Microsoft Begins anti-virus Software Development 199
An anonymous reader writes "From the article: Microsoft's announcement that it will enter the AV market next year, with initial trials starting next week, could be a sign of many things to come, says SecurityFocus's Kelly Martin. " Not unexpected, given their recent purchase.
Start the week with a dupe (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Start the week with a dupe (Score:3, Interesting)
-N
No kidding... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No kidding... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No kidding... (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot search sucks (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Start the week with a dupe (Score:2)
Just imagine ... (Score:2)
SYSTEM ALERT! WINDOWS ANTIVIRUS HAS DETECTED CRITICAL TROYAN LINUX_2.6 VARIANT RED_HACK IN YOUR HARD DISK [CLEAN] [DELETE] ?
Now we are ready for the "Windows Antivirus Network Edition"...
so when does Elliot Spitzer get involved ? (Score:1, Funny)
because he can see a scam when he knows one
i cant wait for the lawsuits/class action to begin !
Re:so when does Elliot Spitzer get involved ? (Score:2)
On another note - I'm seeing "Ads by Google" in the article, and the first two are "No Bible Sunday?" and "Understanding Christians". So now we know - Google's stats prove people running Windows are guillable enough buy into all sorts of monopolistic scams.
Re:so when does Elliot Spitzer get involved ? (Score:2)
MSFT has, in fact, fully complied with the FTC regulations regarding the making of false claims, or of false advertising. Their software is gold-plated crap, and they are quite willing to acknowledge that in their EULAs. MSFT's "last best hope" for both monopolistic lock-in AND OS security has been their "Palladium" initiative, in which the onus for computer system security is passed over to the hardware/BIOS vendors.
The entire extent to which MSFT is willing to accept some modicum of responsibility is the $5.00 USD "refund" they are willing to make for each provable (in a court of law?) loss of data that their OS and/or Apps might cause. Do not expect MSFT to abandon their EULA TOS for their MS-AV product, whatever subscription-based profit center strategy they adopt for their AV signature or security patch "service", or any other gold-plated crap they decide to faun off on their much abused customer base. Gold-plated crap is, after all, still crap.
MSFT has just decided to parlay the shrinking worldwide customer base of their vulnerable software into yet another revenue stream. The worst that Elliot Spitzer could do as NY AG is force MSFT to print the entire EULA on the outside of their software packaging.
Masterplan! (Score:4, Funny)
2, Create AV SW
3, Profit on selling AV SW AND new OS updates! Muhahaha...
Jeez, we're screwed...
You meant this? (Score:2, Funny)
2) Create anti-virus software
3) ???
4) Profit!!!
Re:You meant this? (Score:2)
Re:You meant this? (Score:4, Funny)
1) Sell OS with lots of vulnerabilities enabling viruses!
2) Profit!
3) Profit!
4) Profit!
5) Create anti-virus software
6) Profit!!
7) Profit!!
8) Profit!!
9) Profit!!
10) Profit!!
11) ??? (while making profit!!!)
12) Profit!!!
13) Profit!!!
14) Profit!!!
15) Profit!!!
16) Profit!!!
17) Profit!!!
18) Profit!!!
19) Profit!!!
20) Profit!!!
21) Profit!!!
22) Crush competitors
23) Profit!!!!
24) Profit!!!!
25) Profit!!!!
26) Profit!!!!!!
27) Profit!!!!!!1!
28) Profit!!!!!!11!!!
29) Profit!!!!!11!!!!!11!!!!!!!!111!!one!!!1!0ne!!!!!
etc...
But seriously ... (Score:2)
Re:But seriously ... (Score:2)
Anti-Spyware didn't exist 5 years ago. Now it is a flourishing subscription business. This will be the kicker that starts MS as a provider of interlinked services. Office requires Windows requires MS AV requires MS AS requires MS whatever else. And keep up the pressure on the OEMs, schools and governments that are selling MS Windows + Office for them. Once you've got people over the hurdle of paying monthly for software, you can do anything.
You gotta admire them. It's beautiful in a sick kinda way.
Microsoft business model (Score:5, Insightful)
2. The subscription cost will be built into the Longhorn price for retail copies.
3. OEMs will have a choice of becoming
4. After you will pretty much be forced to pay for this software, you will quickly realize that it is INCOMPATIBLE with your third-party ftp client, web browser, etc. This thing is gonna be tied to IE (probably intentiontionally crippled).
