Microsoft will have showcase applications ready in time for the Vista launch, which is still set for January 2007, company officials said. But given recent lawsuits and public disagreements with the likes of Symantec and Adobe Systems – two of Microsoft’s biggest independent software vendor partners – which vendors are likely to be leading the Vista charge?
… who needs “killer apps” when you dominate the market? People will buy your OS no matter what.
Thanks for your wonderful insight.
Anyway, I was going to post this site: http://www.seewindowsvista.com/
But I see they link it in the article. It’s pretty a interesting showcase of using the technologies in Vista.
It’s not an os, it’s a platform. Wow, glad they cleared that up.
1. Why are they asking “Where are the killer apps” for an OS that’s still in the beta stages?
2. Why would anyone expect that an OS in some mutation of beta stage would have a “killer app” already available?
Well, the answer to the first question (a rhetorical question, granted) is that they simply want to get people to read their stuff and generate ad revenue for them: “killer apps” first need a platform for them to run on that the people that use the killer apps can actually use right now.
The answer to the second question is directly related to the first question’s answer: until the platform is stable and ready for deployment, the first problem that exists for defining the “killer app” for the platform is the requirement to first have a working platform, and second, the “killer app” isn’t something that is defined by the OS, the vendor of the OS or some industry pundits: it’s defined by the public market place.
Let’s take BeOS as an example: in their last great hurrah’s on the scene, Be, Inc. was counting on the Internet Appliance to be “The Killer App” but despite all that the industry pundits said, it was far from a successful “Killer App” and indeed, it was a “Killing App” in that they sank a huge amount of resources into that path, but look what it got them: death. Why? Part of the reason was that the best information I have is that the platform (BeIA) simply wasn’t quite ready, combined with the fact that not enough consumers in the real world marketplace felt compelled enough to buy and use it: thus, nothing industry pundits claimed “Oh, that’s the killer app for BeOS!” meant a hill of beans.
So, the requirement of reality for “Killer Apps” has these dependencies:
1. The platform must be stable enough to develop for (note that Vista is still undergoing changes: thus, it doesn’t qualify as of yet for this requirement)
2. The vendor of the “Killer App” must have the application developed and (hopefully) sufficiently tested, but this requires point 1 (the platform must be ready)
3. The market must be aware of the “Killer App” and must actually want to use it and think it is worthwhile, and this is determined by customers adopting a given “Killer App” and using it, and has nothing to do with industry pundits.
As a natural result, I would be curious to know of how many “Killer Apps” were available for platforms that didn’t fulfill the forementioned requirements for people to point at and say “That’s that system’s ‘Killer App’ ”
Silly industry pundits and column writers!
1 and 2) In the case of MS Windows, it might not make sense to expect killer apps until the official release of an OS update. However, for most other operating systems, the killer apps are often quite visible during the beta stages of an OS release. Linux OSs in particular, but also for MacOS. The killer apps just kind of develop along with the OS proper.
As for the BeOS thing, isn’t that exactly what Microsoft is counting on? Selling Vista based on its use in several nifty Internet-based applications? The problem is that, even if a bunch of web developers create innovative sites using Vista technologies, that doesn’t help sell Vista to Joe User. If Microsoft is resting its laurels on web services, then consumers are going to (eventually) figure out that they can run them in Firefox on Linux just as well.
As for your “killer app dependencies,” I think those only apply to proprietary OSs. Open source OSs are generally stable enough even during active development for application developers to continue development based on nightly builds and such. How do you think Linux distributions come to release with their entire complement of supported applications ready to install?
Open source distributors accomplish their OS and application debugging concurrently, not in the strictly serial fashion you describe. Whether or not the pundits like what they see, open source applications tend to generate buzz with little or no marketing budget.
So, in response to your post as a whole, yes, the article is a little silly. Microsoft’s development and release strategy is outmoded, inflexible, and inefficient, and therefore it is outrageous to expect 3rd party killer apps at this stage of the game or anytime soon… or ever, for that matter. Microsoft is finding it lonely at the top, and their wildly successful network of independent partners is crumbling. If they want killer apps, they’re going to have to make a withdrawl from their massive war chest and develop it themselves.
1 and 2) In the case of MS Windows, it might not make sense to expect killer apps until the official release of an OS update. However, for most other operating systems, the killer apps are often quite visible during the beta stages of an OS release. Linux OSs in particular, but also for MacOS. The killer apps just kind of develop along with the OS proper.
