RSSMicrosoft Security Pricing Irks Partners
By Nate Mook | Published June 20, 2006, 7:32 PM
When Microsoft first hinted that it would enter the security software market three years ago, the company's partners began to worry behind closed doors about the implications. With Microsoft's security push now in full swing, the doors have opened and once bedfellows have turned adversaries.
Apprehension began to surface after Microsoft purchased GeCAD Software in June 2003, acquiring the company's RAV antivirus technology. In August of that year, Microsoft launched its PC Satisfaction trial, which would later morph into Windows Live OneCare.
A Microsoft partner told BetaNews at the time that the Redmond company was asking a number of questions regarding the design of antivirus software before PC Satisfaction made its debut. Grumbling was heard throughout the industry, but politics kept the complaints under wraps.
2004 brought the acquisition of GIANT Software and its anti-spyware utility, now free and branded Windows Defender. Microsoft shored up its enterprise security offerings last year by purchasing Sybari Software and its Antigen line of security products. Microsoft recently rolled out updates to Antigen and a lower pricing structure.
Security was also the central focus of Microsoft's TechEd conference in Boston this month. The company unveiled a new security software brand called "Forefront," comprised of its Antigen product line and Microsoft Client Protection -- essentially an enterprise version of Windows Live OneCare.
Windows Vista, meanwhile, will have built-in malware and spyware protection through Windows Defender, along with a beefed up firewall. The new efforts may be good news for Microsoft customers, but the company's partners are seeing an already-competitive market being invaded by the 800-pound gorilla.
"It’s bad enough that Microsoft is getting in to all aspects of security. But now they are going to kill their competition through predatory pricing," explained Sunbelt Software CEO Alex Eckelberry in a blog posting on Tuesday. Sunbelt makes a number of security solutions for both enterprise and consumer customers. The company also recently acquired the popular Kerio Personal Firewall utility.
Eckelberry notes that Microsoft has priced its products 50 percent below the security market leaders like McAfee and Symantec. Predatory pricing occurs when a dominant firm sells its products at a loss to drive competitors out of business, and is then able to raise prices beyond standard market rates.
"Alex contends--and I would agree--'that Microsoft is endangering the entire security ecosystem,'" commented Jupiter Research senior analyst and Microsoft pundit Joe Wilcox. "No question: Microsoft is competing with its security software partners, and the company is doing so through aggressive pricing."
"OneCare costs $49.95 for three PCs, an average of $16.65 per machine," Eckelberry says, noting that the software is selling on Amazon.com for $19.95. "Let’s look at their price, versus the market leaders: Symantec and McAfee. Both of these companies have AV products that retail for $39.99. But they also have three-user offerings, at $69.99 (McAfee) and $89.99 (Symantec)."
When it comes to Antigen for Exchange, "Microsoft has priced themselves over 60% less than Symantec, an astonishing difference in price," added Eckelberry. "Microsoft has effectively low-balled the entire antivirus industry in one fell swoop. And their product includes five antivirus engines, not just one."
Microsoft disagrees with Eckelberry's assessment, claiming that "with such a large segment going unprotected," the security market "is full of opportunity for all security vendors to play a role in customer security."
"We believe that Windows Live OneCare and Microsoft Antigen products provide a good value to customers and that all firms should compete to provide good value. Our customers have made it clear that malicious software and other Internet threats represent a major problem and they want Microsoft to deliver effective solutions," a Microsoft spokesperson told BetaNews.
Last October, Microsoft acknowledged to BetaNews that it has "knowledge and an understanding of the capabilities of the operating system" that its partners may not have, but said it would not hide this information from those companies.
"Microsoft believes that customers want the freedom to choose the security solutions that work best for them," the company reiterated Tuesday.
But Eckelberry, whose company is a Gold Partner and does business with Microsoft, takes issue with the recent strategic decisions that endanger third-party developers. "It’s one thing that Microsoft has destroyed competition in browsers, languages, word processors, spreadsheets, presentation packages, and all the rest," he says. "But it’s another thing to kill competition in the security space."