5. Microsoft, respecting anti-trust laws, will provide an API for you to Microsoftize your Internet applications. The API specs and the library itself will of course be made available for a $10,000 licensing fee and signature on an NDA (Microsoft will disguise this as an effort to protect users' security). The API/library will not be available on OSS-compatible (much less GPL-friendly) terms.
6. Microsoft will sit back as they rape their userbase, who will believe that Microsoft is doing them a favor; even if they don't, vendor lock-in is a beautiful thing.
7. Profit!!!!
Don't tell me you don't see this coming.
Now if they could just fill in the missing step... wait a minute...
Re:Masterplan! (Score:5, Funny)
Do airlines try to rent you parachutes?
Re:Masterplan! (Score:2)
Re:Masterplan! (Score:2)
It's About Anti-Trust!!! (Score:2)
The most damaging legal argument against Microsoft (and one that was widely hailed by Slashdotters) was that it destroys competitors by bundling products for free in the OS. This is obviously a true charge, as experienced by Netscape, and much of the legal oversight at Microsoft is meant to keep walls up between different business units, to prevent illegal bundling of products.
If Microsoft shipped AV in the OS (which I personally would love) for free or greatly below market prices, McAfee and Symantec would be all over them with civil anti-trust complaints in a second. In addition, the judge overseeing the consent decree might (or state AGs) might reconsider some of the deals made in the past.
It is unbelievably hypocritical for people in this forum to both:
a) Celebrate Microsoft losing anti-trust battles, and reveling in the fact that there are now large legal hurdles to improving their products.
b) Complain that Microsoft doesn't destroy the desktop security software segment with free AV, on top of already free Spyware checking and firewall.
geez (Score:4, Funny)
Re:geez (Score:2)
And then you gotta ask --- does MS get the Viruses passing by their desk before it is released to the public --- sort of like our
Physician, Heal thyself !! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A question (Score:2)
Think about it, imagine a critical flaw is found in XP or whatever....(you don't have to imagine too hard). Microsoft now has a decision to make:
1 - spend a million bucks fixing the hole.
OR
2 - Say "We're working on that issue" and in the meantime SELL you an AV product to protect yourself, netting 5-6 million in the process.
Which do YOU think they'll go for?
Resistance is futile (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Resistance is futile (Score:2)
"it will be cancerously embedded in the OS"
Which means it can't be turned off or deleted. Kind of like IE was for awhile.
Re:Resistance is futile (Score:2)
Re:Resistance is futile (Score:3, Insightful)
... in other news ... (Score:5, Funny)
slashdot.org has announced that they will begin development of anti-dupe software sometime in 2006.
slashdot.org has announced that they will begin development of anti-dupe software sometime in 2006.
MSAV? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:MSAV? (Score:3, Informative)
My first pc, a packard bell (very sad) included dos 6.22 and windows 3.11 for workgroups. Microsoft antivirus had a dos and windows graphical interface and basically did a checksum test on all the files. It created files to remember what it checksum'd in each directory as I recall.
It took forever to scan and obviously didn't catch much and had many false positives. Imagine using tripwire to check for viruses except on a dos partition with nothing to check but byte size and maybe the modify date!
It was credited to symantec in the about box I think.
This is nothing new.. just a comeback!
The Register is right when it says... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Microsoft's tactics can always be worked out by considering what action would show the most disrespect to their users and the least amount of pride or professionalism in their products or services.
Consider the recent "Thought Thieves" poster.
Re:The Register is right when it says... (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead of modding the parent down as "flamebait", why not provide some counter examples?
If you can't then it's hardly flamebait is it?
Goals? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason for user mode and kernel mode. Just because the "system" CAN have full permissions to everything, doesn't mean that it should!
Besides just think of all the money they can make selling books/classes on how to configure their newfound security!
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
"This version of windows in unsupported and will no longer receive AV updates, please upgrade to the newest OS"
Nevermind that you can't load another AV package because the M$ one interferes with it!
-nB
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
On the bright side, once your OS falls behind so do the number of virus attacks. Win98 is pretty safe now, for instance, because most attacks only work on XP.
Re:Goals? (Score:3, Informative)
In some cases yeah, but I've had some malware (ok not a virus as such, but close) completely kill a Windows 98SE box's network stack after it got in by trying to "patch" the Winsock libraries and assuming it was XP.
