In recent months, Microsoft has purchased numerous security companies. Is this a sign that Microsoft has decided to try and secure its Operating Systems from out side threats? Or just trying to increase its revenue through an ever growing portfolio of products?
Microsoft did not buy small spyware/AV companies for any massive revenue increase.
Nor did Microsoft buy these bandaids to secure the OS. You cannot cure security cancer with bandaids.
This leaves another reason. The purchase of these products gives Microsoft a full stack again, from end-to-end over “security”. Microsoft will set the rules on what is secure, what is a virus, what is spyware, etc.
Expect these “id” functions to be built into the OS at some point. Thus Microsoft will again become “the one source of truth” regarding the OS.
The more astute readers know what will happen from this. Similar to when Microsoft wanted to buy the world’s largest *spyware* maker, Claria, Microsoft changed the definition of what was spyware so Claria’s stuff passed the spyware scanner whereas it used to be caught.
You will have a Windows PC and Microsoft will be the sole company who can tell you if it is secure or not. It is this control that Microsoft is after.
How frightened you are by this situation depends on how long you’ve used Microsoft products and how much you know of the company’s history.
Yeah, I agree with you. They are doing this to “set the truth” to their standard. To be honest it’s wrong, but what are ya gonna do. Me. Personally I use SlackWare Linux, and FreeBSD, so I don’t have to worry about it. But I have friends who use WinDoze and swear by it. I’ll be passing a link to this on to them. Thanks for the inforamative coment.
—
Jed
your windows friends won’t get it … but try….
*cough* BULLSHIT *cough*
Anti-spyware beta still says Claria is spam on my computer. Way to feed that FUD machine though.
*cough* Microsoft shill *cough*
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,1836149,00.asp
There are MANY references to what Microsoft did regarding Claria.
And it is no secret Microsoft was in negotiation to BUY the LAGREST SPYWARE COMPANY IN THE WORLD.
Most people can figure this out. No matter what sort of flimy shill Microsoft has working the thread.
but they wont add or improve what they purchased outside of putting a nice GUI infront of it if need be.
A lot of people seem to believe that aquiring a company automatically means that Microsoft is going to integrate their technology or make their software more secure.
Aquiring a company is a long way off utilising the technology or expertise that that company has. A lot of peple at Microsoft seem to have heard the word security come down from on high and their trying to respond to it. That response doesn’t seem to be terribly co-ordinated at all, simply because I don’t think Microsoft realises what they have to actually do.
There is no real sign that they are working hard internally on there system. So far they are gathering exterior resources.
It just proves what i have always said … the only good ideas that come from Microsoft are either stolen or bought. MS has owned RAV Antivirus for over 2yrs now and it is not even considered to be in the top 3 Window’s AV’s.
Just because they buy something doesn’t mean it’s going to work properly or set any security standards. The last company i would want handling my security would be Microsoft for sure.
Windows One Care, which includes anti-virus software, just went into beta 1 a couple of days ago.
These purchases are simply bandaids to cover the mess that Windows is. Eventually Microsoft will “bundle” these products into Windows for “free” claiming, as they did with Internet Explorer, that these “features” are an intregal part of Windows and can not be separated from the operating system.
This will affect all other companies currently involved with these types of products and further reduce consumer choice.
Such is the result of supporting a monopoly with your hard earned cash.
Just because a company is buying out another doesn’t mean they want to control your desktop and security.
As for Microsoft of course they will leverage of the technology. However, they have also more money for further development and improvements of the products.
After all, this is business. You rather buy somebody out, than developing it yourself. This is not just Microsoft. Apple does it as well as other companies outside the IT world.
We made Microsoft they way they are. Not because we didn’t have a choice, but because we wanted them too. We all know Microsoft is a monopoly but it is rapidly starting to change.
What is everybody afraid off? That Microsoft snoops around your word documents? Or that they might see you run stolen software? Please!!!!!!
What does everybody have to hide to be so extremely paranoid about? In my opinion, Microsoft did a great job contribution to the computer world, so have other companies. I’m thankful for that.
Microsoft is starting to see the pressure from OpenSource companies and Apple. I think thats fantastic. This hopefully means, we’ll see improved and stable products from Microsoft so my job gets easier to earn a living. Having said that, I’m running OSX. My house is Microsoft clean and so is my family members house.