For now, however, the industry appears to be gearing up for tough competition ahead. McAfee on Friday began beta testing new security suites based on its "Falcon" platform, which will compete with Windows Live OneCare. Symantec is working on a similar all-in-one solution known as "Genesis," but has not set a timeframe for release or pricing.
Whether or not Microsoft can be successful in efforts to dominate the market remains to be seen, but Eckelberry says security vendors should not rest on their laurels. "In a world where Microsoft has a hegemony on security, the implications may be far reaching, possibly to our own national security."
McAfee and Symantec had not returned requests for comment as of press time.
I can't believe this crap, this is stupid. Ultimately, it comes down to the consumers, not Microsoft. Many people like myself have tried EVERYTHING, where some products work, and some don't, and the ones that do work do it quite well.
I am Canadian, and i have tried Everything, i even beta tested Windows Live OneCare. I've also worked with ZoneAlarm, McAfee, Norton, and now CA's Antivirus.
To me, Microsoft is heading in the right direction now. Sure, they might have "dominance" in everything - but, one might ask why. Cause most, if not all of their products work "Seemlessly" together. I wasn't a Fan of IE 6 because of security issues, but now i use IE 7 beta 2, and i couldn't be happier.
Honestly, like i said, when it comes to security, i've tried everything. And, i LOVE the microsoft way. The SP2 firewall does a great job (You'd be surprised), Defender is GREAT (It even picks up stuff McAfee has missed when i used it), and OneCare? Well, let's just say that it also has picked up stuff for me that other's missed.
So, come on guys. If you wanna compete with microsoft, beef it up a little bit, and stop complaining that "Microsoft has a stranglehold on the market"
I wonder why
Score: 0
|These competing companies *COULD* just lower their prices and stop over-charging us and compete in a fair market rather than whining and crying...
Score: 0
|You know, people complain left and right that MS products are unsecure. Yet when they take the steps to protect their customers, they all whine that MS is trying to take over the world, or push other people out.
Sheesh, give me a break and complain about something worth while. Like how many children are murdered each day through abortion. Or how many people are forced to live on the street, homeless and hungry.
If you really dislike MS that much, then stop using their products, stop whining about them. Instead start showing people why the alternatives are better. It is so easy to condemn something, show that there is a group of dedicated people out there that really can provide a better alternative and then you'll have something.
Just saying something is bad is useless. Show me something better and why it's better and people will buy it.
Score: 0
|Amen to that, and it been said million time here.
But you have to understand most who complaint are fanboys of other products. It's like how Mac's fanboy think their OS X is perfect and invulnerable. OS X only released 6 reversion so far, and a 7th one due in a few months.
Score: 0
|You know what's interesting though?
Everyone is different, and everyone complains about something.
There's no way to eliminate that, it's part of the human factor.
"You know, people complain left and right that MS products are unsecure. Yet when they take the steps to protect their customers, they all whine that MS is trying to take over the world, or push other people out."
Sure, they were insecure for years and they still are to a much smaller degree. The steps they are taking are noble, I'm all for them building anti-virus and other security features into their OS.
In my opinion, symantec and mcafee shouldn't have needed to exist in the first place. Their business models should have factored this in, and they should be prepared for a future where computers are actually secure.
It's about d$#n time too.
:-D
Score: 0
|Let them fight like angry dogs. We can use FREE anti-virus, firewalls and utilities instead. Some of those software programs are here on the BetaNews site.
Don't waste your money on Symantec or McAfee. You don't really need Micro$uck's One Care or their WGA hassles trying to install it either...
Score: 0
|If Microsoft is Micro$uck to you, why are you still using Windows?
Score: 0
|Its no secret that Microsoft has a wold domination attitude towards everything. They always have... Even their Reps jokingly admit it. That's been the issue from the beginning even back in the old Netscape days. Big surprise? Not really... Everyone was expecting this, and I fully expect this is the reason Symantec and Mcafee have been increasing their price while they could for their antivirus packages. cause they know with vista coming on the market its going to be a hard sell to get people to pay the current prices for antivirus. Heck the best engines on the market are under $30 and often offer a free year of subscription on top of that. And they work cross Workstations (XP home and pro) And even Server (2000, 2003) platforms in the same package... Namely CA Antivirus and / or AVG from GriSoft; there are plenty of FREE ones too. So MS is just causing an Antivirus market correction in my opinion.
