IT professionals have slammed Microsoft over plans to charge for a security service to protect its own products.
Microsoft on Friday announced an internal beta launch of Windows OneCare, which will be a paid subscription service to block viruses and spyware that affect Windows machines. But users are upset that the software giant wants to make money from securing its own products they say it should have made secure in the first place.
One IT security worker said he was appalled at the idea: "The fact that they are charging is the height of hypocrisy. It is unbelievable that Microsoft is attempting to launch a service to charge customers for protection from flaws in its own products. I feel there should not be a need for that — they should have software that's resilient to that."
ZDNet UK readers wrote they were also angry with Microsoft. "Am I just being cynical or does this sound like a way to make money rather than fix the product?" asked Nick Stevens in a Talkback comment to the article announcing the prouct. "What I am surprised about, considering the high cost of the OS in the first place, is how MS have the gall to charge for this service."
IT consultant John Perczyk added: "Great idea — MS get to turn their security bugs into a revenue stream... Perhaps it should be more correctly renamed 'No one cares'."
An emailed response attributed to Microsoft's director of platform strategy Nick McGrath, said: "Windows OneCare will be a paid subscription service. As it is still early in the product development cycle we have no further details to share at this time. We will keep you posted as we get closer to final availability. What has been announced is internal beta, which will be distributed to Microsoft employees, and represents the first step in Microsoft's plan to offer a comprehensive solution to help consumers protect and maintain the overall 'health' of their PCs."
Talkback
oooooooooooo that's funny. Microsoft says, " our product is unreliable. We know originally the software costs $x, but now you'll have to pay more for protection"
the MOB in NJ used to say the same thing
they call it racketeering, dont they?
http://distrowatch.com
This is an outragious conflict of interest. A company who profits from protecting their faulty, insecure product
Hello,
I cannot believe that Microsoft would have us all pay for their flaws and bugs! If this were a car the manufacturer would be forced into a recall to make repairs.
Perhaps it's time to rewrite the Digital Millennium Act and pass a new law I would call the DQA (Digital Quality Act). This would stop this rip-off and force software developers to test their products to assure a certain standard of security in their products.
I would suggest that two of the proposed provisions would be: 1.) Mandate prison time for top company officials when they do not comply. 2.) Allow consumers and business to sue in order to recover loses caused by certain vulnerabilities (Or Manufacturer Defect) if the manufacturers software.
Any thoughts on this?
MSK1812
I personally find these comments astounding, these are so called professionals who are looking to protect the income they obtain for services based on exactly these issues! I praise microsoft for offering an 'optional' service to users who are not tech savvy enough to address security on their own pc's without assistance. Name one system that does not have security issues, even Firefox with 'more security than IE' has suffered some serious egg on face with critical flaws, so it's not just microsoft! If you guys can do better lets see it!
What's the difference between a subscription to antivirus support to Norton versus antivirus support to Microsoft?
Other comments say: Microsoft shouldn't profit off its flaws.
I say: OK, so Norton does, and I do, ... I also profit from flaws and inadequacies in other people's software.
Other comments say: It's not the same thing. You shouldn't send out knowingly faulty product and expect people to pay to fix it.
I say: That's pretty much what a lot of the sourceforge projects do. And yes, developers put code out, and sometimes fix it, and sometimes they don't. Some companies rely on support (not necessarily usabilty, and then again, not necessarily bugs) contracts to help them keep their livelihood. It's easy to pick on Microsoft. It's also easy to not buy support from Microsoft if you don't want to do that. Likewise, you don't have to buy a support contract from Novell/Suse, either.
Who are you going to call when someone rootkits your Suse box? well, you do have a choice...
If Microsoft didn't charge for this proposed service, then it is highly likely that they would get sued for anti comepitive practices.
I pay for other antivirus products and do not see why Microsoft shouldn't charge for this type of product.
As a Mac user I don't know weather to laugh or cry !!
No system or software is perfect but you would think that MS with all its money and programmers would be able to release software that didn't require constant monitoring to see if its safe.
To then charge the very people who have given it its position and power, for what should be fixed for free, is at best medieval bordering on tyrannical.
Make the switch and don't look back.
Here I come UNIX! Screw Micro$oft!
My first reaction is that charging for OneCare is a bad idea.
"If Microsoft didn't charge for this proposed service, then it is highly likely that they would get sued for anti comepitive practices."
This is like saying MS is obligated to relase insecure, vulnerable, buggy software in order to support an industry built around past mistakes. In this case it is in the public interest to move on and allow MS to correct their mistakes. No doubt they are sued on a daily basis anyway.
However, it is not ethical for MS to have a financial incentive to release bad software.
It brings up the question of how is an operating system supposed behave? It won't keep a user from clicking on an infected email, or responding to a phishing scam. Should a anti-virus protection be an integrated part of the operating system? or a separate utility?
