Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Sep 2006 23:06 UTC
Microsoft Anti-malware company Symantec has accused Microsoft of withholding key information about its upcoming Vista OS, in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage in the security market. Symantec claimed this week that Microsoft is refusing to hand over the APIs for Windows Defender, its anti-spyware product which will be included in Vista. Without the APIs, Symantec claims that it isn't able to ensure that its own security products are compatible with Vista. Microsoft, though, insisted on Wednesday afternoon that the APIs are now available.
Thread beginning with comment 166267
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: anti competition
by Tom K on Thu 28th Sep 2006 00:32 UTC in reply to "anti competition"
Tom K
Member since:
2005-07-06

Um ...

It *IS* their operating system. Doesn't it stand to reason that Microsoft themselves would have a head-start on any and all development of system-level add-ons?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: anti competition
by ameasures on Thu 28th Sep 2006 10:25 in reply to "RE: anti competition"
ameasures Member since:
2006-01-09

Perhaps Microsoft are still altering the API as we type, or haven't gotten around to documenting it ... neither is without precedent or irony.

Microsofts success is based on the range of third party applications available. Witness the number of users who almost switch to Linux or BSD but cannot live without a particular application. So it is clearly in Microsoft interest to be open with their developers who also provide a convenient group of beta testers.

The facing up between Microsoft and Symantec is curious because they are both megabucks corporations and the rest of us get grandstand views of it. MS have a bad (legally proven) track record of skulduggery with anti virus stuff so this could get interesting.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: anti competition
by CowMan on Thu 28th Sep 2006 18:02 in reply to "RE[2]: anti competition"
CowMan Member since:
2006-09-26

One could better argue due to it's ubiquity; unlike the chicken/egg debate, we know which came first. Apps followed. Those apps, and of course - the 'microsoft tax', are what help maintain it's dominance.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: anti competition
by CowMan on Thu 28th Sep 2006 19:23 in reply to "RE[2]: anti competition"
CowMan Member since:
2006-09-26

One could better argue due to it's ubiquity; unlike the chicken/egg debate, we know which came first. Apps followed. Those apps, and of course - the 'microsoft tax', are what help maintain it's dominance.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: anti competition
by Darkelve on Thu 28th Sep 2006 11:59 in reply to "RE: anti competition"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

"Um ...

It *IS* their operating system. Doesn't it stand to reason that Microsoft themselves would have a head-start on any and all development of system-level add-ons?"

The Samba team doesn't seem to think so... :o)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: anti competition
by Tom K on Thu 28th Sep 2006 17:26 in reply to "RE[2]: anti competition"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

And how long has it taken the Samba team to get to where they are?

Durrrrr.

Reply Parent Score: -1