Microsoft Officially Announces Anti-Virus Product

Harry Maugans writes "Microsoft has officially announced their entrance into the anti-virus market. By combining anti-virus scans, anti-spyware scans, and firewall protection into a single package, Microsoft thinks they've created something fresh. So fresh they're charging an annual fee of $49.99 per year." From the article: "Microsoft's Windows OneCare Live program will be launched in June and made available online and via retailers for an annual fee of $49.95 on up to three machines. Customers who beta test Windows OneCare Live between April 1 and April 30 get to take advantage of a special $19.95 promotional price. Microsoft's pricing means Windows OneCare subscribers are likely to pay less up front than if they bought traditional anti-virus software like Symantec, for example, whose Norton AntiVirus 2006 protection pack for three PCs lists at $89.99."

Comments

MSAV?

[Epaminondas Pantulis]

So MSAV didn't qualify as antivirus?

Re:Solution for lazy people

[GreyWolf3000]

I hate MS as much as the lext geek, but I believe that if MS didn't charge for their AV services, people would accuse them of price gauging Norton and McAfee. As it stands, their pricing makes them competitive with at least Norton.

Even if MS were completely committed to securing the Windows codebase, there would still be plenty of security problems to deal with. I don't blame them for charging for this at all.

Here's the thing

[casualsax3]

Microsoft can't win in this situation. If they bundle it with the OS they're going to get hammered with Anti-Trust stuff, and now that they're releasing it separately everyone's claiming extortion.

It's not like Microsoft's OS division is writing this software. While you can make the argument that it's the same company that's selling you the insecure OS, and the software you need to secure it, I don't really think it's an argument that needs to be made.

So Microsoft is coming out with an Anti-Virus product. Good.

There's no way they can bundle this with the OS, so they're releasing it separately. OK fine. Get over it.

The conflict of interest is clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft have crossed a dangerous divide. They now have conflicted motives. They could spend (say) $100M a year fixing the bugs in Windows that allows malware to spread - or they could spend the same money putting effort into keeping that malware out of the system using this new product.

If they use that money to fix Windows, their return on that investment is what? Well, I suppose reducing Windows vulnerabilities does improve the product and peoples confidence in it - but that won't sell many more copies of Windows. When you already have a 90 to 95% market share, nothing you can do will improve that by a measurable amount.

But putting that same amount of money into the anti-malware product pursuades people to continue to shell out $50 per year - its a revenue stream that's potentially bigger than Windows itself because Microsoft don't charge computer makers more than $50 for a copy of Windows - and most people don't upgrade their PC's every year. So the potential size of this new market is bigger than for their entire Operating System business! Furthermore, they currently have a zero percent share in that market sector - so there is huge room for expansion (both in knocking out competitors AND in expanding the market). That's a massively good reason to spend their money here RATHER THAN IN FIXING WINDOWS.

It's actually even worse than that. By spending LESS on fixing Windows, the size of the anti-malware market actually increases because more malware shows up and more people are upset by it to the point where they'll rent software instead of buying it (which is what this amounts to).

With finite resources, a fiscally responsible thing is to divert effort from fixing Windows to enhancing this new service. Microsoft is in business to make money - so guess what they'll be
doing?

In effect, Windows becomes a deliberate gateway for malware - they can feel free to add more dangerous interfaces to the network - and all of that just forces people to rent the 'real' product which is now the anti-malware gizmo/service.

In the end, Microsoft has done what Bill Gates always said they needed to do - move to a subscription model. We should not be at all suprised - it's exactly the "right" direction for a profit-motivated organisation with no moral scruples or particular interest in the happiness of their customers.

Bottom line is that as time goes by, you'll either be (in effect) renting Windows for an annual fee of $50 or using the "nearly-free" version that's unusable because it's riddled with holes. Get used to it.

If you don't like it - you know what you have to do. MacOSX and Linux are awaiting you with open arms!

Re:Right or Wrong...

[mpapet]

There is at least one viable alternative to windows.

Apple Macs (many people don't feel comfortable unless they pay for it)
Multiple Linux Distros(suse's commercial desktop OS version is my preferred)
Multiple BSDs (freebsd is nice, a little feedback on pcbsd would be welcome)

There are three right there.

I'm not sure why anyone -needs- windows any more. If you tell me your enterprise application needs IE for XYorZ, then that's a specialized legacy problem. For the 80% of desktop users, I'd say they would do just fine in an alternative desktop.

Loosen up, change is good.

Re:To be fair to Microsoft

[clontzman]

Once the third-party providers go away, the price of OneCare Live will skyrocket just like Office did.

Methinks you should look again. In 1997 (grabbed an old magazine off the shelf), Word 97 cost $337. Office 97 standard cost $499. Today you can get the home edition of Office 2003 for $149 or the standard version for $399. Prices for Office have been trending down, especially for the small business or home user.

Re:To be fair to Microsoft

[Guitar Wizard]

Of course you can also just use OpenOffice, which is free, has a clean interface, and is extremely powerful (and can edit and save in any MS Office brand format).