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
Well, I didn't mean go naked. I've got Win98 and am running Opera as a browser, with Zone Alarm as a firewall. Never had a successful penetration or attack; never got any viruses.
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
That you KNOW of.
That's the key point that many people miss.
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
That you KNOW of.
I would know. I've got a firewall, and I can see the traffic passing through my DSL modem. I check the processes running with various tools when something goes wrong; if anything is running it's keeping a very low profile. I don't use IE or OE, basically, the only way somethng could get me is by executing a viral mail attachment, which I haven't been stupid enough to do (yet).
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
I sit corrected.
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
Ok smart arse. Just how do you know for certain I've been compromised? Do you use The Force? I've only been online for 10 years (25 years if you count back on Unix command line at university), what would I know? Obviously I should just throw away my computer and get a job breaking rocks.
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
My point is that just because you have a firewall and zone alarm, it does not mean that you are perfectly secure. Every program has its flaws, and the one who understands that is usually better off. Not counting all the ones that spread via user action (like opening virus emails as you mentioned) there are lots of ways to get around protection. Some protection is better than others, but just like in sex, the only 100% secure way is abstinence (or in this class unplugging).
Not trying to be a smart arse, but one shouldn't be lulled into a feeling of security because they've "taken precautions". Precautions are by all means a great thing to do, but none of them are fullproof. That's my point. =)
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
It doesn't imply "certainty". It does imply that I'm an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Don't be disingenuous, you're insulting me. Also, aside from "taking precautions" I do know the symptoms -- unexplained traffic particularly, from the virus propagating &/or sending out spam, which I would see, regardless of software stealthing, on my DSL modem lights. Yes, ninjas could have installed a hardware keylogger; there could be a logic bomb waiting to go off on Halloween, but most viruses have some noticeable effects.
OT (Score:2)
-nB
Re:Goals? (Score:4, Informative)
And MS has agreed with this since NT4. Remove your user account from the Administrator group and. surprise, your system is fully protected, and spyware/viruses aren't a problem because executables cannot modify system folders or system registry. In fact, Win2k/Xp/2k3 have much richer access implementations than the unix filesystem protection in vanilla linux distribution -- you'll need to get the ACL kernels for matching capabilities.
The real problem is the MS marketing dept, which opted to not confuse Grandma and make accounts Admin by default. Longhorn will make accounts limited by default, and in addition when logged in as admin it will drop priviledges of all apps that don't need admin priviledges (like IE), which is pretty cool.
Re:Goals? (Score:5, Informative)
Even better, some apps won't run except as admin because they try to fiddle bits of the registry and/or filesystem they assume they'll have access to, because "everyone runs as administrator". Games are the #1 culprit here, but a large proportion of general use software has that problem too. It's not Microsoft's fault that app developers are idiots, but it still makes the limited privelege accounts nigh useless. Unfortunately, they can't conjure a long history of least-privelege-by-default so they're stuck with breaking compatibility with old apps (90% of users would equate "need to change user account to run program" with "broken OS") or retaining the current braindead defaults.
I do agree with you on the fine-grained priveleges in NT, though I wish they were consistently inherited instead of propagated through the filesystem tree. The issue with ACLs is that unless very carefully administrated they tend to become a hideous and unmanageable rats nest where nobody can clearly state what happens in a given case. This is as true on UNIXes with ACLs as it is on NT. I've always been way happier with the groups-within-groups model, which lets you get 90% of the benefits of ACLs with 10% of the complexity. It never seems to have become all that popular, though
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
Why would Grandma be confused by having a non-Admin account? Because she wouldn't be able to install most of her programs, and in the case of some particularly egregious software packages she wouldn't even be able to RUN them from restricted userspace.
The Windows OS has pretty decent access controls, but if the software that runs on it isn't designed to work well with them...
Longhorn will make accounts limited by default, and in addition when logged in as admin it will drop priviledges of all apps that don't need admin priviledges (like IE), which is pretty cool.
Yes, the next version of Windows will fix all the problems. All hail the next version.
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
Perhaps they should DEFAULT it that way instead of relying on the average user (who, I might add with a touch of sarcasm, is a highly skilled computer operator) to take action and turn it off.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure this stuff out.
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
Re:I call bullshit (Score:2)
I'm well aware of OS security. My comment had nothing to do with BSD, or any other OS outside of Linux.