Microsoft made themselves a monopoly and this was achieved mainly through illegal and unethical business practices.
Most people would rather have a choice vs. using products from a company that has cost the world trillions of dollars in lost productivity.
If Microsoft had not designed Windows to be insecure (for Microsoft’s own purposes), there would not be so many security problems with Windows.
As the security problems got out of Microsoft’s control, Microsoft is now building in their own security software so that the appearance of the problem being solved — or at least worked on — has been achieved.
Once this appearance is put in place, then Microsoft can go back to leveraging their number one asset. This asset is complete control of 95%+ of the world’s desktops. Microsoft will decide what is secure, what is spyware, what is legal software, what is a secure document, what is a “trusted” source, etc.
Microsoft will achieve an iron grip over your entire information infrastructure with an enormous switching cost that will prevent you from ever leaving Microsoft.
Only the most naive believe that power does not corrupt. And Microsoft has near complete power over the world’s personal computers. The conclusion is obvious for those willing to accept it.
“Microsoft will achieve an iron grip over your entire information infrastructure with an enormous switching cost that will prevent you from ever leaving Microsoft. ”
But so does Apple and other companies. Thats securing reoccurring revenue. Thats what I do with my clients in order to secure my monthly income. Just on a very small scale. Thats the nature of growing a business. Why can’t you download Music for your Ipod from other websites? Right now the Ipod is a very cool toy. Could you imagene if Apple would have 95% of the worlds market? People would start complaining how controlling Apple is. Apple might be trying to tell you this is to ensure a better computer experience. But you and me know thats not the only reason. I think you have a better choice on PC. Microsoft is just controlling the OS. My opinion is; the grass is always more green on the other side of the lawn. And we will always complain about the company thats currently controlling this or that.
if you suggest compliance to whoever rules, then most countries will suit you fine, and there, you wont get a choice, so please, let us complain about being dictated anything, cause it’s more than cool to be able to. And you are not obliged to read.
I’m not saying it is right for a company doing it. However, in the business world everybody looks out for themself. As I said earlier CHOICE IS GOOD FOR COMPETITION . This will force companies to develop better and stable products. But companies will always try to lock the customer in, in some way or another. I think it is getting very tiresome to see the same news about Microsoft. We all know they are doing it but we neglect to look at other companies doing exactly the same thing. Anyway, this is just my opinion and I value everybody elses.
I agree with most of what you are saying. What concerns a computer user is really dependent on what you do with the machine and where you are coming from.
For business users, what I’ve talked about is important. When one company has complete control over your information infrastucture, you know prices will be high, functionality will be limited, and you will be stuck.
For entertainment users, then your point about the iPod is completely valid. We find prices are high, functionality is limited, and the iTunes user is stuck. I don’t own an iPod for two reasons. One, I don’t like iTunes and would never pay a cent for low quality DRM music. And two, many iPods were made with low quality output sections, so the sound quality is mediocre. I believe the latest players, including the Shuffle, have made improvements to the output circuitry.
I do look at Apple today as a mini-Microsoft. Apple is not any sort of example I use for how a better world could be created. Apple is arrogant and abrasive for the most part — and often pettier than Microsoft in their tyranny. While I appreciate the choice that Apple offers in OS X, I would be far happier if it came from another company.
For a more open computing environment to be created, it will take cooperation the likes of which we have not seen. Maybe the spectre of an all-powerful Microsoft will help the rest of the computer companies cooperate. Or maybe it won’t.
When I look at the future of computing, I am hopeful that something will arise out of Linux/*BSD other than innumerable distros from people not working together.
It will not be something linear or predictable, but rather something chaotic. Something truly new will emerge out of the noise and the world will be changed.
I think you brought up a very good point. A perfect example is the different distros not working together. Using different packages. Isn’t this Kind of a lock in? Where is the choice in using a different package from a different distro?
Actually, that is incorrect, as history and common sense have proven, only the naive believe power corrupts. It is the exact same naive people who believe guns kill people, not people kill people …..
I think that is a different group of “naive” people.
You can look at the founders/framers of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and government as an example.