Now if you've read my posts in the past you know I'm not a fan of MS in all things, and not a fan of vista as it stands Right now today. But this one aspect of the OS was something that was needed. Too many people still even in this day and age leave their system completely open to all kinds of security problems. MS is just protecting its market share by integrating it into their OS. If Symantec is expected to survive it will have no choice but to come into line with the Microsoft pricing structure and offer a competitive service again.
This will easily be done when Symantec learns that all the client wants and needs is the Antivirus engine and signatures, not all the other needless crap that comes with the recent releases that 90% of people disable anyway cause it eats up resources like candy...
In the long run I think this will be a good move for the CONSUMERS first and foremost. and that dear friends is how MS Ice's the cake... Kinda sucks for their partners yes, but its really good for the Customers.
Ingram...
Score: 0
|For years I used Norton Internet Security and paid hefty prices for renewal subscriptions, that is, until last month when I discovered Comod Group.com
Comodo Group offers full featured AntiVirus and Personal Firewall and a host of other free products. These products are NOT the stripe down versions that you find with Zone Alarm, AVG, etc. Once you register for these products, there is never any yearly renewal fees or license fees ever.
PC Mag.com recently gave Comodo Personal Firewall the highest rating that a product can attain. To quote PC Mag., "It is a kick-ass product!"
I use all things FREE, including Windows Defender AntiSpyware and, for home pc dial-up user, the suite of applications that Comodo Group offers absolutely free-of-charge, is the perfect companion.
In terms of Windows Live, I have no intention of getting involved in any of that crap. It's a money gimic and nothing more.
Score: 0
|Isn’t it obvious?
The point is that Microsoft owns the OS. They can make all the changes they want so that the new security products work perfectly. Business is business and although seems unfair for the “partner companies”, Microsoft has a point, it’s a free market.
That’s why statements like: "the security market is full of opportunity for all security vendors to play a role in customer security" or "Microsoft believes that customers want the freedom to choose the security solutions that work best for them" sound like a joke knowing the fact that they control 90% of the market or maybe more and they can decide which third party application application will be supported.
Score: 0
|Gee, I wonder how many security flaws will be found in these products. If Windows was designed right in the first place none of this would have been an issue, but unfortunately we have to endure the short comings of a software manufacturer that releases software that isn't 100% bug free. Unfortunately most other manufactures followed suite and now we endure these badly written programs. To top it of we then pay for this cr*p which we then test and find their bugs for them and then pay more again for the fixes which they call a new version.
Seriously Microsoft fix what you already have and leave security to someone else as you have proved time and time again that you cant get anything right.
Get your WGA of my machine
Score: 0
|Competition. Bring it on!
Score: 0
|Poor Symantec and McAfee. Both build poor products and now there's a large player in town that will aggressively push solutions and charge customers less. How terrible for them.
I've tested and/or implemented both McAfee and Symantec AV "security" products in a corporate setting and find McAfee's offerings hopeless and Symantec's, while it does actually work, to be poorly architected, clumsy, bloated, slow and unnecessarily resource intensive. I welcome MS' entry intot his market - now perhaps it will be done RIGHT.
Score: 0
|Blah blah blah......whine whine whine.....
Get a job.
Nobody complaining would even have a company if it weren't for Microsoft Windows.
Dorks.
Score: 0
|"Microsoft is competing with its security software partners"
No - got that wrong - the one time partners are now become prey.
Competing? No, just feeding...
Did they honestly think if they shared they would get anything
in return? A.K.A. if you give the school bully your lunch one day
don't expect you won't be asked again. Next time it may be your
shoes. Or worse. Another set of lawsuits are certainly in the making.
Score: 0
|EU intervention imminent! I'm sure Adobe, Symantec, Sun, and Mozilla have already gone to the EU guys and another anti-Microsoft conspiracy is underway !
