Microsoft has not yet launched a paid anti-virus product, but questions about software bundling and unfair competition are already swirling in Europe. Rival Symantec acknowledged late this week that it has responded to a request for information from European Union regulators regarding the state of the security market and Symantec’s role in it.
well, its all corporate culture. It all depends upon who gets what. Its ironic to single out MS. Any corporate either in US or in europe (now in developing countries) wants to tie up its customer with their products (however bad they are) and get income perpetually and regularly (be it services or products). Its the rulers to protect people’s rights and people themselves have to protect. Neither is happening in a partisan rule.
well, this will go on like this till someone (powerful) wakes up and realizes that corporate culture of swindling customers is going against them.
Till that time, there is no point in accusing MS or IBM or Sun or Redhat. Its all corporate culture.
Its ironic to single out MS.
———————————————————————- ——————-
Its also ironic that they have 98% of the market. Go figure.
Probably closer to 93, but who’s counting.
I don’t care as long it is free.
Its not free; the price will be included with you purchase of:
1) A new PC with Vista
2) A product upgrade to Vista
Your going to pay for it one way or another. But by bundeling it into the OS; they will affect the AV market. In the end you will have less choices for AV software.
Think what happened to IE vs Netscape. Netscape had majority of the market share. MS started to included IE with Windows; Netscape lost the majority of their market share.
I would say just be happy with free antivirus and spyware regularly updated and with real time protection on. It barely takes 10 MB of RAM while running and is quite reliable.
10MB ram ? I seriously doubt that. Add up all the library files too.
Also, you said “quite reliable”, sorry, thats just not good enough for me or my computers.
“I don’t care as long it is free.”
Oh, it is stupid ! Why do you not use Clamwin (http://www.clamwin.com/) instead ?
Arguing over who has the right to bundle software solely for the purpose of cleaning up after an infection feels so dirty on a lot of levels. :p
Symantic?
I don’t mind bundling when it actually works. I wouldn’t even use Norton if it was handed to me free.
People don’t complain about Apple bundling iTunes with Macs, but do with Media Player on Windows… and this is because.?
Maybe Because iTunes can be removed and Windows Media Player Can’t(Without loosing support that is)
And BTW, disabling != removing just in case
cause Itunes & Quicktime can easily be trashed and competiting products installed
Apparantly Quicktime cant be removed as it forms part of Mac OS X’s base: http://developer.apple.com/macosx/architecture/index.html
*sarcasm on* Apparently 1’s nor 0’s can be removed from Windows, Mac OS X or any other OS as they form the base of the OSes in question. *sarcasm off*
Geez, come on OSN Staff… Surely the OSN Staff knows better than to feed the trolls! Don’t feed the trolls!
“I avoided feeding the trolls on OSNews.com and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.” – Anonymous The Great
If you don’t feed the trolls, then there will be less page hits…Less page hits = less ad dollars.
Why do you think Slashdot is that way?
Money Money Money
Apple isn’t a monopoly. Microsoft is.
In US law, it isn’t illegal to be a monopoly. What is illegal is using monopoly power to stifle competition. One classic illegal approach is using a monopoly in one market to gain control of another: extending the monopoly.
If Apple raises prices, sales go down. They don’t have monopoly power. The Mac market acts like a classic free market. So Apple isn’t using control over the desktop to gain control over the music download market, because they don’t control the desktop.
The courts found, in the US and Europe, that Microsoft does have monopoly power over the desktop. Their customers (OEMs, not you and I), must sell Windows if they want to compete in the Intel desktop system (PC) market.
The problem with Media Player is not the player, but the codecs included with it. Microsoft is using its control over the desktop to push its proprietary codecs and create a new monopoly in multimedia.
I don’t see much of an antitrust problem for Microsoft’s security projects. Microsoft can hardly be guilty of extending their desktop monopoly into a new area if it isn’t a *new* area. Making Windows and Office more secure is arguably a proper part of Windows and Office. Symantec may have a case regarding mail filtering. Protecting non-Microsoft systems and applications would be a new, distinct market separate from Windows and Office.
Like previous antitrust actions against Microsoft, I don’t expect much to happen in the way of penalties. The real value has been in making the public aware of how much power Microsoft has and how they use it. Home users have tended to either not pay attention, or misunderstand the issues. Businesses, however, do understand the dangers of abusing a monopoly, and are clearly aware that Microsoft has too much power. Business leaders have gotten a wake-up call, and are starting to understand that it’s not just governments that can abuse power.
If Apple raises prices, sales go down.
When was the last time Microsoft raised prices? Instead, they have generally reduced them, or creating new, less expensive editions (like Windows Starter Edition)
The courts found, in the US and Europe, that Microsoft does have monopoly power over the desktop.
European antitrust laws are not enforced by the courts. And in America, Judge Jackson found Microsoft to be a monopoly only by disregarding Apple as a competitor; i.e. Apple not being in that market (gee… what about the Switch campaign?)
