nix are the two biggest ones you'll hear of.

And forcing users to use their crappy anti-malware solutions is just more motivation for users to buy a Macintrash or learn *nix. It will also force anti-virus companies to work hard at developing anti-virus solutions for other operating systems!

Thus; this is just a good shift for users to move off of Windows Vista (the powerhouse requiring piece of art M$ is producing) and onto something a little more .. how do you say, realistic. (On-board cards are there for a reason. You should not need a good graphics card to use an OS...)

[Armin]

Sorry, but that gave me a pretty laugh. Could you say it in one sentence, "Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly," that way I can quote you with just one line?

[Newby]

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly.

[Ergot]

There's a difference between forcing and making it availible by default
I find nothing wrong with making it availible, however, when it is the ONLY one then we have a problem.

Metal: Just erase his other lines...
Newby: Damn you're a fast poster.

[drka]

all or most companies that sell computers will most likely have it pre-installed. i just hope it can be uninstalled so it doesnt become difficult to remove(I know Windows Messenger is)

@Newby: well i did change my title(both titles accually)

[Armin]

There's a difference between forcing and making it availible by default Tongue
I find nothing wrong with making it availible, however, when it is the ONLY one then we have a problem.

Yes, and we were argueing about whether or not it'd be illegal if Microsoft did force it, and also making it so you could not install other anti-viruses.

Metal: Just erase his other lines...

I didn't actually say it so I could quote him, I was indirectly saying what he said is rediculous.

[Sidoh]

In my opinion, they do have at least a moderately strong monopoly because they are represented more to the general public.

[Armin]

I'd put money on the number of computers having Windows installed rather than other operating systems being around 70%-80%+.

[Sidoh]

Hahaha, Newby made your sig.

But yeah, they don't have a complete monopoly, Newby's correct in thant sense.

[Armin]

But yeah, they don't have a complete monopoly, Newby's correct in thant sense.

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly.

That's not what Newby said.

[Newby]

But yeah, they don't have a complete monopoly, Newby's correct in thant sense.

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly.

That's not what Newby said.

You told me to say that. I humored you.

[Armin]

Here's before I told you to say it in 1 line.

They don't have a monopoly!

"They" is referring to Microsoft.

[Newby]

How come Sidoh interpreted what I posted as me stating they didn't have a complete monopoly?

[iago]

If I made a business that sold cans specifically designed to hold coca-cola beverages, and they decided to make their own beverage holders, there isn't much I can really do. I could sue, but they'd laugh at me.

If Microsoft stopped using CD-ROMs to distribute Windows, I doubt they'd get sued. 

The idea is having a service that everybody uses (fine, Coke).  Then, you have lots of major companies develop products revolving around the product.  Say, straw makers and ice cube makers (ignore the fact that they can be used for other drinks for now ).  The companies' businesses revolve purely around your product.  Then, you decide to start including ice cubes and straws with your product, effectively driving all the other companies into bankruptcy. 

That's pretty much what this is: if Microsoft has a good anti-virus product included in the OS, then all the companies that provide them will likely not survive.  That's scary. 

[Sidoh]

How come Sidoh interpreted what I posted as me stating they didn't have a complete monopoly?

Beacuse I'm using intuition to implement the fact that you probably know Microsoft does have a monopoly.

[iago]

By the way, there is (apparently) only a single definition for Monopoly:

(Noun) monopoly
  1. A situation where there is only one company is providing a certain product or service. The company gets to choose the price it wants.

Interpret that how you want

[Newby]

Thus, I win.

[Sidoh]

God damn fucking gay stupid bitching internet explorer crashed.  I can't stand Firefox either though..

ahem *tries to reform post*

Haha.  Assuming that is the unarguably correct definition, newby is completely right.

[Ergot]

If I made a business that sold cans specifically designed to hold coca-cola beverages, and they decided to make their own beverage holders, there isn't much I can really do. I could sue, but they'd laugh at me.

If Microsoft stopped using CD-ROMs to distribute Windows, I doubt they'd get sued. 