OK, not really :) Is this a Windows 98/IE lawsuit repeat? Not really, as OneCare is not free. However, I know Zonealarm had my business for a long time up till the time SP2 came out, so I know that this is hurting them. Lavasoft Ad-aware has moved from the #1 download at download.com to the #2 spot, something that hasn't happened in over three years.
Is Microsoft hurting the competition? Yes, clearly they are taking market share from firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware vendors. No question in my mind. Now--are they doing anything ILLEGAL to take away the market share or are they just running a good business? Harder to answer that question (at least TRUTHFULLY anyway).
Score: 0
|And is it really a bad thing? Competition is great. And if Microsoft is pushing that to the next level, then that's fine by me.
I like onecare as it's $50 for 3 computers - hard to beat that. and it's easy to use and keep current. Ever try to renew symantec or mcafee? PITA!
Score: 0
|The choice of AV and firewall is largely governed by the same forces that govern just about every other product: What it's worth is to the user. Most users (myself included) are satisfied if they can operate their computers from day to day without ever being affected by malicious invaders. If something does slip by, then I am both startled and gratified by a notice that detection has occurred and a solution is available.
The hard core programmers (and wannabes), as well as those users who routinely venture into the netherlands of seedy websites and software are the most vocal and judgmental about current solutions, and always seem to have a better way of doing things. Some of these same highly vocal people have been shown to abet or directly commit acts of vandalism. In a way they are the most maniacal of all hackers.
I welcome those who hold the commercial vendors' feet to the fire because it helps keep the Microsofts, Symantecs and McAfees from becoming complacent. It's the same philosophy as being only somewhat annoyed by the extreme tree huggers that want no industry at all because their presence helps keep the light shining on the corporations that might otherwise recklessly abuse the environment. By the same token, those groups are infamous for committing acts of sabotage that cause personal and property damage. Their white hats often turn black for want of notoriety.
In no way am I seeking a “civil” discourse, because as the saying goes, “Nice guys finish last.” I even enjoy the comedy when asses clearly expose themselves through their insanely jealous rants. Keep it up, guys, it is good for us all. But, if you intentionally do us grave harm in the process, may you and your family be shown no mercy. The infamous hammer to the head of that Russian mass spammer is just revenge in such instances.
Score: 0
|Sunbelts comments are rediculous.
I have the 3 computer version of Mcafee and I didn't pay a cent more for it than I did for Live Care.
$19.95 after rebate. so they are priced the same..and i got more for the $19.95 for LiveCare than I did for Mcafee.
Score: 0
|So competitive pricing is bad now you say? thats news to me, especially when they run on a windows os, i mean isnt it their own right to make products that complement and/or work more efficiently with another of their own products?
Score: 0
|Symantec and McAfee deserve this. Years ago, they used to be good products, and now, they are just expensive, inefficient and slow down your system.
I don't know why they are complaining, they are pre-install on most machines sold currently. If they have a great product, they shouldn't have to worry about it. Great products will win customer loyalty.
Score: 0
|Concerning Defender:
What these companies fail to realize is that they wouldn't *Exist* without Microsoft. These products and companies sprang up to address issues with the Operating System. Now Microsoft is attempting to address those issues on it's own.
The *only* folks these companies have to blame are themselves for building their companies on a parasite technology...*totally* dependant on Microsoft's "good enough" philosophy, and their Operating systems lack of the features they provide. That philosophy seems to be changing, Microsoft is now providing these features, and now their companies are threatened.
I got one thing to say to 'em:
Duh!?!?
As for the AV product:
Predatory pricing my ass. There are plenty of *free* alternatives and *cheaper* alternatives. If they actually have the nads to take this to court, they're gonna do more damage to themselves than Microsoft ever could.
Score: 0
|"What these companies fail to realize is that they wouldn't *Exist* without Microsoft."
True, as there would be almost no viruses. :-P
Score: 0
|I knew you'd like that one. ;)
Score: 0
|well played old chap, well played...
