In one of the comments in my past post, the commenter said I should focus more on tech stuff since blogging about the personal stuff can get quite… uninteresting. Although I don’t really understand what her conception of a “blog” is, I would say it was a personal journal unless specified otherwise. But yes, I do like talking about tech stuff too so how ’bout this post to call it even 😉
Symantec Brings Complaint Against MS to EU
linumax writes “Symantec has made a complaint against Microsoft to EC anti-trust regulators over the software giant’s entry into the security market. The “informal” complaint allows the Commission to consider whether or not an anti-trust case is merited. The Commission is the executive branch of the European Union (EU).” From the article: “The news comes on the day Microsoft announced plans to begin offering business users an integrated anti-virus and anti-spyware product called Microsoft Client Protection. A beta version of this product is expected to be released by year’s end. The company is already offering some customers a beta version of its Windows OneCare consumer security software. At issue is Microsoft’s plan to bundle its security software with Windows Vista, the next major version of the Windows operating system due next year.”
via Slashdot
This article of course isn’t really “tech” per se since the main issue is about legalities/principles and not the technology in themselves, but when I saw Microsoft mentioned again… it got me thinking.
I for one, don’t like monopolies, so I was happy when the first anti-trust case was launched against MS. Internet Explorer was (and still is) an evil piece of software. It never made the user experience better in any way – on the contrary it still is the primary reason why windows systems are compromised so easily. So why bundle such lousy, dangerous software into an operating system. I could understand the presence of a different motive in that decision, hence I had no problem rejoicing at MS’s expense
But I also have to admit that most of my bitterness with MS’s business tactics have something to do by the sheer amount of wealth it has amassed by selling inferior technology. So yes it’s basically a crab-mentality sort of thing hahahaha (can you blame me? I’m Filipino after all).
I say this because I realized to some extent that its so easy to see MS as the bad guy simply because of it’s stature in the world today. their disregard of the mantra “with great power, comes great responsibility” practically justifies people’s hatred toward them. But deep down, I know that ultimately what they’re doing is no different than other less powerful companies.
Now this article is similar to the IE case in principle (lawyers, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) – only applied in the security aspect. Specifically Symantec being threatened of their market by MS’s free offering.
As I would say, i’d love to see IE die… but this is different. Here’s a simple question everyone should and analyze – to see if what MS’s is doing now is in fact wrong or not.
Regardless of markets and the concept capitalism – on the sole perspective of technology and performance; Do you agree that MicroSoft (or any other company for that matter) should not integrate/bundle FREE software that addresses major flaws their operating software, on grounds of perceived unfair advantage? Should they still not bundle the said software considering that the very flaw they are addressing is practically the very reason why people are shifting to more “reliable” OSes (Linux, et all)?
Sure it may be unfair in a way, because I for one would rather have free bundled stuff (as long as they work) rather than pay for 3rd party software to do the same job. So Symantec would be at a loss when this type of software is integrated into the OS.
If that were the case, maybe we should sue some of the somewhat “proprietary companies” too. First that comes to mind is Apple for iTunes… take it further to the iPod, that’s a more obvious “monopoly” if I saw one. Or maybe we can simply demand that all OSes should be stripped of everything but their kernels… you never know that a bundled free “module” might encroach on a third party’s market. Hehehehe.
You see how ridiculous this can get. I’m willing to concede that the fire MS is getting nowadays is unwarranted. They get slammed either way that while initially I would’ve loved to see them suffer, now it seems that they are still paying for past mistakes that they’ve already learned from since.
I have no problem with Apple’s tactics. I own an iPod and the very reason I like it is because of it’s iTunes support, and have no problem with it’s “limitations” as far as an open-source mind goes. Internet Explorer was a mistake as it never really contributed anything good for the user experience overall, but my god, can these people honestly think that MS is trying to pull a fast one on us with their “security” software?
MS hasn’t really proven itself in the virus scene, but try researching about spyware, et. all – you’ll be surprised that one of the top three spyware detection tools is MS’s very own beta (and not to mention free) MS Windows AntiSpyware – in fact, I believe that it is ranked #1.
Don’t believe me? Visit Security Now’s episode notes on a podcast on spyware. Steve Gibson, the man behind Security Now coined the phrase “spyware” among other things… so if you’re looking for credibility, then this is pretty much as credible as you can get 😉