The problem with Media Player is not the player, but the codecs included with it. Microsoft is using its control over the desktop to push its proprietary codecs and create a new monopoly in multimedia.
Yet hardly anyone condemns Apple’s near-monopoly on music sales online or media players and using that to push a format it favours (and would get licensing revenue from)…
The Mac market acts like a classic free market
What exactly is a classic free market? Single seller – monopoly? Only Apple can sell hardware using Mac OS, as well as Mac OS itself. To say that is a free market is pushing it, especially when Apple had used this monopoly to get into previously-third party markets (Sherlock vs. Watson anyone? iChat vs. [insert IM app of you choice]?)
Perhaps the only reason why there isn’t lawsuites against Apple (remember, Jackson said it is a separate and distinct market – there’s your precedent) is because it simply isn’t as profitable as Microsoft. With things like WebCore and Quicktime integrated into OS X, its hard to say OS X is not doing the same as Windows.
“People don’t complain about Apple bundling iTunes with Macs, but do with Media Player on Windows… and this is because.?”
1) Because they are not the default applications.
2) You can un-install them
I have installed Windows Media Player, QuickTime Player, RealPlayer and DivX Player on my notebook and I use them all to play various media. I have not installed some of the other popular players such as iTunes and Winamp.
Are you telling me that there is a lack of competition in this space because Microsoft Windows comes with the ability to play music and videos? Is there an operating system that does not come with a media player?
“Is there an operating system that does not come with a media player?”
* FreeDOS
* ReactOS
* FreeBSD
* NetBSD
* OpenBSD
* DragonFly BSD
None of these come with full fledged media players, but on the BSDs at least, it’s stupid simple to get some. Not all operating systems come with media players because playing media is not a core fucntion of an OS, regardless of what Microsoft has lead the dumber among us to believe. That said, I’ve got absolutely no issue with them bundling a media player with their OS. I do however have an issue with thier reasons for doing so.
Including Media Player is not the problem. Including codecs requiring licenses from Microsoft is. Microsoft is using their control over the desktop, which has been determined to be a monopoly, to try to create a *new* monopoly over multimedia formats. It’s using the old monopoly to create new monopolies that’s illegal.
Note that no one is claiming that Microsoft has succeeded in creating a multimedia codec monopoly. In addition, they could legally do so. But they are not allowed to use their desktop monopoly to do so. If they keep the two completely separate, then there’s no legal problem.
The issue that you raise about playing music and videos is a red herring. It’s perfectly legal for Microsoft to include a player. A player using codecs from other people, that is. Including Microsoft codecs is where they get into the antitrust concept of tying or bundling, where a monopoly is extended into new areas.
Bundling is legal, if none of the products bundled together has monopoly power. Dumping below cost is legal if the company doing the dumping doesn’t have monopoly power. The law doesn’t punish these actions because in a free market, the market will impose its own punishment. Giving stuff away hurts competitors, but it normally hurts the giver more. Bundling a popular product with an unpopular one may move more of the unpopular one, but it’s more likely that it will hurt the sales of the popular one. Customers and competitors can react, and actions carry consequences.
The legal definition of monopoly is based on evidence that a company has sufficient control over a market that their actions are immune from the usual consequences, that the market cannot punish them for bad behaviour. If Apple raise prices, sales will drop. If Apple lowers prices, sales will increase. But the number of licenses for Windows depends solely on the number of PCs sold, and not on the price of Windows. So Windows has monopoly power; it doesn’t respond to normal market forces.
Do you have any doubt that Microsoft would like to have all multimedia dependent on Microsoft codecs? Wouldn’t that be another monopoly? Are they using the Windows desktop to try to marginalize other codecs and make them go away? Shouldn’t Microsoft codecs compete on their own merits, and not depend on bundling with the Windows desktop for popularity?
We all benefit from competition. Antitrust law exists because there are some actions that, under some conditions, suppress competition. The actions alone are not illegal. The conditions alone are not illegal. It is the coupling of certain actions taken under certain conditions that violate antitrust law. Microsoft’s size, money, and share of the market create conditions where they can easily abuse their power. They have a responsibility to take care in choosing which actions that they take.
Wrong. It’s neither legal to create nor maintain a monopoly. It is fully legal to hold 100% of a market, but that is not monopoly. A monopoly is a group which prevents entry into a trade, not one which happens to make all the money in it.
Vendor lockin would be a monopolistic practice (so yea, what they want to do with codecs is monopolistic).
The legal definition of monopoly is based on evidence that a company has sufficient control over a market that their actions are immune from the usual consequences, that the market cannot punish them for bad behaviour. If Apple raise prices, sales will drop. If Apple lowers prices, sales will increase. But the number of licenses for Windows depends solely on the number of PCs sold, and not on the price of Windows. So Windows has monopoly power; it doesn’t respond to normal market forces.
Current price large OEMs pay for Windows XP Home is approximately $50.
If Microsoft raises price of Windows XP Home to $500 for OEMs, will sales of Windows XP Home:
A) Increase;
B) Decrease;
C) Stay the same.