Score: 0
|"What these companies fail to realize is that they wouldn't *Exist* without Microsoft."
works the other way too
without support over the years from other companies, MS wouldn't exist either
Score: 0
|That's true. In fact, that is the reason that I believe Microsoft can be left alone by the government on the issue of being a monopoly--if Microsoft becomes the power-hungry evil genius villians that so many bloggers make them out to be, Symantec, Sun, Adobe, Mozilla, McAfee, Lavasoft, Novell, Apple, Real, and all those other vendors will organise a boycott, and refuse to support their software altogether. That will fix Microsoft way better than the measly fines the EU can dish out.
Score: 0
|...
Symantec and McAfee are overpriced and of
questionable efficacy.
Your fav rodent has some real doubts about any
Microsoft AV, but it will at least introduce some
price competition.
The ultimate competitor, however, is AVG Free !
...
The Computer Rodent
...
Score: 0
|I have to admit that I agree with Rat this time.
The Anti-virus market has seen a steady increase of their pricing over the past 2-4 years, for questionable increases in protection and definite increases in bloat.
I also agree that I would be skeptical of any anti-virus from any company that’s fresh on the anti-virus / anti-spyware scene, this includes Microsoft.
Score: 0
|AVG finished third in a recent heads up free antivirus test through av-test.org. They scored a 66 out of 125. Antivir scored a 94.
I had a simple Word macro virus that came out in 1999 that AVG did not detect.
Score: 0
|Actually I was going to make a point that real undercutters are the folks that offer their software free like AVG for instance. But what it really boils down to is marketing. AVG has a hard time getting to the typical consumer without having someone knowlegeable suggest it to them.
Folks like Microsoft are able to market this security suite with better results. They have the finances. For instance, parallel to Alex's comments you can see where he's coming from. Xbox was a daunting blow to Microsoft as they lost millions trying to establish Xbox as a console heavyweight. With Windows Defender and OneCare, they may be using a similar tactic.
Score: 0
|Okay, but test results on AVG Pro resulted in "Standard" Certification Level on both tests. That's pretty average for a Pro version.
Score: 0
|HA HA Security firms....
Just like every other business MS invades, its time for another to fall.
Oh well, too bad, I really think Symantec makes great products (yeah right), and McAfee is awesome as well (cough). Time to show the world a real antivirus product, just like IE showed a real browser, MS Word showed a real word processor, Outlook showed real email, .NET showed a real language, well you get my point.
I won't be crying without Symantec, especially for charging year after year for the same slow, CPU intensive, crappy software.
Score: 0
|Someone else complaining about something Microsoft did.
Huh...
Imagine that.
Score: 0
|How can Symantec complain most new PCs come with a free trial preinstalled along with all the other crap venders decide to put on there which is why the first thing i do is format the hard drive when i get it home.
Fortunatly Shaw internet comes with F-Secure suit for free and i'm very happy with it.
Score: 0
|I tried it, it sucks. Enough said, who knows if its even working. When I tried it it did nothing, the scan took a very long time, it didn't communicate at all. Yeah it did pop up some message once in awhile. But the only real thing it did was tell me windows defender wasn't installed.
Sad they can't even buy other products and launch them correctly. They should just give it away for free and tie it to the browser. That is really the only thing they are good at. Then all the other companies can go out of business and there won't be any question, they are the best.
They own the personal computer, even if they are not the best. It's called strongarm tactics. The have as much money as probably 50 percent of the other software makers combined with that you can do whatever you want, even be held above the law.
Score: 0
|with that you can do whatever you want, even be held above the law
I'm fairly certain that the EU, along with the U.S. government, would disagree with that statement.
Score: 0
|or maybe you failed to install it correctly, or failed to entirely remove all other anti-virus products and possibly things with passive scanning, dont dismiss it without trying to figure out why it didnt work, you know besides that it is still in beta....
Score: 0
|http://www.agnitum.com/p...s/outpostfree/index.php
http://free.grisoft.com/
http://cityofrain.com/ (look for software tools - all free)
Score: 0
|They price something cheaper, and everyone moans... I don't get it.