If we say, no anti-virus should not be integrated, then MS has free entry into that market with subscriptions (with an unfair competitive advantage...). If we say, yes, it should be integrated, then maybe we hear cries of a monopoly?
The only way to really level the playing field is to call for open source Windows software. Otherwise it's the schoolyard bully grabbing all the lunch money, or the tire shop throwing tacks in the road.
I say that vendor liability is the answer to many problems.
I have to pay to secure an insecure product? OK. But the first breach for the smallest amount of time in whatever way for whatever reason and I get my money back ten fold each and every time I think that happens. No? Then how much better would I be off then I am now? And then why should I pay for that "service"?
And to all you Microsoft partners out there that still can't see the signs on the wall. The only future Microsoft has is your grave. You have been warned, again. It really is time to go multi vendor. Don't put all your money on a single horse. Even the best stallions will be retired some time. As history has shown time and time again.
I've been on the fence for a while now...I've looked at several Linux and Mac options, but I believe this fetid wind from Redmond has pushed me over onto a soft, secure penguin. This is beyond an outrage...I have been a Microsoft customer both personally and in my business for 12 years. I have put up with the viri, spam, trojans and empty promises for more security and less cost for years. I didn't want to believe that a company I trusted would actually do something like this. They obviously can...and are.
Now if you will excuse me, I have some backups to do and some hard drives to format. Not another bloddy dime!
Your arguement is barely existant and so silly that I couldn't believe I was going to respond to it. Here it is, so simple ANYONE can understand it. I sell you a car, your new car has no door locks or steering locks. Your car gets stolen...I come to you and tell you "Gee...sorry your car got stolen, would you care to purchase locks for it?"
\
All analogies fail eventually but you SHOULD get the idea. I personally believe this is going to go to court for years. Microsoft is without shame, and you better believe this...Trying to increase revenue this way is simply a response to lost revenue to Linux, Mac and Firefox. You defend the undefendable...you are either a blind loyalist or a MS employee...either way I want to offer you my sincere condolences. BTW...I hear MS is hemmoraging employees to Google LOL
For Microsoft to charge anything for the faulty software should be a crime, all in itself. But to charge for a supposed to be a secure site, that will be the day. And if they do proceed to make people pay for their faulty software and this "OneCare", how many people are going to be switching to Mac and Linux. Should we say good riddens to Microsoft now or shortly after the site is up online?
As their own site they can't even get that right, most of the problems come from their "third party cookies". I don't know if anyone has noticed this but if you turn off your third party cookies, you can not get any product updates, is this a flaw or is Microsoft promoting viruses and spyware?
But for me, I switched to Linux a secure operating system and it really is less expensive than holey Winblows. I won't ever go back to Microsoft garbage.
Microsoft should take their entire line of operating systems off the market and either fix it, or just not produce it. Or better yet, why not release your code, so someone else can fix it for you, since you won't.
Microsoft is now trying to make more money off of a stupid site, for their faulty software, what will they think of next? I can only imagine......forget it Microsoft, it's bad enough I have to sell your garbage to my clients. But there are a few of you Microsoft lovers out there. But I have managed to convert a few of my clients to Linux, a better, more secure os, than that crap you call an operating system. I moved to Linux a year and a half ago, and I definately will say "Good-bye Microsoft". Won't ever run that crap in my systems ever again. See, if you would have fixed your OS, I would probably still be with you today, but you won't. So, I get as many people as possible to switch to this great operating system. I'm just waiting for the fall of Microsoft, every court battle won by the "little guy" I cheer louder. Go penguin go!
I have no problem with Microsoft entering the anti-virus market and spyware removal, a lot of these get onto the system through user mis-use.
What I have a problem with is MS charging for supporting , fixing and protecting against inherrent problems with their software.
Even with the most secure of systems, the security is only as good as the users knowledge and dilligence, if the user clicks on every link they receive via e-mail, then the system can eventually be compromised. Therefore there is a need for security products to help protect users (even the most experienced user can be distracted and click on a dodgy link).
But if MS are selling services to fix deficiencies in their OS, that smacks of a protection racket or racketeering...
And all of MS's talk about Windows having a lower TCO than Linux is starting to look thin, you pay a couple of hundred Euro's for Windows XP, but that's cheaper than a free download of a Linux distribution, because it is Windows, you don't have to learn anything new - depends on where the user is coming from, experienced Windows user, experienced IT user or new user... The experienced IT user probably won't have many problems as they've worked on a variety of OS's their whole career, new users will have to learn one way or another, the only one that may have real problems adjusting is an experienced Windows users...
...But now they want extra money to correct and protect? How can that have a lower TCO than OOS anti-virus and firewall products that are included in many distributions of Linux? And most distro's have automatic update features which are at least as good as Windows Automatic Update these days.