Where applications are sold with the intention of providing support and committing resources to them, it doesn’t make sense to release something that’s not sufficiently tested. Where there’s no money or hope of money being made, and no contractual obligation in any way of worrying about testing or other things, it doesn’t matter nearly as much. The Killer Apps for a proprietary OS often do develop in parallel to the new OS revision, that’s true, but there are associated pains with developing any application in parallel with any OS, proprietary or not.
As for the BeOS thing, isn’t that exactly what Microsoft is counting on? Selling Vista based on its use in several nifty Internet-based applications? The problem is that, even if a bunch of web developers create innovative sites using Vista technologies, that doesn’t help sell Vista to Joe User. If Microsoft is resting its laurels on web services, then consumers are going to (eventually) figure out that they can run them in Firefox on Linux just as well.
There’s what JLG of Be, Inc. and Apple Inc. fame referred to as “tractor apps” which aren’t nearly as significant as “Killer Apps” which is what Be, Inc. was hoping to do with BeIA with a single app, being the “Killer App” that would hopefully save their bacon. Microsoft is likely sufficiently happy if there’s no single “Killer App” that entices people to buy into Vista, but the whole “ecosystem” with a bunch of smaller “Tractor Apps” causes them to choose Vista.
As for your “killer app dependencies,” I think those only apply to proprietary OSs. Open source OSs are generally stable enough even during active development for application developers to continue development based on nightly builds and such. How do you think Linux distributions come to release with their entire complement of supported applications ready to install?
It doesn’t appear you’ve been clued in about MSDN, you know, Microsoft Developer’s Network? Granted, it isn’t free as in money type of free, and perhaps it doesn’t allow everyone access to nightly builds (if Windows can even be built in a single night and packaged properly without too much overhead) but developers do get access to more betas of things during development than the general public sees. There’s a funny thing about MSDN: you get more insight into how much the API’s of whatever is being worked on change between early versions and the final version. Wait, you didn’t seriously believe that it was any different for a proprietary OS compared to an OSS one, did you, or that “stable” doesn’t only apply to whether or not the OS crashes, but in the API itself and the semantics? Why do you think those API’s change during the development process? Do you think it’s all entirely because Microsoft said “Hey, let’s change it!” without there being some form of feedback from customers/developers? They aren’t living in a complete vacuum, which is a good thing, because that would really suck. Your statement should change to say that As for your “killer app dependencies.” that applies for proprietary applications that are sold and expected to be supported, but isn’t tied to the OS being proprietary.
Open source distributors accomplish their OS and application debugging concurrently, not in the strictly serial fashion you describe. Whether or not the pundits like what they see, open source applications tend to generate buzz with little or no marketing budget.
It appears you misunderstood what I was saying: it isn’t strictly serial in that not all things that are mentioned later must wait for the previous things to complete. However, for commercial applications or where people don’t do it purely for the love of doing it because resources aren’t infinite and free, it largely happens this way because of practical concerns.
It appears from your answers that you’re very much slanted to interpret everything towards supporting your view that a particular ideology and way of doing things is good, and something else other than that is bad, without actually stating objective facts about how things work if it doesn’t suit your purpose. Please don’t try to state that your opinion is fact in such cases.
Builds and information for developers along with tools have been available for something like 18 months or more now…
You don’t release your tech docs and final product on the same day when you’re shipping a platform!
If there was, it would be backported to XP. As it stands, devs want to maximise the use of their products. They cannot do that if they have to keep it to one platform.
All platforms need to have one or two killer apps though. Amarok for Linux is a prime example… It should never, ever, ever be ported to Windows.
Yeah, god forbid choice and being cross-platform!
Actually, there very well may be killer apps for Vista. You honestly think no one will write apps for Vista that simply won’t work in XP because it would require much more resources to backport to XP?
Please. You don’t know the business world very well then.
Not until there is a significant user base. Commercial vendors won’t abandon W2K/XP if the majority of their customers are using them. Forget about backports, it’s quite likely that XP will stay the target for development for the next year.
The business world is conservative; it won’t upgrade for a “killer app”.
hahaha funny.
I have been in the computer business since 1986, and what are you ?
a second year CS student doing an a+ or a mcse judging by your previous posts.
