• On MovieTome: CAPTAIN AMERICA was in THE HULK?!?
November 18, 2008 3:17 PM PST

Will Microsoft's antivirus move draw antitrust fire?

Posted by Ina Fried
  • Font size
  • Print

Microsoft's decision to offer free antivirus software puts rivals such as McAfee and Symantec in a tough position.

To be sure, those two--and other rivals--will be able to tout products that offer a broader range of features than Microsoft plans to deliver with "Morro" next year. At the same time, "nada" is a tough price to compete against.

That raises the question of whether those companies or others may look to antitrust regulators for help. We've put queries into those companies and also posed the antitrust question to Microsoft. I'll let you know what we hear back.

One thing in Microsoft's corner is the fact there are already free antivirus products on the market, such as AVG, though typically security vendors look to upsell consumers from low-cost or free products to higher-end ones.

Microsoft appears to be getting out of the paid security software business, at least on the consumer end. (Microsoft still plans to offer paid security products for businesses).

Also, Microsoft said it plans to deliver Morro as a free download rather than bundling it with the operating system--another move that could dampen some antitrust concerns.

It's unclear whether giving away software that others charge for will ultimately be enough to justify regulatory action. Although one antitrust lawyer predicts rival security firms will complain and that antitrust authorities will listen.

"Sure, there will be antitrust issues. They're just...daring the antitrust authorities to knock it off," said Daniel Wall of the San Francisco firm of Latham & Watkins. "This is an old issue, the notion of them giving away for free products that others sell and it is absolutely guaranteed to get the attention of the antitrust authorities in Europe, Korea, Japan, and other jurisdictions."

"They're incorrigible," Wall said of Microsoft.

Antitrust regulators in the U.S. have tended to focus on harm to consumers as opposed to competitors. Authorities in Europe and Korea have taken a broader view, taking action against Microsoft for actions deemed to hurt competitors, such as bundling its media player into Windows.

Both Europe and Korea have required Microsoft to offer versions of its operating system without certain components. In this case, though, Microsoft is not talking about distributing the antivirus code as part of Windows itself.

Representatives from Microsoft, Symantec, and McAfee were not immediately available to comment.

CNET News' Elinor Mills contributed to this report.

Update 4:45 p.m. PST: Here's what Microsoft had to say.

"We are focused on addressing the security needs of consumers," Amy Barzdukas, a senior director in Microsoft's Online Services and Windows Division, said in a statement. "We will, of course, continue to comply with any government rulings."

Update 6:25 p.m.: And we got comment from security firms McAfee and Sophos.

McAfee spokesman Joris Evers, asked if his company would raise an antitrust complaint over Microsoft's move, said: "It's too early to say anything about that."

Over at Sophos--which focuses on the enterprise market and so doesn't compete with Microsoft's consumer security products--Senior Technology Consultant Graham Cluley predicted antitrust issues would not arise.

"I am no expert on such things, but provided Microsoft does not bundle 'Morro' in with its operating system I would be surprised if there were antitrust issues," he said in an e-mail. "Anything which encourages more people to run antivirus has to be good news for all of us."

Asked if Microsoft would ever consider bundling the security features into Windows, Microsoft's Barzdukas said: "I can't foresee such a time."

During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina.
Recent posts from Beyond Binary
Live blog: Ballmer at CES
Microsoft: Windows 7 not a lock for '09
Ballmer touts Windows 7 beta, new deals
Verizon, Microsoft in mobile-search deal
Q&A: Muglia on the cloud, Azure, and the economy
Microsoft elevates server unit, promotes Muglia
Microsoft still pushing 'Apple tax' notion
Contractless in Seattle
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 53 comments
by compudoc318 November 18, 2008 3:46 PM PST
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.
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto November 18, 2008 4:34 PM PST
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
by solitare_pax November 18, 2008 5:07 PM PST
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.
by ferretboy88 November 18, 2008 5:47 PM PST
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.
by DrtyDogg November 18, 2008 6:32 PM PST
Penguinisto: No, free software is free software, use it if you want, there are always other options out there.
by Penguinisto November 19, 2008 6:52 AM PST
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).
by Mark_Anderson November 19, 2008 9:01 AM PST
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.
by freemarket--2008 November 19, 2008 10:21 AM PST
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.
by gp2792 November 19, 2008 11:26 AM PST
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.
by Penguinisto November 19, 2008 12:28 PM PST
@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.
by Vegaman_Dan November 19, 2008 2:33 PM PST
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.
by gp2792 November 19, 2008 4:05 PM PST
Peng "please try to keep up"

I'll try, but you are so darn smart it is really hard. Maybe you could learn me a thing or too. I'd sure appreceate it.