The idea is having a service that everybody uses (fine, Coke).  Then, you have lots of major companies develop products revolving around the product.  Say, straw makers and ice cube makers (ignore the fact that they can be used for other drinks for now ).  The companies' businesses revolve purely around your product.  Then, you decide to start including ice cubes and straws with your product, effectively driving all the other companies into bankruptcy. 

That's pretty much what this is: if Microsoft has a good anti-virus product included in the OS, then all the companies that provide them will likely not survive.  That's scary. 

Did you just use "Microsoft" with "good" in the same sentence without "not" ? Scary.

[Newby]

He said if! :p

[Ergot]

Fine. But those people were just making money off Microsoft's failures...

[Joe]

The computer-illiterate user's view of Microsoft vs *nix

*nix: A bunch of kids got together and created an operating system designed for crackers to use, which is too primitive and complicated for day-to-day use.

Windows: Hm, Bill Gates is rich and he has a company. Lets buy from him.

[Sidoh]

No, you're completely wrong.  A computer-illiterate user's view of Microsoft vs *nix would look like this:

*nix:  Wtf is that?

Windows: Oh yeah... I use that, I think

[Newby]

The computer-iilliterate user only knows of Macintosh (Apple) and Windows (Microsoft).

[Armin]

Thus, I win.

How do you win? If anything, you lose even more, look back at the definition.

(Noun) monopoly
 1. A situation where there is only one company is providing a certain product or service. The company gets to choose the price it wants.

You said Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. This sentence proves that even McDonalds, let alone Microsoft, has a monopoly.

[iago]

Thus, I win.

How do you win? If anything, you lose even more, look back at the definition.

(Noun) monopoly
 1. A situation where there is only one company is providing a certain product or service. The company gets to choose the price it wants.

You said Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. This sentence proves that even McDonalds, let alone Microsoft, has a monopoly.

More than one company provides hamburgers and drinks.  And chicken bits.  And they don't get to charge anything they want, because if McDonald's made their Big Mag $20, I'd go buy a Whopper for $3.79.

[Armin]

Oh, I missed that, "there is only one" part of the definition.

EDIT: If you want to be all technical about it, you win, but IMO, the definition for monopoly has changed ever since Microsoft came around.

[Sidoh]

Oh, I missed that, "there is only one" part of the definition.

EDIT: If you want to be all technical about it, you win, but IMO, the definition for monopoly has changed ever since Microsoft came around.

Honestly I don't think so.  Because the computer industry requires a somewhat technical audience, it hides the vast choices of options that are open to the public.

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, especially according to the definition iago provided.

[Armin]

Think of it like this then: Microsoft has a monopoly on the Windows kernal, which is the most commonly used kernal. No other company makes operating systems which uses a Windows kernal except Microsoft, and they can charge whatever the hell they want because of this. Microsoft does have a monopoly, and if they made it so their anti-virus is the only one that works on their operating system, they'd be illegally using that monopoly.

[Sidoh]

Think of it like this then: Microsoft has a monopoly on the Windows kernal, which is the most commonly used kernal. No other company makes operating systems which uses a Windows kernal except Microsoft, and they can charge whatever the hell they want because of this. Microsoft does have a monopoly, and if they made it so their anti-virus is the only one that works on their operating system, they'd be illegally using that monopoly.

McDonalds is the only fast food resturant that has a Big Mac, but they don't have a monopoly.  If Microsoft started charging $2,000 for Windows XP, I highly doubt many people would stay with windows.

That wasn't a very good point.

[Armin]

Think of it like this then: Microsoft has a monopoly on the Windows kernal, which is the most commonly used kernal. No other company makes operating systems which uses a Windows kernal except Microsoft, and they can charge whatever the hell they want because of this. Microsoft does have a monopoly, and if they made it so their anti-virus is the only one that works on their operating system, they'd be illegally using that monopoly.

If Microsoft started charging $2,000 for Windows XP, I highly doubt many people would stay with windows.