{{Is there an operating system that does not come with a media player?}}
The real questions are these:
Is there another operating system that comes with an irremoveable media player?
In the US there is apparently a law that a computer may not be sold without an Operating System – but how is it that some Operating Systems are not counted as Operating Systems under this law?
Is there another media player (especially an irremoveable one) that refuses to support perfectly capable and open standard unencumbered codecs such as Ogg Vorbis, Ogg Theora and Ogg Speex?
perhaps the EU should insist that MS should sell a versio of windows not vulnerable to viruses?
Should MS be able to profit from holes in its OS?
In the future would the holes be patchable but left alone to profit on AV sales?
Should that unrealistic demand apply to all the other operating systems?
Companies do not profit or maintain market share by harming their customers.
Anyone who pays for their OS, firewall software, antivirus software, etc. are f–king IDIOTS who pollute the gene pool. Plenty of free solutions exist in the world of BSD and Linux.
This will be modded down by the same people who pay for broken software while mocking the FOSS lovers just like the ignorant jocks used to mock the intelligent nerds. Go for it, we know you’re that dumb.
//If Apple raises prices, sales go down. //
Perhaps. Though, it’s interesting to see folks buying Apple’s _already_ overpriced stuff.
Maybe they have a monopoly over the uniformed.
Maybe they have a monopoly over the uniformed.
The implication here is that Apple consumers are uninformed where ‘Doze consumers aren’t.
The reality is that Apple computers have a niche in professional publishing, multimedia and graphics industries which justifies their cost and explains their ease of use and domination within those niches.
Although I suspect that Apple users are no more tech savvy than Windows users, nor do they need to be due to design considerations, I also suspect that they are also not significantly less tech savvy.
A monopoly in a niche market is an oxymoron as is the notion that the millions of folks buying Windows computers for generic uses because the price is lower and PC’s are virtually unavailable without it is an indicator of wide spread wisdom in an uncontrolled market.
Or maybe the ones you called “uniformed” realize price is not the end all and be all.
Am I uniformed if I buy a more expensive brand of any other product? (Cavalier over a Neon?)
Even though I think Microsoft should release A/V software (because most of their customers consider it a needed part of the OS).
But, on a more personal note. I really loathe both A/V companies, Symantec and McCaffee. Both of their products are sub par, try to get you to buy more junk, cost way more than they’re worth, and have consistently failed to compete with each other on real levels (marketing aside).
I hope Microsoft puts them both out of business. They deserve it for abusing their customers with shoddy overly complex software for years. They deserve it for having the gull to ask a paying customer if they wanna buy more. And they deserve it for trying to scare people into buying their products.
Go Microsoft, sink ’em hard and fast. Destroy them with the same passion you had when you wrote that letter to hobbyists Bill. Go get ’em.
And on the other hand. People really need to get off Microsoft on this bundling crap. Of all the actually anti-competitive practices they’ve been guilty of, this has to be the weakest case.
Does MS benefit more from a crappy OS or a solid one?
(With regard to all third parties inclusiv.)
If MIcrosoft bundles, Symantec and McAfee sue for anti-trust violations — Microsoft will be attempting to take over (yet another) market segment by bundling similar software with Windows.
If they don’t bundle, i.e. they charge for their OS protection mechanism, then they are going to get sued once they run Symantec and McAfee out of business. This is very easy to do for Microsoft – just give yourself more access to the OS APIs than you give to other companies… which they did to steal market share for MS Office. Or create a “lite” version for the OS, bundle it, and charge for a more capable upgrade. Once the lite version destroys the competition, chuck it and only offer the more capable product. Like I said, easy to do.
Think about it — once they make the faulty OS AND the monopolistic means of protecting that OS, customers can class action lawsuit them for collusion. Why fix the bugs in the OS when you can double whammy your customers by requiring them to also purchase your OS protection product?
By making this product, they’ll have an internal conflict of interest — the OS Protection division will soon require that the OS division leave certain bugs in the code so that they can make more money by making their product a required purchase by the customer.
Microsoft right now thinks that this is a win-win situation, but I think we’ll see that it’s a lose-lose situation for them in a few years time.
They should simply concentrate on making their OS totally secure and stable. If they do anything other than this, people will have all the more reason to migrate to another OS that doesn’t require a double purchase.
After:
-OEM vendor lockin practices
-pushing Internet Explorer using their operating system, cripling web standards and cripling java VM (on purpose)
-pushing MSN using their operating system, pushing away ICQ / AOL
-pushing Windows Media Player inclusion with microsofts own multimedia codec-set and standards using their operating system
-pushing directx with their operating system, pushing away openGL
-directx used as middleware in xbox, directx now pushed as universal middleware
-microsoft multimedia codecs now required on most mobile devices to play (DRM) music
-microsoft on mobile phone and pocket pc market
etc etc.
Finally they are paying some attention at the European Union, I’m glad
Anyone who uses Windows deserves what they get, like someone who wipes their ass with their tongue.
Anyone who uses Windows deserves what they get, like someone who wipes their ass with their tongue.