Re:Goals? (Score:2)
This is where the active protection and constant backups are still a necessity.
Wake me up... (Score:5, Funny)
BTW, will it be free? If not, I'd say, brillant strategy. First sell them system vulnerable to viruses, then sell them protection against them. Microsoft should start charging for security updates downloads too.
Sorta like... (Score:2)
Much more important point (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of this security focus article - if you actually read it - is that MS might be going for a subscription-based licensing in the long run. See, you don't pay for Windows, MS Anti-Spyware and MS Anti-Virus, you pay to subscribe to all these, software upgrades and security patches.
That means MS could: a) make people more aware that they are paying for patches, making it more probable that they will use them; b) be able to roll out new OS upgrades instantly, and avoid having to support WinXP far into the 2020-ies; c) hunt pirates more effectively; and d) make shitloads of cash also on people who don't need cutting-edge updates.
It's really just the RedHat model coming to Windows, and I think there are compelling reasons for Microsoft to make it this way. After all, MS can't live with the fact that many home users still use Win98 (think of all the lost revenue!)
Re:Much more important point (Score:2)
The model of Red Hat is to sell services mostly.
Red Hat does not sell you the apps really (you can make them for free, or rebuild some Red Hat clone for free, cf. CentOS), nor does it sell the softwares (surely not an anti spyware or anti virus).
You do not pay for security patches or software upgrades either in Red Hat. You pay only for a service that automate the process = convenience.
Re:Much more important point (Score:5, Insightful)
This is **NOT** the RedHat model coming to Windows. Redhat's subscription is 100% voluntary. You can still get all of their software, including the Enterprise stuff, without spending a single cent [whiteboxlinux.org] in subscription. Redhat's software is GPL, it is guaranteed to remain Free forever.
With RedHat, you pay if you believe their service actually add value to your business. With Microsoft, if you *don't* pay, your business can't run. Period.
Re:Much more important point (Score:2)
Oh, Jesus Christ, please. What I was saying was thayt it was the Red Hat business model - ie. how RedHat makes money - that Microsoft might seem fit. I did not imply RedHat is evil, RedHat is Microsoft, Linux is Windows or anything like it. I said Microsoft might want to earn money by subscription, just like RedHat earns money by subscription. That's the similarity, period.
Obviously, MS can't earn anything similar to their current cash flow if they gave away their OS for free.
Is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean really. I guess they dont make enough money just keeping thier products secure
3 words for you (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:3 words for you (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok i better fill it out a little
Microsoft develop an operating system with bugs which allow worms and viruses and trojans to propagate
Microsoft then continue to build an anti virus system to either sell with or give away with the system.
It is not a troll its a statment of fact , this is a conflict of intrests
It would be better if they give it away for free but then that is incredibly anti-competitive and a conflict of intrests still to a lesser degree though.
if they sell it then they are creating a conflict of intrests because fixing bugs in their OS then becomes something which could detract from sale of the anti virus software.
it is a conflict of intrests plain and simple , i do not say this to troll only to point out that this is very much an unethical practice
Re:3 words for you (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what scares me?
I thought with Longhorn MS would develop a somewhat virus secure system, that wouldn't need a full fledged AV.
Now, with this they don't have to. It pretty much means, in the Windows world, it's gonna be more of the same with respect to viruses... You're not safe without a good AV product.
Can you see how they're gonna spin this one? "We're so commited to our secure computing initiative, we've developed our own AV product, and made sure it "Just Works" with your current operating system!"
Re:3 words for you (Score:2)
For one its going to kill many AV companys(and not in the way i had hoped for
The european courts have so far stuck to their guns over the previous Anti trust suit and i hope this ones goes through fast aswell . the US courts will hopefully also see this as a very big problem and move towards litegation.
Companys can not be allowed to get away with such obviously unethical behaviour.
It sets a really bad example and it cites precident for other companys to do the same.
Re:3 words for you (Score:2, Insightful)
Offering software to protect consumers... how is that unethical? Oh wait, I get it: it's Microsoft, therefore, everything they do is unethical and wrong. That mind of yours smells squeaky-clean from all the brainwashing.
Do us all a favor, too -- please learn to spell before you respond. Thanks!
Re:3 words for you (Score:2)
Perhaps the MS zealots should repeat after me: "The reason there are viruses on Windows is because Microsoft makes faulty software."