I’m a software engineer for a tech company, thanks
Nice try.
yep, had to give it a try…
//”Yeah, god forbid choice and being cross-platform! “//
Yes, indeed, let’s all take this leaf out of Microsoft’s playbook. We should all learn from the masters. Lets all make up “standards” that can only run on one platform, now there’s an idea!
Microsoft: “Cross-platform? God forbid! Good heavens no! No interoperability for you!”
Edited 2006-06-07 10:50
Actually, there very well may be killer apps for Vista. You honestly think no one will write apps for Vista that simply won’t work in XP because it would require much more resources to backport to XP?
Please. You don’t know the business world very well then.
In it’s first years, there were hardly any killer apps purely for Windows XP that I can recall. Microsoft had a lot of trouble getting people to convert from 98 to XP after all, and XP for a long time had only a fragment of the market.
You don’t honestly think people will want to develop for a fragment of the market while they just as easily could cover the whole market, right?
Please. You don’t know the business world very well then.
Which whilst not a “killer app” in the sense being discussed here will drive a lot of companies to upgrade in order to get Office to “keep up with the Joneses” and maintain “compatability” and if MS kill PDF in the new Office well “oh look! Now you will just /have/ to upgrade to the new Office (not that the average Office user has any idea why you would want to use something like PDF because /everyone/ has the latest version of Office don’t they?)
With the failure of the Xbox 360, Microsoft is turning their attention to getting pc developers to write exclusively for Vista.
You are going to see more and more pc games announced as Vista only over the next six months. Huge numbers of people will install pirate versions of Vista as their favorite game comes out and won’t run on their XP systems.
Please define “failure”?
The worst selling console in over a decade.
A defect rate higher than all console combined over the past decade.
A console that has been outsold by a six year console for six of the seven months it has been on the market – and then only by a small amount.
The 360 hasn’t even broke the two million installed base mark after six months or so on the market.
Yeah, the 360 sure isn’t a ‘failure’.
Need I remind you that when it first came out, there was a very limited supply. Even if it’s not a limited supply anymore, tis not the buying season.
Geez.
Shortage of Xbox customers more like it. One of the oldest marketing ploys to make you want one is, “it’s rare”, “not many made”, “limited edition”, “you can’t even buy one”, too bad it didn’t work.
So you’re saying they lied about supply? Yeah, great. Nothing to back it up? Oh, whoops.
Let’s face it, the xbox 360 was too early, and just not powerful enough (compared to the original xbox) for a lot of people to want to upgrade. Not to mention that only a select few of the original Xbox games will work on the 360, or they are at the very least problematic. Then the whole fiasco of overheating, etc.
Everyone I’ve talked to that either has an Xbox 360 or knows someone who does complains about it.
This one guy I knew was saying that out of all the games he had, only one of them would run for two hours before it locked up. All the other games he had crashed after about 20 minutes of gameplay.
And everyone I know that has one is very happy with it (now). But if I ever considered getting one, I’d wait at least until this Xmas for the 2nd round of games.
And everyone I know that has one is very happy with it (now).
Notice the ‘now’ in brackets. So they did have problems then? And everyone I know who has one has had the power supply and cooling problems.
The non backwards compatibility of the first Xbox games was a killer. I think Microsoft wanted to change the hardware of the 360 to make it less of a generic PC for the purposes of thwarting reverse engineering and modding. Lesson for consumers? As a current customer Microsoft will shaft you in favour of the ‘next big thing’.
But if I ever considered getting one, I’d wait at least until this Xmas for the 2nd round of games.
Christmas has been and gone, and next Christmas it will be something else.
Not at all, I’m saying they may not have manufactured as many as they could have, either purposely or by misjudging the size of the market by a mile.
There are a few precedents for that though, the oil companies about gas supplies in the US for instance. I don’t think it’s being silly to question shortages as to their nature or source.
It’s always buying season
I believe your statistics may be a bit off, perhaps they are supplied by an xbox competitor, perhaps some sources maybe useful, so we can judge the quality of your numbers
What a maroon…..Xbox 360 a failure…..smells like troll
Hmmmm. From the ubiquitous wikipedia:
Developers of new platforms now tend to put a lot of effort into discovering or creating the next killer “app” for their technology, in the hope that it will be the breakthrough needed to get the technology adopted.