To be frank, every product they are offering is available via freeware now, and not only freeware, good freeware. For businesses, I might look at this as a locksmith selling me a security guard. If Microsoft can't fix the holes via the first product you pay them for, why pay them twice?
Look, if you think an OS should be secure, without excuse, then you have to think that antivirus, et al, are all effectively a patch. Right?
Score: 0
|I've always been a hardcore Microsoft fan and I an truly excited about their upcoming Security Products. I used to have McAFee, but that ended up ruining the computer I used to have, I've never had a serious problem with any of Microsofts products.
Score: 0
|Yeah ok mr hardcore ms fan, I seriously doubt mcafee ruined your computer. By ruin do you mean hosed the os, or physically harmed the computer? I assume hosed the os, now obviousl it didn't do this to very many computers or they would of had some serious issues. So while your paying MS twice now, one for the os itself and again for their security suite now. Well its people like you that makes Ms do what they do. That is steal or buy someone else's stuff brand it as their own and call it a day.
Sad isn't it when this company has some of the brightest minds out there making a lot of money. But like they say, work smarter not harder. If they were smart they would of bought mcafee or symantec and just let them be their own LLC.
Score: 0
|If they were smart they would of bought mcafee or symantec and just let them be their own LLC.
*gasps*
You can't be serious. Perish the thought.
Score: 0
|No, McAfee and Norton security software has a very real reputation for "ruining your computer" in the eyes of consumers. Any damage to the operation of the system is considered "ruined" by your average person, who just wants their PC to work. Typically, an install of one of these bloated, ineffective security suites results in a significantly slower and far less useful PC. Often, you're better off with the virus than with the security suite. :P
Score: 0
|i take it you have never tried removing mcafee or symantecs products then? or had i virus, that although they should be smart enough to prevent tampering with their av software, that corrupted norton or mcafee av's function?
Score: 0
|... or maybe Av wasnt up to date and something got loose - and trashed the OS. Not unlikely. For those folks that complain - I've used both McAfee and NAV since they came out with little or no problem. If a scan is running I go get a
coffee. Geez,you got a few Ghz of speed there, how much time are you going to save trying to do work while something crucial is going on. Sort of like really,really needing to have a smoke because you're stressing out over your asthma...
(brought on by looking at the cost of buying and supporting Vista, no doubt.)
Score: 0
|I agree that it seems like a bunch of whining...and yes, that's half true. However, they do bring up some interesting points and fair competition is never a bad thing. I think Microsoft is doing a good job by stepping into the security market and as long as they play their cards correctly and are political with their decisions, their support can only help in the on-going malware/spyware/adware/virii/worm/etc battle.
Score: 0
|"...It’s bad enough that Microsoft is getting in to all aspects of security. But now they are going to kill their competition through predatory pricing," explained Sunbelt Software CEO Alex Eckelberry..."
Funny coming from Eckelberry, when his company is offering their pc firewall at a far-below market value $14.95.
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/Kerio.cfm
Score: 0
|Kerio's firewall doesn't have enough technology put into it to go above $15. For one it has a content filter/script blocker. Whoopy sh!t? And it blocks ads...the fact is that you're paying $15 for a group of features you can grab free with better quality. On the other hand, Outpost is at $50+ Because you're seeing extensible plugins, antispyware built in, and a better interface. Sunbelt isn't undercutting anything, they just know what they have isn't enough to warrant a higher price tag. Hell, I debate paying $15 for what Kerio offers, it's better for me having the features run out and use it for free.
There's a difference between undercutting competition who offers the same features, and undercutting competition because your features aren't enough.
Score: 0
|Outpost is US $39.95, the same price Kerio used to be. However, I do agree Kerio is not in the same league as Outpost.
Score: 0
|Yeah, whoops I was just throwing that price out there. But I did forget that Kerio has HIPS, but then again I don't think the hips are sophisticated enough to warrant consideration.
Personally, Kerio makes a very solid free firewall, I just don't blame Sunbelt for the low price considering the technology is roughly a year old and should be due for a much needed Sunbelt-interface-and-technology-update.
