Technology analyst Bill Thompson wonders who would trust an anti-virus product from Microsoft
This week Microsoft announced plans to buy a Romanian anti-virus technology company, and instantly the technology sites were full of speculation about what it all means.
Shares in anti-virus firms dropped in value, comparisons were made with the browser wars when Microsoft used illegal tactics against Netscape's Navigator web browser, and everyone assumes that the whole anti-virus market would be completely turned upside down.
The regulars from the industry, like Graham Cluley from Sophos, are wheeled out to make their pronouncements, and Microsoft gets a massive amount of publicity for very little effort indeed.
To bundle or not to bundle?
It helps that that GeCad, the company involved, makes one of the few serious anti-virus tools for Linux, as this fuels another level of the grand Microsoft conspiracy theory.
Since GeCad's RAV software will be discontinued if the deal goes through, the paranoid argue, all Microsoft are really trying to do is weaken the market for open source software.
There are, of course, examples of technologies which were doing very well as third-party add-ons until Microsoft decided to bundle them with Windows and take over the market.
The web browser is the most obvious, but disk de-fragmenters, disk compression tools and network software all came first.
In fact, Microsoft had its own bundled anti-virus program for DOS and Windows 3.1 back in 1994, but it was not a success, primarily because the company could not get updates out to people reliably.
This was before the rapid growth of the internet, when viruses spread on floppy disks, and getting new signature files to people meant posting them.
However it does demonstrate that not everything Microsoft wants to do is a success, and this may be doubly true for a modern anti-virus product.
Lots of support
First, it is hard to do.
The successful vendors have massive teams of developers analysing new viruses, providing customer support and running around to make sure that large-scale outbreaks are contained.
They do not just deal with home users, either. Big companies spend lots of money on virus protection because of the potential damage to their business.
Microsoft may have bought in some expertise for writing the software, but it will take a lot to get the support structure in place, and customers who have been unhappy with its level of support for the software it provides today are unlikely to be convinced it can do this well.
This leads to the second point. Microsoft has a poor track record when it comes to the security of its products and its ability to deal with these problems effectively.
Some of the patches it sends out to customers cause new problems and have to be recalled, and many computer administrators are suspicious of software updates in case they break working programs.
Security holes
Why should anyone want a Microsoft anti-virus program?
We do have good and effective anti-virus software today. I have never been infected, and I get a lot of e-mail and have a permanent connection.
The combination of a third-party firewall and a third-party AV program keeps my Windows computers safe from harm.
But I know what damage the interaction between the various components of Microsoft Office and the Windows operating system can do.
It opens up security holes, gives virus writers the hooks they need to install their software on my system and has required dozens of patches and software updates over the years to make it even moderately safe.
How can I be sure that Microsoft will not decide to make its own anti-virus software 'easier' to use, or 'more convenient', and in the process damage its effectiveness?
The competition among the AV software firms, and their independence from the operating system vendor, is the best guarantee I have that they will protect me.
Price for using Windows
They have no interest in protecting Microsoft's public image, they have no access to the internals of the Windows operating system, and they have a lot to lose if they get it wrong.
I do not want to be stuck with a Microsoft anti-virus program as the price of using Windows.
If a team of anti-virus writers come on board and get unrestricted access to the source code of Windows so that they can spot the bugs and errors that a virus would use to damage my computer, then they could be useful.
But that would be because they make it harder for virus writers to work, not because they have written a new anti-virus program.
I suspect I am not alone in saying that I would never buy, trust or install an anti-virus package with the Microsoft name on it.
Posted by Muddy at June 14, 2003 01:44 AM | TrackBackI don't trust Micro$oft. I don't trust large companies on the whole. Why should we the public at large do so? These big companies don't care about us or their employees for the most part. Take Worldcom, Enron, Tyco and the other large companies for example. They lied to their own shareholders, lied to the feds and laid off tens of thousands of hard working men and women to increase the extreme wealth of a few power hungry maniacs. Micro$oft is no different, they have been found guilty in a court of law of behaving in the business world like a school yard bully instead of a reputable company. They have been found guilty in the court of public opinion of producing low quality software that's full of bugs and holes that don't get fixed until it becomes a public outcry. Yes, I in no way shape or form would trust MS.
Posted by: Muddy at June 14, 2003 03:21 AMAntivirus from MS? It's sad to think that millions will buy it - if it is for sale. Could be it'll just be bundled into the next OS...
I'd like to nominate Microsoft for the next available Axis Of Evil opening.
Posted by: Baker at June 17, 2003 12:06 PMWell, on the other hand Microsoft is a world monopoly and every 4 months it pays up uncle Sam a billion dollars in taxes. So the bully behavior sometimes pays up, we got to balance between external and internal interests.
Posted by: Inet at June 17, 2003 01:19 PMHMMM, I trust microsoft as far as I can throw them..... Too bad I can't lift that much.... And i'll switch to linux some day..when i'm not lazy.... screw microsoft...
Posted by: Kevin at June 17, 2003 08:16 PM"Yea I hate Microsoft too" he says reading these posts from Internet Explorer on Windows 2000.
"I also hate McDonalds" he mumbles as he takes another bit of his Big Mac.
"While I am at it I also hate Nike" as the ketchup drips down the swish logo on his shirt.
It just amazes me how many of us talk about stuff but never do anything about it. I am guilty as well but I dont hate Microsoft. There are other alternatives to Microsoft. The power of consumer choice is one of the strongest powers one person can weld.
Posted by: cwilli at June 19, 2003 09:48 PMcomment2,
Posted by: jonn1 at October 24, 2010 04:41 PM