Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Cuts Anti-Virus Support For Unix / Linux
jasonmicron writes "As previously reported on Slashdot, Microsoft has completed the aquisition of Sybari Software this morning. Before the ink was even dry, Microsoft cut all new antivirus support for all Unix and Linux definitions. Current customers will continue to receive support but new customers will not have the option to purchase the software under Unix / Linux. From TFA: Post acquisition, Syabri becomes a Microsoft subsidiary focusing on marketing anti-virus and anti-spam protection for Microsoft messaging and collaboration servers. It will continue to market Sybari's Lotus Domino products but will not sell Antigen versions for Unix and Linux."
From the article:
Well this says to me one of two things:
You be the judge.
I guess I'm just happy Microsoft can't buy linux and drop all support for that.
How these acquisitions are chosen.
Microsoft needs to expand into the video game market. They buy the one game company with heavy support for macintoshes (which then ends).
Microsoft needs to expand into the virtualization market. They buy the one virtualization company with heavy support for macintoshes (which then suffers).
Microsoft needs to expand into the antivirus email filter market. They buy one of the antivirus companies with support for linux/unix (which then ends).
Funny how these coincidences work.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
That's one possible outcome. The other one would be
5. Customer decides to ditch all remaining windows installation and use only Unix in the future, ceases to care about malware
6. Customer saves money (for licenses), saves more money (for administration), and also saves time and hassles
7. M$ loses customer
8. M$ loses money.
They're really gambling here - they take away the middle path and hope that out of the remaining options, you'll choose the one that gives them more money instead of the one that gives them less money. Obviously, they think they *can* pull it off, but in the end, nobody likes a bully, so even if they gain some money in the short term, they do lose customer trust over the long term.
The fact that they fail to see this and *still* think that they can base their business model on terrorizing people instead of acting in a benevolent way where the customer is king just shows that despite everything, they still aren't thinking about what'll happen in the long term and where they'll be in, say, 50 or 100 years.
Which, incidentally, is exactly the timeframe where the current high-ups like Gates and Ballmer and the like who cashed in big time won't be around anymore to care about the losses that will come.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
besides i had never even heard of this AV company before, and I suspect their *nix AV products were not exactly selling like hot cakes. So from a business POV this makes perfect sense.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Not really...
For example, When Chrysler and Dailmer merged, did they drop redudant lines, and stop production of cars that compete with our products of the new merged company? You bet.
Second, MS did not purchase this other maker to "stop them from making producting for a competing operating system". Clearly, MS purchased them for their head-start on MS's own platform. It actually does make a difference.
Third and finally, one thing to note is that when the DOJ's consent decree with MS expires it will no longer be assumed that MS is a monopoly to the DOJ, meaning anything that requires that for a basis will have to be litigated from scratch, with MS being proven a monpoly in desktop OS's. With the state of the market it will prove prodigiously hard to prove that: between Linux and Mac Windows pretty clearly does not have a monopoly.
This is the SECOND AV maker that supported Unix/linux that MS has bought and then stopped Unix/linux support. How many will it take to convince you? Four? Ten? All of them?