That's because it's not even afforadable. I'm sure though, that the people who did have an extra $2,000 laying around, would still use it. I'm sure that definition has it's reasonable limits.

I guess this also brings it down to however sombody interprets that definition, mainly how the judges of the court systems do.

[Joe]

Microsoft has a monopoly over 95% of the computer users in the world. The could, and do, charge many hundred dollars for a single copy of Windows or Office, and people keep on buying.

However, the other 5%, that being the Linux community, gets out of that because we understand how to use the free software.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. =)

[Blaze]

So people who use mac's are... 0% of the industry?

[Ergot]

Microsoft has a monopoly over 95% of the computer users in the world. The could, and do, charge many hundred dollars for a single copy of Windows or Office, and people keep on buying.

However, the other 5%, that being the Linux community, gets out of that because we understand how to use the free software.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. =)

Linux gets servers with Apache

So people who use mac's are... 0% of the industry?

Macs have an industry !?!?

[Sidoh]

Microsoft has a monopoly over 95% of the computer users in the world. The could, and do, charge many hundred dollars for a single copy of Windows or Office, and people keep on buying.

However, the other 5%, that being the Linux community, gets out of that because we understand how to use the free software.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. =)

You're foolish for excluding those that use Mac OS.  It's actually a lot more prominent than the Linux community (user number wise).

If they did raise their prices some significant amount, there would be several who would flock to Mac or Linux, because they can.

Microsoft doesn't have a complete monopoly over the software computer industry.

Linux gets servers with Apache

So does windows.  Apache for windows sucks, but it's still there.

[Armin]

Microsoft doesn't have a complete monopoly over the software computer industry.

I'll agree with you there, they don't have a complete monopoly, but they still have a pretty damn big one.

[Newby]

Microsoft has a monopoly on the Windows kernal, which is the most commonly used kernal.

Ok, so group A has kernel A, group B has kernel B, and group C (Microsoft) produces kernel C (Windows) to rival kernel A and kernel B. Within a matter of years, kernel C is the most popular kernel.

No other company makes operating systems which uses a Windows kernal except Microsoft, and they can charge whatever the hell they want because of this.

Yes, this makes sense. You create kernel C, it's your kernel C, nobody else makes kernel C, you can charge whatever you wish for it. Just because it is popular does not mean you own a monopoly. It just means you're very close to it, seeing as how now kernel A and B are rarely found in a household.

Kernel A and kernel B still exist, and are alternatives to kernel C. Products are still made for kernels A and B...

Microsoft does have a monopoly, and if they made it so their anti-virus is the only one that works on their operating system, they'd be illegally using that monopoly.

If OS X and *nix never existed, yes, Microsoft would have a monopoly. However, they do exist, as do other alternatives; thus, they don't have a monopoly.

(My use of the word 'don't have a monopoly' means do not have a full monopoly. They are close to monopolistic status, but they aren't there.)

If group C wants to produce problem-fixer C (the anti-virus) for their kernel, and not allow any other problem-fixers to work on kernel C, the 3rd party problem fixers can still produce for kernels A and B.

[Armin]

You nub, you missed the entire 4th page. <3

[Joe]

Mac is BSD based, so they are 5% of the industry.

[iago]

Mac is BSD based, so they are 5% of the industry.

Bsd isn't Linux:

However, the other 5%, that being the Linux community, gets out of that because we understand how to use the free software.

[Joe]

I meant *nix.

[Warrior]

Bill Gates has appeared before congress before for attempting to monopolize the industry. Not that they hold the monopoly, the sheer attempt to is illegal.

Windows would not force a single product upon others (not directly atleast). Remember back when Internet Explorer was bundled with Microsoft Help and Microsoft Explorer? That's what makes other versions of windows suck. In XP you can remove IE (not completely but still remove most of it's components) and I bet that they will be sneaky and integrate the Anti virus into the kernel itself which would indirectly force it upon people. I mean it's impossible to remove but like they did with Explorer, it doesn't stop you from installing other AVs it just makes it a bitch.