Slashdot Mirror
EU Approves Intel's McAfee Purchase After Interoperability Pledge
An anonymous reader tips news that the European Union has given their approval for Intel's purchase of McAfee for $7.7 billion after the chipmaker promised it wouldn't try to stifle competition for other security programs running on Intel hardware or McAfee software running on rival hardware.
"Under the agreement, Intel committed to providing other security vendors with the technology needed to tap the same functionality in its processors and chipsets available to McAfee. In addition, Intel pledged to continue having McAfee software support the products of rival chipmakers, which would include Advanced Micro Devices. The European Commission will monitor Intel for compliance. 'The commitments submitted by Intel strike the right balance, as they allow preserving both competition and the beneficial effects of the merger,' Joaquin Almunia, commission VP in charge of competition policy, said in a statement. 'These changes will ensure that vigorous competition is maintained and that consumers get the best result in terms of price, choice, and quality of the IT security products.'"
The US needs an EU-type agency to monitor our corporations and make sure they don't abuse the citizens, or monopoly power.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
So, I guess Intel may be working on embedding AV into their chips, or am I way behind here?
well, as long as they *promise*
did anyone check if they had their fingers crossed behind their back? did they pinky-swear?
Intel could decide it'll be cheaper to break the pledge and pay a fine rather than uphold it.
Is anyone else shocked that mcafee is worth this much, or somehow got 7.7 billion dollars? Wow.. As a company they're only focused on one product (anti-virus software) that's bloated, not free (like many equally useful alternatives, i.e. windows essential, avg, avast, malwarebytes, many more..). How could they be valued so high?
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
I've been called out many times to clients complaining of slow computers. The reason they're slow is bloatware software like McAfee or Norton has been installed. These companies just prey on the gullible, then milk their victims yearly with extortionate amounts for yearly virus definition updates. I've lost track of the times people have called saying their computer is suffering from a virus, when it isn't and it's a hardware related fault. The media unfortunately help companies like McAfee spread so much fear about viruses that some consumers are frightened into buying their product. There are free options out there, many of which don't have such deleterious effects on computer performance and don't pop up with nagging messages each time the user wants to do something simple.
Video Game cheats, hints a
Given the track record of McAfee and some other AV vendors for releasing signature files that falsely detect and remove crucial system files I am not looking forward to any embedded functions.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
A product which industry sees as 'essential' with Intel branding on it will come in very handy when it comes to selling PCs with Intel Inside to pointy haired bosses. Remember, many PHBs still worry whether or not AMD chips will be 100% compatible with Windows.
I don't see any advantage in 'embedding AV' into Intel chips (whatever that would mean) but Intel might add a couple of instructions just for marketing reasons so they can claim 'hardware accelerated AV' or some such junk.
No sig today...
because what I say may not be what I will do
Let's not forget the time that McAfee completely destroyed countless windows computers by mistaking a system file for a virus. Would you pay 7.7 billion for a company that does something like that?
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
McAfee also owns Foundstone, who brought us the great Attacker, FPort, SuperScan, and other tools to facilitate and protect against hacking!
Because Intel is scared that Apple is going to switch to ARM CPUs in the future?
Because AMD is better at the low-end of the market, leaving them with the high-end expensive stuff only bought by enterprises?
Because Linux can run on any CPU architecture?
Pick any one or all of them.
My toilet came with a Goldman Sachs investor. But I still use Charles Schwab.
They made some promises, but I don't see them promising not to include a "free" McAfee anti-virus with every motherboard that has an Intel chipset!
Have you seen AMT? The explanation is a mess.
In general, Intel does nothing well except produce chipsets and processors.
Is Intel CEO Otellini a competent manager? Should he be replaced?
Intel bought what??? A third rate anti-virus company that makes a product that is necessary only because having vulnerabilities makes more money for Microsoft? (The average person cannot fix an infected computer and buys a new computer with another copy of Windows. See the New York Times article: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster.)
Intel bought McAfee for how much? $7.68 billion??? Why? Don't they have competent programmers at Intel? What does McAfee have that would cost more than $7 million to program?
I hope someone can convince me it's all okay, because a lot of what Intel does seems incompetent to me.
Just a wild hypothetical here, :)"
But would it be possible to encourage DRM adoption through anti-virus?
I mean like "Those movies you had on your system were potentially unsafe, so we deleted them for you
1. If all the mainstream AV on Intel running software makes Intel hardware feel slow, people might look for a different 'brand' and it will feel more snappy for a while.
If Intel can have a go at funding a more responsive AV by running it on a low cpu setting, deep in the background for longer and pausing for games, Intel hardware can feel snappy. A nice PR bounce about been "safe" and "fast" on the next generation of cpu ect..
2. The Feds get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_(software) in many more shipping computers. No hoping a user of interest buys from a fed friendly vendor. "DHS Inside"
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
+1 Insightful
My troll: Companies like Intel/Microsoft need viruses just the like food industry needs pests and countries need 'enemies' - it's one hand washing the other in a State of Fear. For fear of viruses the PC needs AV vaccination that will slow down hardware/software, so that hardware makers are pressed to produce even more powerful hardware to compensate for the AV-caused drag and thus provide the illusion of progress. In the meantime, attacks get more evolved and sophisticated, so AVs get more bloated and intrusive, slowing down the host etc. etc. ad nauseam. If this isn't a vicious circle, I don't know what is.
My evidence: I really miss the Windows 98 SE era or even before that. Currently our undergraduate physics lab is still using eight win98 machines (because the software can't run on anything else, it's doing online measurement). They are P-III machines with 32MB of RAM and they boot faster than the Quad Core 2.6GHz I am typing on. For your enjoyment, just install a clean copy of your OS on a virtual machine (no additives, no AV, no nothing) and benchmark it. If you wish to really get scared, install windows 98 on a VM and benchmark that.
PS. I just watched Zeitgeist III and I just can't escape the crazy idea that money is it's own antivirus.
When MS buys Intel these minor glitches will be addressed for good.
Does McAfee actually scan for viruses anymore? I thought it just popped up annoying messages bothering me to give them more money to keep my computer "protected."
None of those are answers. Do you know what McAfee is?
So, when is the US going to stop this? Or is the US government equally "socialist"?
Oh, and you're an idiot. The EU clearly allowed this enterprise to go on with its business. It even insured that other competitors will not be hindered from innovating!
I seriously doubt you have any or detailed knowledge of US and/or European (EU) competition law. If anything your claim that US law is "stronger" in that area is seems based upon your nationalist bias. Where is your evidence? In reality most of these frameworks are now harmonized by agreements and conventions usually from forums under the UN or the WTO.
If any anecdotal evidence is admissible I hereby claim that the US lack of action after the conviction of Microsoft shows that the US law is weaker in that area. Oh, and I will support my claim by referring to actual competition law; under the relevant section, in the EU, monopolies are illegal simply for existing, where as under US law there has to be a "linked" negative effect for it to be considered illegal. Which is stricter?