In that context, I’m willing to bet that SP1 will actually be the first killer app for Vista.
That will be the breakthrough needed to get the technology adopted, at least by corporate customers. They likely won’t touch it before then.
“In that context, I’m willing to bet that SP1 will actually be the first killer app for Vista.”
LOL, this is beautiful
Makes a lot of sense too. Unlike with all other apps, you MUST have Vista to run Vista SP1
Edited 2006-06-07 16:11
Virtualization apps, such as Parallels, Microsoft’s own (purchased, granted) Virtual PC and (for some reason I’m unable to spit the other names out) the competitors.
If Microsoft has a much lower percentage of backwards compatibility between Vista and previous versions of Windows, and people upgrade/replace their old machines and end up with Vista already installed, and still wish to use their old software, this is perhaps the most logical “Killer App” for Vista, because people simply don’t like giving up their old software, but may not be willing to run an old OS on much newer hardware, especially if the newer hardware doesn’t (for some reason, such as “Designed for Windows Vista”) have drivers for older versions of Windows. This may also be true for hardware that they brought along from the old machine to the new machine (printers are a good example) that don’t have drivers under a newer version of Windows, but have them for older versions.
Microsoft has been largely successful at accomplishing a much higher percentage of backwards compatibility with existing applications than other operating systems, but it has come at a cost of such things as security. People bitch and moan “Microsoft makes an insecure unreliable piece of crap!” on one hand, and demand backwards compatibility on the other hand. Well, how are they supposed to satisfy both? Quite simply, they cannot satisfy both forever: one or the other must give, and as long as there’s a way to virtualize the older software in its sandbox (I’ve run BeOS using Virtual PC, and it generally works “well enough” even though it isn’t exactly supported, so Windows should work better) then people shouldn’t gripe too much about them finally moving things forward by breaking backwards compatibility a bit in order to offer new features and improve security.
Twice in one thread, you make some sense, but it’s all the nonsense kind.
Virtualization… are you kidding me? A killer app is one which (amongst other things) you can’t get anywhere else. Especially with AMD Pacifica and Intel Vanderpool here or right around the corner, virtualization (at the hardware level at least) will be nearly ubiquitous by the time Vista hits the shelves. Para-virtualization will come to Windows in spite of non-cooperation on the part of Microsoft (with XEN, once again thanks to Pacifica/Vanderpool technology). My personal favorite kind of virtualization, OS-level (OpenVZ, Containers, Jails, etc.) might never reach Windows Vista.
No one likes to be saddled with running software on a sort of compatibility layer. Ask any experienced Linux user what they think of WINE or what MacOS users think of “Classic” applications. If anything, the “killer app” of Windows has been backwards compatibility for the better part of a decade. If Vista forces users to run their favorite win32 applications through hardware-level virtualization, with its associated non-trivial overhead, this would certainly not be a “killer app.”
Virtualization is (mainly) for server consolidation, service isolation, maximizing resource utilization, and simplifying management/administration. If MS plans to use it to provide backwards compatibility, they missed the point. But more likely is that you missed the point.
Twice in one thread, you make some sense, but it’s all the nonsense kind.
Hey, thanks for the veiled personal attack! That demonstrates your passion, and… well, your passion, at least. Bear me out: things aren’t as simple as you’d like to think they are.
Virtualization… are you kidding me? A killer app is one which (amongst other things) you can’t get anywhere else.
No, I’m not kidding, I’m prognosticating! There is a major difference…usually. Anyway, your assertion that “a killer app is one which (amongst other things) you can’t get anywhere else.” is too black and white. I had thought from reading previous posts of yours that you had more long-term perspective than this ill-concieved personal attack/rebuttal demonstrates. Let me point out some examples of where it’s gray:
1. Remember VisiCalc? Yes, the business package that made Apple 2 computers legitimate in the eyes of business? Sure, VisiCalc was the one on the Apple 2 that was a “Killer App” for awhile, and wasn’t available until later on the IBM PC, in such incarnations away from the original mutation of VisiCalc as Lotus 1-2-3. Once people saw what they could do with Lotus 1-2-3 on the PC which had much more memory available and better computational hardware (definitely once the floating point coprocessor was added) VisiCalc on the 65xx based processors with their much more limited capacities was no longer a “Killer App” not because it wasn’t still useful, and wasn’t able to do the original job, but because it could be done much better on the PC, if only due to RAM constraints, etc.