I think the first lawsuits will arrive just days after the Microsoft Anti-Virus release.
Re:3 words for you (Score:2)
Microsoft then continue to build an anti virus system
Welcome to the software industry. This is how it works. Most companies these days deliberately withold useful features and bug-fixes for future versions, for which they can charge additional fees.
Re:3 words for you (Score:2)
i still need to use alot of propritery software for work(alot less than 5 years ago , even a fair bit less than 2 years ago)though but its becoming easier to use open source software for most things.
If your bussiness model is built around the suport of the software as oposed to the sale of the software itself, the drive is to produce the best and most stable software you can to reduce support incidents
If you live on selling the software then backporting features and bug fixes is counter productive to your business model.
Re:3 words for you (Score:2)
Will not be Longhorn compatible (Score:2, Funny)
See http://www.microsoft.com/windows/longhorn/securit
Imagine releasing anti-virus software on the eve of launching the "most secure version of windows ever".
With MS-AV it will be even MORE most secure.
If anyone should know... (Score:2)
Still, I would have expected an
The solution has been out for some time.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft already holds the key to an AV solution, and that is, bury IE so the user can't use it and install Firefox....
Re:The solution has been out for some time.... (Score:2)
wait'n'see (Score:2, Interesting)
People have launched a number of variations on the
"1. massively spread lame s/w w/ vulnerabilites
2. start seling antivirus s/w
3. profit?"
hypothesis. However, this would only turn out to be a correct theory only if the AV s/w worked remarkably well, shifting the virii vulnerability stories focus elsewhere. I wouldn't want to bet a dime on a conspiracy theory or on any type of a silver-bullet solution.
My bet is different - many Redmond products had flaws and some attempts at new niche markets were downright failures. Hence, I'd bet on an AV product that will fit 'normally' into the S win suite, reducing only part of the problems and introducing some (as typical of any s/w) new issues of its own.
A less safe bet, but not to be dismissed, is the ultimate toll-for-disaster scenario, also mentioned times and again in this discussion.
RAV Antivirus (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Different (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at the most obvious example of why it's not necessarily a conspiracy keeping these fine products away from you; your computer. IBM, HP, and DEC made some high-end, virtually unkillable, PCs (and two of them still do), but they cost real money. People said that was too much money for a PC, so they bought Dell or Bob's WhiteBoxen instead, and complained when they died early.
It's not that the company loses future sales by not selling you an undullable razor for $50 now, it's that they lose present sales because Bob's FaceScrapers(tm) are only $2.50 at the check-out counter, and that's what the average short-term minded consumer will buy instead. You could use compact fluorescent bulbs, or LED flashlights as examples as well; some people will buy them, but most will say it's too expensive, and instead pony up for another tungsten bulb seven times as often, because it costs less at that moment.
Trite though the statement is, the business world really does run on the maxim, "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity".
Re:Different (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, Microsoft is a different story. They've been found guilty of monopolizing a market sector, and so they need to be more closely watched and perhaps even regulated. This product is close to wiping out the entire anti virus industry, although the likes of Norton and Mcafee are doomed to get much leaner and faster else die from market share loss. At that point, the only anti virus makers left standing will be Microsoft, a new holders on, and perhaps clamAV (open source can't be killed that easily I bet).
So, don't compare Microsoft to Maytag. The washing machine maker is forced by competition to give us what we want (or at least what they think we want until somebody else proves them wrong). Microsoft is only inclined to give us what we want else face competition from Apple or Linux, which is not on their main radar at the moment.
Re:Different (Score:2)
i would say it's because there's not much demand for them. there are lightbulbs available that last, while not a lifetime, at least 5 years or more, but most people still buy 30-50 cent incandescent lightbulbs. likewise, while a razor that never dulls would be neat, most people (including me) would never buy it because it would cost as much as a several years supply of regular razors.
in the cases where there is demand for long lasting products, they do exist. in fact, in my experience home applicances is a good example of where this is true. my parents are still using a refrigerator that is over 10 years old and a washer and drier that are about 15 years old. my wife and i just bought a house which came with the washer and drier that the previous owner bought when he moved in here in the early eighties. in fact, i can't think of a person i know who has had a major home appliance fail with less than 10-15 years under its belt.