Score: 0
|Certainly I'm not complaining about the low price of Kerio fw either and nor did I ever see it as price undercutting by Sunbelt. It just seems odd that Alex E and company would offer it so far below the typical price of a "full" version fw. I trialed Kerio a couple months ago and quite liked it, but it needs some work to compete with the likes of Outpost, ZA Pro and Look 'n Stop.
Score: 0
|Seems like a bunch of whining by companies that don't want to have any serious competition. People talk about how horrible MS products are, and then complain about how MS gives it away for free making it anticompetitive. I'm sorry but free crap is still crap. If these companies made decent products, they wouldn't have to worry about free alternatives.
...Microsoft has destroyed competition in browsers, languages, word processors, spreadsheets, presentation packages, and all the rest...
Really? They were bundling Office for free at some point, or is he trying to say that Office is predatorily priced around $400.
In a world where Microsoft has a hegemony on security, the implications may be far reaching, possibly to our own national security.
Ack, the sky is falling!!
Score: 0
|"In a world where Microsoft has a hegemony on security, the implications may be far reaching, possibly to our own national security.
Ack, the sky is falling!!"
Actually, that would be very bad. All it takes is finding an exploit, and then finding a way around OneCare, and poof, you'll probably have nailed half the Vista installs out there. Having dozens of antivirus or firewall providers ensures that things won't get by all of them.
Score: 0
|Symantec and McAfee deserve all they get. They peddle overpriced bloatware that does nothing but bring your system to a crawl. There are plenty of FAR BETTER free alternatives and NOD32, which is dirt cheap, beats them hands down for effectiveness and being lightweight.
Score: 0
|Agree. Microsoft is making a good product, and is trying to force the prices down. Who wins here, the consumers. You and me.
Score: 0
|Microsoft Client Protection
We'll be looking into this seriously end of year. I'm not too happy with trend micro right now, it's not installing on Exchange to my satisfaction, and I don't have the time and patience to continually reinstall it as their support people want me to do.
Score: 0
|Actually, it's not me whining about underpriced products. I compete with free and inexpensive products all the time, and in fact, I have a free firewall myself that I give away. The point is not price -- the point is predatory pricing -- where a large manufacturer like Microsoft comes into a market and undercuts the incumbents. Perhaps some may think it's nothing to be concerned about, and perhaps they are right. One might, however, propose that the security industry should be a vibrant, diverse one; and that the business should not be dominated by one vendor who can be taken down by attack; and to whom the majority of the community relies upon. If Microsoft wants to compete fairly, I have absolutely _no_ problem with that. But if they want to undercut the market, it makes things a bit different.
Note that I agree with many of your comments that many of the major security companies have been peddling bloatware on the consumer and good competition for them would be deserved. It's just the massive undercutting that's disturbing.
Alex Eckelberry
Score: 0
|One thing that must be buggin' the hell out of you Alex is the fact Microsoft is offering Windows Defender (Previous a technology based on Giant Software that you get your Counterspy signatures from) for FREE! So in actuality I see how a security exec like yourself would be worried.
But as a consumer it's hard for me to juggle sympathy and outrage at the price of security software these days. For one I think companies like Symantec and Mcafee make a fortune off their software. Not just through their yearly subscription fees, but through expensive phone support because the software screwed up customer machines, etc.
Microsoft can undercut all they want, I think Mcafee and Symantec need a swift kick in the gonads to come realization that they don't own our machines, and that even the typical grammy, brother, sister have real competitive choices. I just firmly believe the security market has room for 3 big security contenders, and that while Microsoft is showing off it's gun, it wont replace Mcafee and Symantec anytime soon. it's just merely fun watching them scrambling like the expensive, ruthless tards they are. VIVA LA REVOLUCION~!!
But to be fair Alex, I just want to say 'you're the man' and I read your blog all too often. :-D. Sorry if my comments seem one sided, i'm just blowing off steam.
PS: Kerio rulez/Counterspy badass
Score: 0
|or is it just competetive pricing. or maybe look at it as a bundled price, seeing as you need windows to run it....
Score: 0
|Just remember, "Friends don't let friends use Norton". ;)
Score: 0
|