2. Look at BeOS. At least at the time it was still considered a “going concern” one of the big touted features was the way it handled media, and the pervasive multithreading. Tests showed that it had the lowest latencies for media handling of the available OS’s, but the other OS’s also did the multimedia, including Linux and Windows, but what the draw for that to BeOS wasn’t that it could do it, but for at least certain segments, it could do it better than the other available OS’s. Sure, you could argue that BeOS never sold enough copies to generate huge numbers, but you could say the same (in comparison to say, Windows) about all the Linux mutations and distributions, which brings me to the next one (I’m more OS-agnostic than you might guess…)
Linux isn’t necessarily the everything OS. Look at the divided landscape. It doesn’t have that much actual market share compared to Windows, and probably the majority of linux installations aren’t there for their desktop environment, but rather…. as some mutation of a web server. Why? Because in the eyes of many, it does it better than Windows, as measured in one or more ways. At least, there’s always going to be the constant war over measured performance for transactions per second, etc. but even without all of the constantly changing performance numbers, there’s one thing that makes it “better” in the eyes of many users:
You can use as many copies as you want, because you have no limits to the number of copies for the initial purchase price of time and effort you put in, and the code is “free” which to a lot of people (it’s clear you’re one of those) believe that overrides all other concerns.
There are more examples, but there’s a practical limit per post here: my point is that a “Killer App” only needs to be sufficiently superior to what’s available on another platform to drive significant adoption of the platform to use it: before VisiCalc, it was mostly done by hand, and once Lotus 1-2-3 came about, it was simply far more powerful than VisiCalc on the Apple 2 could ever hope to be, but it wasn’t unique for what it did in general.
No one likes to be saddled with running software on a sort of compatibility layer. Ask any experienced Linux user what they think of WINE or what MacOS users think of “Classic” applications. If anything, the “killer app” of Windows has been backwards compatibility for the better part of a decade. If Vista forces users to run their favorite win32 applications through hardware-level virtualization, with its associated non-trivial overhead, this would certainly not be a “killer app.”
I must agree and disagree: while it is far from ideal to run things in any form of emulation or compatibility layer in most cases (and WINE is a great example of the never-ending-catchup game if you want it to be fully compatible with the latest version of Windows, because Windows keeps on getting enhanced or simply mutated) there’s an even greater pain in the eyes of a lot of individuals and businesses to migrating to newer software as a result of running on a new system. Up until a few years ago, my church was still using DOS software for dealing with all the administrative paperwork of congregations, and it was a major enough change for at least the reason of training, not to mention the fact that since the church has units in all parts of the world including ones that don’t have very modern hardware, it left things in a less than ideal situation for switching, due to upgrade costs, and also retraining costs. There are a lot of vertical applications that aren’t off the shelf of Best Buy that can’t simply be moved over to a new system due to some form of incompatibility, but are vital to that individual or organization. Anything that allows it to run with complete functional equivalence is often worth far more than the nuisance of running it in some other environment. With the much higher capacity hardware that’s suited to run Vista has with the older hardware that’s likely to be replaced (where those vertical or old apps they can’t afford to replace exist) then it becomes much more cost-efficient (and not only in cost of purchasing the software, if paid for with money) to run it in that fashion, if only as a transitional thing. When it comes to Windows, who would be better equipped than the OS vendor to make the most optimized virtual layer for older versions of its own OS? It’s not an exclusive-vendor application to virtualize, that’s true, but once again, it only needs to be better than the alternatives.
Virtualization is (mainly) for server consolidation, service isolation, maximizing resource utilization, and simplifying management/administration. If MS plans to use it to provide backwards compatibility, they missed the point. But more likely is that you missed the point.
It’s funny that you do an almost blanket statement here, and yet a lot of “Killer Apps” started out as applications that were considered more specialized to a subset of users and their expected uses. I’ll use a hardware example: as of 5 or more years ago, you couldn’t readily buy an SMP machine (more than one main CPU) at the regular store chains. You had to go out of your way. Now my home machine with two P3 processors isn’t very odd, compared to what’s available now, in terms of processor cores. Wait a minute, what’s that? Yes, that’s right, Virginia, a lot of people that don’t know the value of more than one core are now getting them in “ordinary” machines by default, for everyday use by mere mortals. Real or perceived needs change over time, for whatever reason, and things often get repurposed. If a new system has too low of backwards compatibility with old stuff that people can’t part with for whatever reason, but the new system provides some real or perceived benefit deemed worth the trouble, there’s the possibility that virtualization will get into the everyday use of mere mortals.