home electronics, on the other hand, seems to be a good example of where the opposite is true. while you can buy long lasting equipment, you have to be willing to put in a little research, and spend a little extra money. most people aren't, though. many people have decided that technology moves too fast, and they buy their home electronics as a sort of fashion accessory rather than as a utility item. hence, there is little demand for durable, high quality eletronics anymore, and most manufacturers now focus on fancy looking but cheaply made systems. my parents vcr is about as ugly as you could imagine, but they've had it for almost 20 years. i would be surprised if the dvd player i just bought, which my wife refered to as sexy (compared to most of my other big bulky stereo equipment), lasts for three years.
computer software manufacturers have successfully lowered the expectations of most users to the point that there is no demand for quality software. most users believe that computers are by nature unpredictable, and therefore unstable and virus prone. it's become something that is assumed, just like the blinking 12:00 on vcr's of the past. and because this is just the way computers are, there is little demand from the general public for quality software, and high demand for tools that should never have been needed in the first place (e.g. antivirus, anti-spyware)
COME ON (duping) (Score:2)
This is "MICROSOFT IS MAKING ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE". It is a simple concept, and a memorable and controversal one at that. An editor could have searched on "Microsoft" or "virus" and seen the obvious dupe. Do a search for virus right now. It is amusing.
This place has really degenerated to dupes and several nonsense articles. They need new editors.
Thats rich.. (Score:2, Funny)
It's like an electrician setting your house on fire due to some dodgy wiring, and then offering to sell you a fire extinguisher as your house burns down.
You're not a customer, you're a revenue stream (Score:2)
This is MSFT casting around for ways to keep their quarterly numbers up. Their numbers come out of your pocket.
Cleaning itself (Score:2, Funny)
Cool!!
And the next MS Antivirus not only removes known virus from your computer. It goes one step beyond, stopping the use of potential dangerous ways of infection such as: Firefox, ICQ, Gaim, Winamp, etc... XDDD
I hope they can get rid of this infection I have (Score:2, Funny)
SELL SELL SELL! (Score:5, Funny)
By Comparison (Score:2, Informative)
You might be thinking "if a car malfunctions it's a life or death matter but who cares if a computer crashes or gets a virus?" But what if that computer is part of the air traffic control system? Windows (for some reason) is used in a lot of important environments. Sometimes it really is life or death.
Also By Comparison (Score:2)
Ford can't afford to ignore disasterous engineering failures. Microsoft can by writing it off with marketing. Lucky for us most durable goods don't come with shrink wrap licenses right?
The mottos... (Score:2, Funny)
Micro$oft AntiVirus: We charge you extra for locking in.
I wonder if M$AV will uninstall Windows, otherwise it wouldn't be a very good AntiVirus.
Microsoft AV should be better... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you say conflict of interest! Sure you can!
Well at least their AV software should work better than other companies AV software. At least I'm assuming that Microsoft SHOULD know where all the holes are...
Re:Microsoft AV should be better... (Score:2)
Arguably there is a fine line between detection, removal, and prevention. Will the antivirus software be integrated with WindowsUpdate such that a security patch is applied? This means your now paying for WindowsUpdate. Or perhaps you are getting some premium update service...
Bill has said a few times he wants to "control the medium" and figure out how users can get charged for anything transactional. Seems like he found a candidate.
I never thought I'd say this... (Score:2)
I'm so sick of Symantec's bloated product line that I'd gladly switch, especially if this meant I could get out from under their mafia subscription scheme.
Great business model (Score:2, Insightful)
First create unsecure software that lets the viruses in, then provide virus protection software, and make the user pay for both. Simply brilliant!
About responsabilities... (Score:2)
Microsoft is just giving away arguments for even more lawsuits against them! How can they be so stupid? What they're trying to do has a name, and the name is FRAUD.
Microsoft: Hey, look... I got this wonderfull, secure OS, it's called Windows XP! Buy it and your problems with virus and spyware will disapear forever!
Customer: Oh, really? Here, have my money!
(...some time later...)
Customer: Hey, my PC is infested with virus and spywares! You must fix it!
Microsoft: Ok, you just have to purchase our new AntiVirus Software.
Are they really serious about this?! Do they actualy enjoy being sued?!?
Re:Ridiculous! (Score:3, Funny)
Oops.. (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Ridiculous! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Now we are really (Score:5, Funny)
Such is the fate of mankind.
Re:Why is there a picture of a Caterpillar? (Score:2)
Re:I confused... (Score:2)