If you don't mind, i'll drop the forest gump routine now...my point, if you can keep up, is that we have several free OS options in the market. We might lump them together under the heading of "Linux". They have not made the "overnight" impact in Microsoft's market share that you predict for OSX if it were free. So while I don't confuse linux and OSX, I do tend to think that price isn't the most important factor here.

Besides, it's not like Apple would ever give anything away for free. That would hurt their elitist brand image. I mean, really, how cool is it to walk around with something that anyone can get for free? Where is the status benefit there? Like it or not, most appleites pay exorbitant prices for the image and the design. I, myself bought a mini for the footprint when pc's didn't have anything similar for the same price. I should have waited. This thing sux, all the way down to the aluminum keyboard with sticky keys and the wireless mouse that periodically won't scroll down (although up is no problem). But hey, I sure love the spinning color wheel!!! What a great feature!

So let's restrict the hypotheticals to the remotely plausible, shall we? The day Steve Jobs gives away something for free (see his philanthropy efforts for details), is the day the world ends.

I would love to see apple open their OS for distribution on Dell's, HP's, etc. Then apple and their band of zombies with white ear buds would understand what it means to build and support an enterprise platform. That won't happen in the near future, though. It is much easier to enjoy the margins on "apple" hardware. After all, why not stay in the niche and take shots at the market dominator? That's the easy thing to do. It has certainly been lucrative for apple.

Either way, save your condescending tone. It does nothing to help your cause and only further embeds the stereotype of elitist snobby apple users.
by ballmerisanape November 18, 2008 3:51 PM PST
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.
Reply to this comment
by myles taylor November 18, 2008 6:39 PM PST
What makes you think Microsoft's won't be bloatware?
by Heebee Jeebies November 19, 2008 12:46 PM PST
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
by NewsReader_ November 18, 2008 3:55 PM PST
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.
Reply to this comment
by BK216 November 18, 2008 3:58 PM PST
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.
Reply to this comment
by sebastien.kalonji November 18, 2008 4:06 PM PST
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?
by NewsReader_ November 18, 2008 4:17 PM PST
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.
by Penguinisto November 18, 2008 4:38 PM PST
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?
by rquinn7 November 18, 2008 4:38 PM PST
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.
by Penguinisto November 18, 2008 4:39 PM PST
@NewsReader: So you can point something out that isn't a convoluted trojan? Please do - we're all eyes.
by NewsReader_ November 18, 2008 5:09 PM PST
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.
by SeizeCTRL November 18, 2008 5:21 PM PST
@ 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!
by alegr November 18, 2008 5:24 PM PST
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.
by rquinn7 November 18, 2008 5:56 PM PST
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?
by ferretboy88 November 18, 2008 5:56 PM PST
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.
by murbo November 18, 2008 6:07 PM PST
@SeizeCTRL
when did an OS that is based on *nix architecture became inferior to windows? if you know how to launch terminal you have access to pretty much any *nix function ever? do you even know how to use a computer besides shoutcast?
and using xp since the day it came out isn't really experience in the computer world.. also you need to list much more than just ubuntu to be credited as technically experienced...
doing updates everyday for the rest of my life isnt what i am paying for in an OS. yes, *nix has malware but not nearly as much as the crappy windows, and don't anyone tell me that the windows dominates the market.. enough of that ********, then why the hell every single server on the world runs linux? enlighten me ffs!

everything aside, if you use a router with a NAT firewall and if you are not a dumass you will be fine without a virusscaner

@alegr
sorry dude, im not going to switch accounts everytime i want to change a setting, that is .. how to put this in a delicate way... lame

and back to the subject which is NOT windows fanboys VS apple fanboys, this is an issue because MS is going to promote this thru every single resource they have even if it is not bundled. during windows installation its going to ask if you want to install it, during updates its going to bug you constantly (btw, one thing osx that bugs the **** out of me is the ****** software update icon jumping up and down in the dock like a jack ******* russell terrier every time there is an update), IE is going to ask you if you want to install it everytime the pishing sensor catches something... it is going to make you feel that it is convenient to install MS software and than just ignore others. the fact that mcafee symantec and others doesn't have this advantage is whats making this important. what they did with netscape unacceptable and they got away with it... a company got literally destroyed with all the jobs it was offering, now they are after much bigger ones.
i hated MS since i was 4.5 years old and learned how to type on a msdos 2.0 station before holding a pencil and writing my name, and i will hate those ******** forever and ever
by rwm72 November 18, 2008 6:35 PM PST
@ferretboy88: I agree, most users are idiots, or at least uninformed or ignorant. Maybe they are just too trusting and naive. I know, because I am one, a user that is :) ... and maybe a part-time idiot. I have limited knowledge with virus and security issues, but I use a computer at work and at home every day, and have done for 15 years. Windows at work, OSX at home. I do my best to make my computer secure, but I would consider myself an amateur for sure. But when mates of mine, who use only computers at home, get viruses of some description every couple of months, well, I just think most users are completely unaware (or stupid in the eyes of those better informed).