The framers believed in the right of the people to own and bear firearms. They did not believe that guns killed people — that sort of belief is the hallmark of the brain damaged “politically correct” liberals of today’s world.
Yet at the same time, the government was divided into seperate branches and a system of checks and balances was created so that no one branch achived absolute power. For the framers knew quite well the end results of absolute power.
There are countless other examples from history regarding how power corrupts people.
Fortunately for those who lived before us, they were spared the mind-numbing retardation of today’s PC world. The people of today are for the most part, not capable of thinking. The mindless parotting of information from the television or from public school is what passes for thinking today.
Yesh, you’re right, people kill people *with* guns, which make the job of killing supremely easy. I mean, so do poisons, large vehicles, etc. but few things are as simple or effective as a high-powered gun at close range. Now THAT, dear sir or madame, is power: cold and direct.
On the other hand, the framers entrusted the People with this power so that they could defend themselves from each other and/or an oppressive government — “well-regulated militia” and all that. Thus power, even absolute, when distributed does not necessarily corrupt, though “mob rule” has occurred. Also, there is such a thing as a “trust”, which is essentially a shared monopoly.
Point is, people (and companies, which are natural people under the law) have always had the power in this, and they are finally exerting it. They AREN’T going to move to WinVista en masse for the same reasons they didn’t move to WinXP very quickly. Win2k and 98 were good enough and they didn’t want to pay to upgrade software and (in some cases) hardware. People are also actually switching: Macs are cool again on the desktop, Linux, Solaris, and BSD get love in the server room. Let’s not even talk about how many poeple AREN’T using Office 2003 and how those who are WON’T move to Office 12 anytime soon. Microsoft is actually in a bind over WinVista and Longhorn Server now, and must actually compete for the first time in a LONG time. This is why key tech is being backported to Server2k3 and XP.
I think 2006-2007 will be very interesting for the PC software industry, simply because it hasn’t been for a long time.
–JM
It is disingenuous to say that “well, 95%+ of people use Microsoft and it is a real big problem that some of these people have not upgraded to the latest version”.
Older editions of Microsoft software are still Microsoft software. It’s not like these companies using Office 97 or Office 2000 can switch to some completely non-Microsoft office suite without major cost and pain.
In a way, Microsoft has a built-in revenue smoothing due to the fact that not everyone upgrades at the same time.
Once you have content in the Microsoft system, it is very difficult to move it out. Once you have a business running on Microsoft, it is very difficult to switch to something else. These statements have been well proven.
Because Microsoft wields vast multi-monopoly power, there will be far fewer changes than people would like to believe. This will be especially true on the desktop. And there will be ripple from the desktop to the server room, as there always is.
I have little confidence that Linux or Mac OS X will pose a real alternative to Microsoft. It is possible, but not probable.
Another way of saying this: It is very hard to get rid of a multi-monopoly company that has bought off the government.
“Once you have content in the Microsoft system, it is very difficult to move it out. Once you have a business running on Microsoft, it is very difficult to switch to something else. These statements have been well proven. ”
These “statements” of yours apply to ANY organization using proprietary software from anyone. This isn’t some sort of plot. Geez.
Example:
“Once you have content in the Parametric system, it is very difficult to move it out. Once you have a business running on Pro/Engineer, it is very difficult to switch to something else. These statements have been well proven. “
What I am saying is completely true, then? Why are you debating it? It is not a manner of comparison, but of absolute fact. We are not talking about Pro/Engineer. We are talking about every single Microsoft product. And the truth is still the truth.
As for the comparative evil of Microsoft, I think popular opinion, the courts, and the tech industry all agree: Microsoft is the most evil tech company that exists today.
“Microsoft made themselves a monopoly and this was achieved mainly through illegal and unethical business practices. ”
This isn’t what the court said.
“If Microsoft had not designed Windows to be insecure (for Microsoft’s own purposes), there would not be so many security problems with Windows. ”
It was no more “designed to be insecure” than IRIX was.
“Only the most naive believe that power does not corrupt. And Microsoft has near complete power over the world’s personal computers. The conclusion is obvious for those willing to accept it.”
Microsoft is no more “evil” than any other corporation.
The courts have shown this time and time again. Check out the Burst! case vs. Microsoft where Microsoft was effectively convicted of IP theft (before settling out of court).
