Bear in mind that (from what I've read) MS are only making this available as an Optional Update (ie. you need to go and manually choose to download it) on PCs where their detection routine has determined no existing AV is in place. In other words, while, by a stretch of the imagination, these *could* be future customers for other AV vendors, it is most likely they are just the majority of home users that don't give a damn or don't know any better.
I strongly applaud MS for doing this and urge the AV industry (or parts of) to hang their heads in shame for even suggesting that it's a bad idea. Talk about self-interest overriding the common good! Analogies could be made to branded seatbelts and all sorts of other safety related products. Should the US ensure that few "free" soldiers are sent to Afghanistan because it would be anti-competitive as the de-facto troop provider to do the mercenary (sorry .. private security) forces out of their lucrative business as a result!? Current and emotive .. always good in an analogy ;o) In terms of future releases of Windows, I'd have no objection to this being added to the first-run startup routine along with browser choice. I'm sure the AV vendors would hate that though as they like their aggressive 1-3 month trial/ransom-ware to be OEM loaded and no mention made of free offerings that might do instead!! a -----Original Message----- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 09 November 2010 19:38 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote: >> Dumping a product on the market to force competition out of business is >> a tried-and-true monopoly strategy, and Microsoft's gotten in trouble for it >> before. > > True, but there are a plethora of free AV products already on the market. > They're not breaking any new ground here. Except those other free AV products are not offered by companies which have a monopoly on the operating system market[1]. The rules are different for monopolies[2]. > Plus, they've been providing Windows Defender for a long time, and this is > in the anti-malware space (which also has a plethora of free options). To be honest, I've wondered why the other AV companies haven't been making more of a stink about that already. -- Ben [1] US v. MSFT (1998)[3] [2] One may disagree with US anti-trust law/policy, but that doesn't change same in the meantime. [3] One may disagree that Microsoft is a monopoly, but a US Court decided they were, and until and unless that finding is overturned[4], that is how the law sees things. [4] The Conclusions of Law[5] were overturned, the Findings of Fact[6] were not. [5] The decision to break-up MSFT. [6] This includes "Microsoft has a monopoly". ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ************************************************************************************ WARNING: The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete the same and any copies. "CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE" ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