2 of my mates converted to mac at the start of this year, and another couple last week also crossed over. All have had no problems and praise the OS and usability of the interface. And no, I did not try to convince them to buy Macs. I did encourage them to check out both Windows PCs and Macs though and make their own choice.

Had they known what they were doing in the first place with Windows, they may not have changed over. I think that is my point... If you know what you are doing, or bother to do a little research and training, you reduce your chance of disaster greatly. I have found the Mac OS reduces this chance of disaster greatly for most users (at least in their minds) because ignorance is bliss, and they don't want to do the necessary research. They assume Macs are safer, whether this true or false, because they don't have problems with them, and find little need to research security and how to go about it (once again, ignorance is bliss).

It's a pretty world the Mac world, and often blinds users to the dangers and complications of computer use. This is dangerous for sure, but a lot of users love this approach. It's the attitude of Let Apple handle the issues, leaving me to get on with work and play.(I have a number of mates who work in IT and they HATE this attitude, but unfortunately it is often true, as most people (who dont work in the industry) just dont care or could not be bothered with this stuff. Sad but true.

Anyone I know with good Windows knowledge or IT knowledge though, does the research and training and avoids problems anyway. I am proud to admit I am an idiot user (at least part time anyway) and use a mac at home. At work, I have the back up of trained IT professionals who handle security issues. Most users are cushioned by this security blanket at work, and wonder why at home, they stuff it up so thoroughly (especially with teenage sons :) Maybe thats the market Macs have targeted so well with their computers and OS... Me and my mates... the ignorant users of the world! (I am not a complete moron with security issues btw... I just sound like one... I highly suspect my mates are though... and they are not alone :)
by Mark_Anderson November 19, 2008 9:11 AM PST
I honestly don't understand how most people get viruses given that Defender and Firewall run pretty much automatically. If a machine becomes unusable in three days then you have to be actively trying to mess it up because, in my experience anyway, most users seem to be fine and, given that CanSecWest showed that some of the world's best hackers were unable to breach an of the three major operating systems without being invited in, a little user responsibility seems to go a long away.

Like your dwarf fetish porn? Fine. Install some securityware or run WD first.

As for OSX and viruses, yeah it has very, very few but they're there. There are various arguments why, the most compelling being:

a) No-one cares because market share isn't big enough.
b) See above.
by gwilo November 18, 2008 4:06 PM PST
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.
Reply to this comment
by neovader November 18, 2008 4:28 PM PST
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.
Reply to this comment
by rwm72 November 18, 2008 4:37 PM PST
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.
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto November 18, 2008 4:49 PM PST
"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. :)
by medezark November 19, 2008 5:04 AM PST
@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?
by Penguinisto November 19, 2008 7:03 AM PST
@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
by Mark_Anderson November 19, 2008 9:12 AM PST
Penguin, if OSX is so secure then why do Apple release security patches at all?
by Penguinisto November 19, 2008 12:56 PM PST
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
by Vegaman_Dan November 19, 2008 2:41 PM PST
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.
by Mark_Anderson November 19, 2008 3:51 PM PST
@Penguin

But it can be sunk.

Now that we've cleared that up let's move on shall we? :)
by rmva November 18, 2008 4:47 PM PST
Perhaps this will motivate Symantec and McAfee to offer their AV free to home users.
Reply to this comment
by SamCPP November 18, 2008 5:16 PM PST
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.
Reply to this comment
by gggg sssss November 18, 2008 5:47 PM PST
RIP symantec.Maybe they can buy Yahoo?
by sargear November 18, 2008 5:21 PM PST
Microsoft? They still kicking around?
Reply to this comment
by tm_anon November 18, 2008 5:40 PM PST
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?
Reply to this comment
by ferretboy88 November 18, 2008 5:51 PM PST
Without windows none of these companies would make money selling software. MS should sue them for a cut of their profits.
Reply to this comment
by AppleSuxLeo November 18, 2008 9:22 PM PST
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.
Reply to this comment
by medezark November 19, 2008 5:05 AM PST
Thats PEBKAC, Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair.
by sythara November 19, 2008 10:00 AM PST
lol
by kheechun November 19, 2008 1:36 AM PST
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.
Reply to this comment
by Mark_Anderson November 19, 2008 9:14 AM PST
Sure and Apple should be punished for the seive like qualities of Safari.
by kheechun November 19, 2008 1:42 AM PST
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.
Reply to this comment
by medezark November 19, 2008 5:07 AM PST
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.
 See all 53 Comments >>