Microsoft Admits to Serious Problems with OneCare

ZDOne writes "A ZDNet reporter has gotten some truly amazing quotes out of a Microsoft product manager about the troubled OneCare product. Arno Edelmann, Microsoft's European business security product manager, was flagged down at this week's CeBit event, and had this to say about the service: 'Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products. It's not a bad product, but bits and pieces are missing ... OneCare is a new product — they shouldn't have rolled it out when they did, but they're fixing the problems now.' The problem is apparently with the the GeCAD antivirus code, which has had problems harmonizing with the company's Exchange updates. While Exchange 2007 doesn't cause issues, users with older versions may see their email quarantined as a matter of course."

Comments

Far more interesting admission

[AKAImBatman]

Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products.

I can't believe the guy just admitted that. To a major publication like ZDNet, no less. After all the trouble that Microsoft has gone through to convince the US Feds and EU committees that they "innovate", I can't help but wonder if a flying chair isn't in this guy's future.

You see that is the MS Advantage.

[jellomizer]

If something goes wrong Microsoft takes the blame not you. You could run Linux for years and when one thing goes wrong you can get fired. But by choosing Microsoft you have many many major problems a month and still keep you job and even get a raise because you can blame MS on them. Even though MS will only say sorry and do little to fix the problem but still your job is safe.

Re:You see that is the MS Advantage.

[kebes]

You're absolutely right, and I hate it.

I use Linux extensively (at home and at work), but I'm always afraid to suggest it as a solution for others. Because then somehow I become responsible when things don't go perfectly smoothly. If instead I just recommend a "status quo" solution, then any bugs encountered will just be treated as "business as usual." The reality is that any software deployment will have annoyances along the way (whether Linux-based or Windows-based). The difference is exactly what you describe: "No one is fired for choosing Microsoft" whereas if you recommend Linux, you become "the guy to blame."

I'm not sure how to fix this state of affairs. It's a totally unreasonable double-standard, but it will exist whenever there is a defacto standard like MS has become (and IBM was, at one time). I think this is actually one of the major (and usually unmentioned) roadblocks to Linux adoption. Yes, you have some vocal Linux advocates... but the majority of us who really understand the advantages of Linux are scared into silence. (Or maybe I'm just a coward.)

Glad when they do

[HangingChad]

Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products.

And most times I'm glad for that. Because most of the time the products they buy at least start out good before they trash it with their corporate branding.

SQL Server was one of their better products for a long time. Not so much now but it used to be a reasonably-priced and functional piece of software, at least at the low end of the load scale. Now it's like most of their products: Easy to manage but bloated beyond all recognition.

Free beta testers

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Companies roll it out before it's finished, or tested completely That's what consumers are for. :-()

Re:Microsoft makes users do beta testing now?

[morgan_greywolf]

I'm afraid you're right. In the olden days of software, money was made off of support contracts

That model really hasn't gone away with enterprise software, it's just morphed. You still need a support contract, and you still need to pay someone lots of money to maintain the system. The difference is that these days you need to pay a whole team of people to integrate and maintain the little pieces morphed together as a whole system -- this is usually called the 'IT Department' these days. :)

I'm sure they'll survive this time, but the business model they're running with is showing cracks.

Their business model has shown cracks for quite sometime -- the biggest of them being the wayyy late arrival of Vista, with most of its highly-toted promised features (i.e., WinFS, etc.) replaced with some shine and polish that's already been in its closest competitor, Mac OS X, for three years.

Re:Microsoft makes users do beta testing now?

[MightyMartian]

I'm afraid you're right. In the olden days of software, money was made off of support contracts

That model really hasn't gone away with enterprise software, it's just morphed. You still need a support contract, and you still need to pay someone lots of money to maintain the system. The difference is that these days you need to pay a whole team of people to integrate and maintain the little pieces morphed together as a whole system -- this is usually called the 'IT Department' these days. :)

Agreed. Now we've got the worst of both worlds. Big dollars for the product (particularly to keep up with the frequency of releases) and big dollars to keep said product functioning.

I'm sure they'll survive this time, but the business model they're running with is showing cracks.

Their business model has shown cracks for quite sometime -- the biggest of them being the wayyy late arrival of Vista, with most of its highly-toted promised features (i.e., WinFS, etc.) replaced with some shine and polish that's already been in its closest competitor, Mac OS X, for three years.

It's a pretty severe problem. There simply isn't very much in Vista to make jump and go "I NEED THAT!" Windows 2000 had it, particularly for servers, XP had it for finally producing an NT-based general consumer OS, Server 2003 had it for cleaning up the issues in Win2k, but Vista doesn't have anything that demands a good chunk of the marketplace turn into early adopters. A good many people are faced with hardware upgrades or replacement. Then they're faced with potential incompatibilities. Whether it's business users, home users or heavy gamers, Vista simply isn't ready yet, but like Chicago/Win95 before it, MS has to get something to market. Even if it isn't ready. Even if it hasn't half of what was promised. It makes no difference, because the marketing machine that Microsoft really is requires the Windows/Office behemoth keep playing the version trick every few years or risk the whole thing coming down around their ears.

Re:And that sums up their problems.

[dthable]

The startup companies use the innovative business model. After going through the growing pains and figuring out how to use those great ideas, a large company comes in and buys them. The founders and owners are more than happy to sell the company and walk away millionaires.

Then the system resets and starts over again. Isn't capitalism wonderful?

Re:This was exactly my idea.

[toadlife]

Most large software companies do this. Cisco and Oracle come to mind as companies that buy instead of develop new product lines all the time.

I wonder why people see this a such a bad thing. Reinventing the wheel is viewed as a anti-pattern in the programming world, but when a large company chooses to not do it through acquisitions, it's viewed as a bad thing.

BTW, I was never able to find Duvel locally. :(