Try to be more open-minded and look back at history with your eyes open.
to put ‘killer app’ to bed?
Has there ever been any killer application since the spreadsheet convinced businesses that PCs weren’t toys?
time to retire that phrase, i think.
not really…
visicalc convinced business apple 2 a viable tool
photoshop convinced artists mac was a viable tool
powerpoint convinced business users pc was a viable tool
powerpoint convinced business users pc was a viable tool
Oh really? So you’re trying to say that those business users haven’t taken PC seriously up until 1990, when PowerPoint was finally ported to PC from Mac?
Shit, I wasn’t aware of that…
actually, no they didn’t.
up until powerpoint was easy to use in office 95, business suits always used overhead projectors and printed slides.
Powerpoint has been around for 15 years. Even if it were the last “killer ap”, that’s long enough ago to retire the phrase.
Could we all do the world a favor and quit using the phrase “killer app”?
1. Why are they asking “Where are the killer apps” for an OS that’s still in the beta stages?
2. Why would anyone expect that an OS in some mutation of beta stage would have a “killer app” already available?
RTFA – the issue isn’t availability but in terms of delivering, when Vista ships, Vista ‘optimised’ version of their said applications – there are many features in Windows Vista, but if the application vendors don’t write for them, they’re a waste of time and hard disk space.
Oh, and btw, you can write software for a beta operating system; may parts have been stable for quite some time; nothing stopping Adobe or Symantec from atleast getting a beta together of their applications.
RTFA – the issue isn’t availability but in terms of delivering, when Vista ships, Vista ‘optimised’ version of their said applications – there are many features in Windows Vista, but if the application vendors don’t write for them, they’re a waste of time and hard disk space.
Oh, and btw, you can write software for a beta operating system; may parts have been stable for quite some time; nothing stopping Adobe or Symantec from atleast getting a beta together of their applications.
Many Parts but not all have been stable… at least as far as the developers know at any given point. Here’s a funny real-life observation: development happens in such a way that even as late as the beta stage, API’s change either in having functions or data structures change in declaration, or in their semantics in how they actually work in real life.
So, which is more feasible and sane from the point of view of someone devoting resources to a product:
A. Put it out and promote it for all its worth (and possibly give competitors a heads-up) and have to worry about dealing with the weird bugs if the semantics change in an undesired manner or the rewrite and testing continually while the API changes, all costing money or
B. Keep mum about the details, and don’t announce it until it is available for people to test against a final “stable” API (I say “stable” because I’m looking at online documentation about behavior changes and API changes that has come with service packs, as part of security concerns)
Granted, a lot of people do A but if a developer is working on what they suspect is the next “Killer App” B makes more sense, and thus your argument doesn’t make sense. After all, Adobe and Symantec don’t define the universe outside of Microsoft for Windows applications.
Expect MS to use all their bought in software development groups to bring out Vista exclusive apps. Starting with Office, MS/partner developed games, Media Player/etc. It might be Blueray/HD-DVD/HDCP support but something will make people “need” to upgrade to Vista whether they really want to or not.
A lot of people moved to XP for it’s stability. Vista promises security and great functionality/looks, whether it will deliver is still uncertain. But given MS’s track record it won’t be long before people will have to upgrade before they can use program X or Y.
OK MS gave people a little bit of a break between 2k and XP but in many ways XP was not a huge leap from 2k and 2k wasn’t really supposed to be a Home OS. But Vista promises to open up another huge gap between MS OSes.
…installing Vista will be a major headache. I have a very good installation of XP + Linux that covers all my needs. Why should I install Vista? there is no real reason.
What don’t you want a nice serving of DRM?
–bornagainpenguin
More features= less ease of use, most the killer apps like word, excell, powerpoint etc over a period of time have gained a lot of features but the ease of use has been compromised or say ignored. Some of these apps look too sofistcated to use imho.
Wasn’t Halo 3 going to be IT?
I’d like to see if Adobe and Symantec have the balls to not develop for Vista, thereby eliminating probably at least 50% of their revenue.
That would be a *bright* decision.