Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft May Charge for Security Tools

Posted by michael on from the rated-r-for-racket dept.

rscrawford writes "CNN reports that Microsoft may charge extra for security software. So first they edge their competition out of the browser market, then they tie IE into the OS so tightly that a crash in IE can crash the computer, and then they make IE so vulnerable that just using it is hazardous to the typical computer's health, and now they want to CHARGE users to fix it?"

6 of 642 comments (clear)

  1. Once again, Microsoft blames the users. by IO+ERROR · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Some experts blame Microsoft for Windows vulnerabilities that help spread spyware. Microsoft and some others, meanwhile, said blame should be directed instead at spyware manufacturers.

    "Spyware usually gets on your computer through human error," said Marc Maiffret of eEye Digital Security Inc., which regularly discovers serious Windows flaws.

    Yeah, sure, if starting the computer is human error. It takes what, five minutes or less, for an XP box to get riddled with viruses, Trojans, etc.? The error is Microsoft didn't ship an operating system that could remotely be considered secure. You can't connect to the network to download SP2 without risking the computer. Where's the sense in this? Where's the user error?

    --
    How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    1. Re:Once again, Microsoft blames the users. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't connect to the network to download SP2 without
      risking the computer. Where's the sense in this? Where's the user error?

      This is how people think after so much time with viruses. They are used to performing workarounds for Windows that lead to acceptance of viruses (just buy an antivirus) that lead to acceptance of spyware (just buy an antispyware) and that lead to acceptance of systems so bogged down by combinations of the above (just reinstall every 6 months).

      It's a bit like living in a really bad neighbourhood and denying it's a problem. "Oh we're OK, we live in a safe area. As long as you put bars on all your windows, don't leave the house when it's dark, put up bullet proof windows, and don't make eye contact with the neighbours you're perfectly safe"

      Apart from how it's broken, it works perfectly.

      MS is fucked, but they don't mind. The consumer state of society today means MS can just tell people they need to buy something, and people will do what they're told to.

  2. Software sales - marketing by Ogrez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only thing in this world I have found to be sleazier than lawyers are software salesmen. This isnt isnt a new idea from Microsoft... IBM did it for years with mainframe releases. You have to have a service contract to get the updates to fix the bugs.

    This problem of releasing buggy software and charging for fixes is inherent in the software world.

    --


    Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
  3. According to /. they will lose either way... by C.+Mattix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look at it this way. They bought an adware company because the see that this is a problem. If they suddenly "bundled" an adware solution, the zealots would say they are trying to drive adaware and spybot out of the market. But since they are selling the solution and hence giving the customers choice, they are trying to screw the customers. No matter how secure they make the OS, there WILL be people who will run as admins and click "yes" to everything. These are the solutions that they are going to sell.

    It isn't the first time they've had security software either. Anyone remember MSAV.exe?

  4. Well... by rewt66 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As an employee of a security company, I don't have a problem with this. I would have more of a problem with Microsoft giving it away for free. (And, I hope, the toothless antitrust enforcement might have a problem with it, too, but I wouldn't bet on it.)

    But really, we cry "unfair" over what they did to Netscape. Rightly so; it was unfair. If they had sold IE as a separate product, it wouldn't have been unfair. So now they sell this stuff as a separate product. They're not bundling. So what's the problem?

    And there's another way this is good: TCO studies. The more extra charges you have to have from Microsoft to have a working product, the better TCO Linux has by comparison. (That is, if it's an honest comparison. But instead, what we'll probably see is bogus TCO "studies" where Microsoft looks good, but it omits the security stuff. Then when you go to actually buy it, there's these extra costs, like the auto dealers do with "dealer prep".)

  5. Profit? From where? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I wonder where MSFT thinks the money for this extra software should come from? I mean, are IT budgets of customers (including Joe Sixpack) suddenly going up, so that extra funds are available to sink into these tools? If not, that would mean that either:
    1. Windows should get cheaper, otherwise customers wouldn't have money left over to invest in these extra tools. This seems feasible; with competition from Free/OSS and users getting fed up with buggy software, market value of Windows is likely to drop. This could be a covert way to restore profit margins.
    2. Hardware should get cheaper, so that more money is left over for software. Doesn't seem likely; hardware does get cheaper, but Joe Sixpack still buys expensive PC's, he just gets more bang for his bucks.
    3. These extra tools are meant to replace competitor's offerings. Interesting option: if they are just another offering in a crowded field, okay. But first given away as a freebie, and then start charging after a while, when users become convinced they absolutely need it? In that case, could be an interesting candidate for another anti-competitive investigation.

    If you can't baffle them with brilliance, dazzle them with bullshit.