History rewriting is the tool of tyrants.
“Having said that, I’m running OSX. My house is Microsoft clean and so is my family members house.”
Well, on any Mac I’ve had the pleasure of working with, there was always Microsoft Office, Windows Media Player for Mac OS X, and MSN Messenger.
Not entirely “Microsoft clean” per se, but still preferable to a Windows machine IMO.
You are right. I do run MSN Messenger. Not entirly clean.
Having said that, I’m running OSX. My house is Microsoft clean and so is my family members house.
Sorry to go off topic, but what the hell is the point in that? So, you don’t like one big company that makes proprietary software and makes a lot of money so you go to the other big company that makes proprietary software and makes a lot of money? I hate this company, let’s ditch it. Except Messenger and Office, that’s OK.
I didn’t make myself clear. I never said I didn’t like Microsoft.
As for running MSN Messenger. I run Adium connecting to Microsoft network. I don’t use Microsoft Office, instead I’m using Pages.
I think we are giving Microsoft to much credit for their ability to integrate these acquisitions into an allready confusing .Net market strategy.
With a 56,000 employee work force divided into fiefdoms of singular pursuit and vision they have in recent years lost the ability to move decisively as market changes occur.
Given the facts that they do have some bright minds who are also in possession of 45 billion dollars I have always secretly hoped that they have an “Area 51” somewhere in that mess putting the finishing touches on the most original computer experience a mortal has yet to envision. Lately I have dropped that thought.
Once, during the DOS days, I recontracted the form-virus from an old floppy.
I tried TBAV…detected form-virus but only advised quarantine.
I tried McAfee…detected form-virus, but couldn’t do anything about it! (WTF is up with anti-virus software not being able to remove older virusses anyway? I had this problem a couple of times more later on).
Then I tried MSAV, aka Microsoft Anti-Virus, which came bundled with MS-DOS 6.2, it detected the form-virus and cleaned it up, where the others failed!
This was about the last time I was genuinely happy about the performance of a Microsoft security product. It happened probably some 10-15 years ago. I always wondered where MSAV had gone in the Win 95 release, but I realised it just wasn’t Microsoft’s specialty to keep security software like an anti-virus program up to date. Specialised companies were much better equipped for that, and more efficient. This makes you wonder how they will fare this time around.
Hey, Microsoft consolidating the anti-virus industry is a good thing!
Consider…
This opens up an exciting new world of possibilities, like MS Virus Certification Program, which will encourage virus writters to develop, friendly, less malign forms of worms and viruses, which will be tightly integrated with MS anti-virus software. There can even be a special VStudio toolkit to enable virus developers to bring these anti-virus friendly forms of malware much more quickly to the marked, with less fuss. Thus, virus authors using antiquitated tools will gradually disappear form a highly competitive market.
i guess we will have to wait and see what is shipped with vista. I will be staying with XP for a few more years.
I do Agree that the linux community should consolidae. We should all work on a few distros to get one desktop ready for the masses, even if that means making it easyer than windows.
“What I am saying is completely true, then? Why are you debating it? It is not a manner of comparison, but of absolute fact. We are not talking about Pro/Engineer. We are talking about every single Microsoft product. And the truth is still the truth.”
I provided an example, “Pravda”, of another situation with supposed “vendor lockin”. This isn’t some sort of plot to take over the world. Just how does Microsoft Notepad lock me in?
“As for the comparative evil of Microsoft, I think popular opinion, the courts, and the tech industry all agree: Microsoft is the most evil tech company that exists today.”
You’ve never really dealt with other companies, have you?
“Popular opinion” = Linux zealots
and
“tech industry” = MS competitors
You don’t even know what “evil” is.
“The courts have shown this time and time again. Check out the Burst! case vs. Microsoft where Microsoft was effectively convicted of IP theft (before settling out of court).
History rewriting is the tool of tyrants.”
Actually, Pravda and Izvestia were tools of tryants. Real ones. Being a monopoly isn’t illegal – and you aren’t one under the law *until* a court says you are – which was long after that case. I could just as easily point the same sort of finger at EVERY OTHER “tech company” in the business.
Tone down the zealotry. You are not helping your cause.