Microsoft to Buy Anti-Virus Software Firm

thejuggler writes "Excite News is reporting that Microsoft is planning to buy Sybari Software Inc., which makes programs designed to protect business computer networks from viruses, worms and other threats. This is Microsoft's second purchase of an anti-virus company. The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software."

Comments

Microsoft Business Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Make bad software 2. Acquire and sell software to repair original bad software 3. PROFIT!!!

Wouldn't it be better?

[Russ Nelson]

Wouldn't it be better if Microsoft was to fix their bloody insecure software instead??
-russ

Re:Wouldn't it be better?

[Metteyya]

You obviously haven't read the summary:
The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software.

Re:Wouldn't it be better?

[fireman sam]

The biggest difference is that with open source I can fix the bugs myself if I want to. With Microsoft software I cannot.

Microsoft are not doing the same as the open source businesses(sp?). Microsoft sell you the product, sell you the support, sell you the fixes.

Re:Wouldn't it be better?

[Mr. Slippery]

You get paid for selling support, right? But that means fixing bugs that you, yourself wrote. There's a clear conflict of interest there, right?

Except that:

• support doesn't just mean fixing bugs, it can mean configuration, integration, and custom development;
• I can be hired to support software I didn't write;
• other people can be hired to support the software I wrote

Re:Wouldn't it be better?

[pipingguy]

Sure, if you are a savvy computer person.

What about the rest of us?

One slightly tinfoilish concept is that there is plausible deniability (and we thought that was only for US presidents and stuff) when using commercial software. In other words, since it was paid-for, blame can be placed elsewhere so that everyone "gets off the hook".

Given most users'/executives' level of knowledge about software and hardware, this is maybe an effective "out" for problems whose origins are probably elsewhere. After all, who has the patience/critical analysis ability to listen to/can comprehend stuff like the following:

"Well, you see, at the specific time you saved the file, the cron job was interrupted due to an unscheduled backup caused by an errant RAM issue on the server. Not the server you actually were using, but because the upgraded version of the current database was not compatible with the..."

Re:Wouldn't it be better?

[benjamindees]

It leaves you with a free market of people who *do* know various implementations of C and are willing to help you at a market rate.

With Windows, you're stuck with a binary that you can't decompile, and a single company with the source and little motivation to fix your bug.

Build it and they will come...

[donnz]

Microsoft have certainly done a first class job in creating a demand for these services. Kudos.

Re:Nothing for you to see here

[bwalling]

This is vertical integration. They are purchasing software to make their product more complete. Antitrust would be involved if they purchased Apple, Sun, IBM or Red Hat, as they have Operating Systems.

Tell that to Real or Netscape.

Only "thinking about" charging?

[jd]

Well, they've almost four years before anyone is even remotely likely to take them to court for anti-trust/anti-competitive behaviour.

I guess it comes down to this - can they bankrupt enough of the opposition, within the four years, to seize control of the market and prevent anyone else entering it?

As for arguments that Microsoft should fix their software - nice try, but the lemon laws don't apply to software and there's nothing else that's likely to compell Microsoft to change. Unless someone would like to try talking the most conservative Congress in living memory into applying standards to software - are there any geeks rich enough, other than Bil Gates? - I don't see a single reason for Microsoft to change what has always been a profitable tactic - sell trash, then sell an even trashier "upgrade" for lots of money, and THEN convince the consumers that they have the better end of the deal.

Slight correction:

[mrchaotica]

1. Make bad software
2. PROFIT!!!
3. Acquire and sell software to repair original bad software
4. PROFIT MORE!!!

Bad move for Linux

[Locutus]

This is Microsofts second purchase of Anti-Virus sofware which runs/ran on Linux. Sybari announced Linux support last year and RAV was a very popular Linux based product already.

Good for Microsoft, bad for Linux and bad for consumers.

LoB

Re:What?!?!?!?

[BurritoWarrior]

I see. So I have a $1. I should give that dollar to Microsoft. Who takes 90 cents. Which then gives 10 cents to Bill as salary and stock. Who then takes 9 cents. Who then gives 1 cent to the poor.

Or, I could still have the dollar and give it to the poor myself. Of course, I don't make the newspaper, as I only give in the hundreds, not the millions. Of course, there are also billions of "me"s and only one Bill Gates.