Microsoft plans to ship a new security product in June, charging $49.95 [EUR 42] a year to shield up to three PCs against viruses, spyware and other cyberthreats, the company said on Tuesday. Called Windows OneCare Live, the product marks Microsoft's long-anticipated entry into the consumer antivirus market, which has been the domain of specialized vendors, led by Symantec and McAfee. Microsoft announced its intent to offer antivirus products in June 2003 when it bought Romanian antivirus software developer GeCad Software.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
I like this idea in the fact that Microsoft is making it easier for the less computer savvy to be secure. People like me and you probably won't pay for such a service, but I do see it being useful for mom and dad, grandparents, anyone else who doesn't want to know inside and out about their computers.
Member since:
2005-08-01
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:2005-07-06
Paying $50 per year is still paying $50 per year.
What you seem to fail to understand is that Microsoft should be forced to fix the flaws in its systems, for free.
Microsoft always put out "critical fixes" and patches, will this now stop unless you pay the $50 per year ?
It is not an extortionate amount of money to ask for....
but it is still extortion.
No wonder people call them Microsoft
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
I didnt say it would stop unless you paid $50, what I actually said was this....
and I quote...
"
Microsoft always put out "critical fixes" and patches, will this now stop unless you pay the $50 per year ?
"
See the part where it says "will" and the end where there is a "?"
this means it is a question, not a statement.
Now you accuse me of having the tinfoil hat too tight, I say nope, I think you need to learn to read before you try to make a joke
smartarse
Member since:
2005-08-20
First a disclaimer: I'm not at all criticizing ms for taking this approach to security. They've got to do what they've got to do and even secure code can't protect from everything.
That said, there's something very dirty feeling about selling software to protect users largely from insecurities in their own software. Or rather, marketing spin passing this off as added value to windows will be the dirty thing.
Member since:
2005-07-29
Member since:2006-01-19
I never thought that they would be able to fix every flaw that allowed spyware for a virus. Windows is a complicated product and there are probably some structural designes which make it difficult. However, I had hope that they would still make and effort to try. Now I don't feel that way. It just seems wrong that they are trying to make money from a failing of their own product.
Member since:
2005-09-06
Get your internet security tools from microsoft, only $50 a year, this offer is so good because with the release of software we start including periodic software bugs. Thats right more bugs in windows, and if you dont buy our security software you will have all your files deleted or something terrible will happen to them.
Edited 2006-02-08 05:07
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2005-07-06
I find it absurd that thing have to be censored in this kind of way.
Why can someone not write micro $ oft if they want it to?
What is is beeing or going to be censored?
Who decide how and what is going to be censored?
I also think writing micro $ oft is chilish etc. but it find it even more childish to censor it.
Member since:
2005-11-12
Maybe this is a bit too harsh, but really this does seem a bit dodgy:
extortion
n 1: an exorbitant charge 2: unjust exaction (as by the misuse of authority); "the extortion by dishonest officials of fees for performing their sworn duty" 3: the felonious act of extorting money (as by threats of violence)
I use Windows amongst other things, but to be honest, I am sick of being held to unreasonable EULAs while they can sell 'broken' products which they then charge me to mend.
I'd rather they build this 'service' into the price of the OS - and then license it yearly. Then, I would gladly give them my two cents.
Member since:
2005-11-10
Member since:
2005-07-06
1. Don't many anti-virus vendors give away free versions for home use already? I use the free edition of AVG for example and that seems to work well. Before you say "this is for companies only then", why offer a 3-PC licence then? Almost all companies have more than 3 PCs surely?
2. Am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that the company selling an OS that's prone to viruses is now going to be selling a sticking plaster for said prone OS rather than trying to fix the flawed security model of the OS in the first place? Yes, Vista will make some strides towards this, but presumably the initial market is XP users...
Member since:
2005-11-05
It's a wait and see one, surely. If Vista's security is a step up and this is a good service then it will represent reasonable value. But on the basis of "try not to buy version 1 of anything", waiting till six months after OneCare is launched might be better.
I'd still like to see this kind of thing integrated with ISPs, though. Buying OneCare separately is just one more thing, one more annual purchase, that folks have to find out about and then get organized and be able to afford. Many simply won't, and the more that won't the more zombies there will be.
It might be easier if OneCare could be sold through subscription with your ISP, rather like cellphone insurance on pay monthly. An optional extra 2-3 bucks a month on your connection fee gets you your OneCare stuff and apart from updating it that's all you need to do to get it.
Member since:
2005-10-14
MS is using its monopoly position to extort money.
pitching the cost at $50 is purely because they think that is what they can gouge out of most people.
time to get annoyed people - $50! every single year! to protect their own broken product!
and don't for get the costs of upgrades which are forced on you cos the product was broken in the first place and is being replaced.
if MS was any good at writing software we'd still be using win98 or NT4 - what extra real functionality do we get from XP or 2003? really - what extra do we get - ummm... new background, ummm.... different colours which not many like anyway and switch back to 'classic'.
people are being conned!
time to act; ubuntu, mac os x, reactos, bsd's, linspire, xandros, etc etc etc
also, i can't believe the amount of astro-turfing on this thread.
Member since:2006-01-06
MS is using its monopoly position to extort money.
Um, no. You're barking up the wrong tree. MS is competing against Symantec, McAfee, and numerous other vendors here. It isn't giving anything away for free. It isn't bundling these tools into the operating system. The DOJ settlement prevents MS from using undisclosed middleware APIs for its own advantage; therefore, MS is just another player in the security industry. Extortion? I think not. Users can go somewhere else very easily.
Member since:2005-10-14
fair enough point - i was meaning from the viewpoint that users will probably naturally gravitate towards using an MS product to protect their MS OS.
and don't forget MS's well known practices of stopping competing products from working properly. there is no indication that MS has changed its spots - in fact it seems to be getting even more agressive in its monopolistic practices.
Member since:2005-07-23
Member since:2005-08-20
MS is competing against Symantec, McAfee, and numerous other vendors here. It isn't giving anything away for free. It isn't bundling these tools into the operating system. The DOJ settlement prevents MS from using undisclosed middleware APIs for its own advantage; therefore, MS is just another player in the security industry. Extortion? I think not. Users can go somewhere else very easily.
There's an important difference between an anti-malware suite and, say, a browser. One is a necessary evil and one is a product. If windows had been secure in the first place, there would have been no 3rd party security market and nobody would have complained if microsoft had added some extra tools for safety's sake. I don't see why it should be any different now, just because there is an established market.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-10-19
Random Thoughts
It's really no more expensive than other "security suites".
Everyone isn't computer Savoy. 50 bucks a year is likely money well spent for a solution to some of their problems.
Others simply don't care to fool around with their system loading various third-party applications.
50 bucks is likely well spent here too.
I imagine many new systems will ship from OEM's with this package installed and paid for during the warranty period. It will drive down the cost of tech support by the OEM's during the warranty period.
If MS would have given the service away, Symantec and others would have had them in court in seconds.
Member since:
2005-10-06
Member since:
2005-07-23
.... and Microsoft might as well go out and be the ones advertising for linux.
So not only do they charge you for swiss-cheese-software, they charge you to fix it.
That's genious!
My buddy(who will remain unnamed) has the *PERFECT* solution. The internet computer is linux based. The everything-else computer which in no way shape or form is to *EVER* be connected to the internet is windows based.
I'm a big fan of windows in this configuration.