I run a Linux based perimeter firewall, a mixture of Linux and Windows 2003 servers and a mixture of Linux and Windows XP on the desktop. To be honest, although I have both a Linux and a Windows workstation on my desk, I use the Linux box for 99% of my e-mail and web browsing these days.
For the regular updates, there isn't a lot between the two, they both have automatic downloads, Linux requires root access, so only the administrator has the right to download and install the updates - which can be automated centrally. Windows can do the same, but requires more work. The difference is that Linux defaults to being secure and Windows to being open to abuse, with work, you can make Linux as vulnerable as a default Windows install and Windows almost as secure as a Linux install...
What I find totally unacceptable is Windows habit of wanting to reboot... I install a Linux server, it maybe needs rebooting once a year or so because of major Kernel reworking, Windows requires rebooting after most patches, install software and it often wants to reboot (why, it wasn't replacing the Kernel?) and when some anti-virus software gets updated, that want a reboot as well! For a production server, rebooting every month or so is unacceptable.
From a server point of view, I haven't seen many problems with stability from either Windows or Linux, although the Windows domain controller sometimes stops allowing access to the public shares, but the Linux server runs fine handing out SMB shares...
It is perhaps the most underhand tactic Microsoft have played to date:
1. Make an extremely unsecure operating system.
2. Use a variety of illegal practises to get it into a monpoly position around the world (which they know isn't going to change anytime soon).
3. Then basically blackmailing the world by saying "Yea we know using our Operating System for business purposes is like playing russian roulette with your companies confidential data but the only way you can have the type of security we advertise that Windows already has is by paying us a lot more money on an ongoing basis"!
Surely if Microsoft are going to start charging people an ongoing fee for security they must publicly admit that their Operating System is pathetically insecure. Otherwise what would be the use of their security service?
OK i've rerad the responses to the article and believe that there are two main points to consider. Firstly - antivirus software. this isnt built into windows at present so you have to purchase it seperatly. so therefore its no different to purchasing a contract from microsoft to do the same job. secondly - windows flaws. These should be fixed free of charge by microsoft forever. after all these flaws were purchased with the license from microsoft in the first place and wont go away unless microsoft, and no one else, fixes them. Most of the problems with windows, in all its flavours, come from unpatched flaws being taken advantage of by 'hackers'. I also believe that microsoft have made a big mistake by blocking the update service for those 'few' individuals who just happen to have an illegal copy of windows installed. This means that the un-updatable computers are more at risk of infection and therefore make the internet a little bit less safe.
This is really interesting. Because I dont know how Microsoft intends on selling it saying it'll fix our own problems when theres other softwares which does the same. I guess novice users will rely on Microsoft to fix their own mess than someone else. Smart move by Microsoft but not ncessarily customer oriented strategy.
Firstly, why is everyone so surprised? Micro$haft have been like this for years. I just laughed when I read about 'BumCare'.
Secondly, I'm a Wincrap user, but that's only because I own a nice wintel laptop and need to connect to the Net via a Bluetooth mobile with it. When Linux can do this (easily), I will joyously switch.
In the meantime I've successfully secured my copy of Winturd XtraProfit for the past 2 years with the following apps:
1. Avast! Antivirus (www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html). Free for personal use, auto updating option, incremental definition updates.
2. ZoneAlarm (www.zonelabs.com). Free normal version, auto update notification option.
3. Firefox and...
4. Thunderbird (www.mozilla.org). Both free, Open Source and definitely more secure.
5. Spybot SD and Ad-aware. Both free and easy to use.
So why anyone would pay for Micropants to do the same thing (a lot less competently) I don't know. But there are probably naive or stupid people that will, unfortunately.
Apple effectively does the same with its different releases of OS X. But charge £100 a pop, if Microsoft was to include features which other providers don't and to include One Care only features in XP or Longhorn which can only be activated via having One Care, One Care could be a hit. This would anger users but isnt it Steve Jobs who said "How can you expect us to provide software updates for free?"
Is this a hoax?
I agree with Microsoft, somethings must be payed.
Microsoft is right, many users don't know how to protect themselfs, maybe paying to be with less flaws they will start being less lazy with their operating systems.
Microsoft is no guilty of their flaws, the world is the guilt, there's too much bright kids around the globe, there's no way to compete with that, see the DVDs were coded broken by a kid.
What a great idea! This way Microsoft can purposely make security holes and then charge customers to have those security holes fixed. It’s a win-win situation! Microsoft wins, because they don’t have to pay for good programmers, and they also win, by making their customers pay for good programmers. It cover’s both ends of the sale!
Linux awaits you all. It makes sense from both a business and a personal point of view. This is why the EU Council are trying to push through software patents. No Linux, no open source no competition. Welcome to the wonderful world of M$ brought to you by the EU Council. Please write to your MEP or get used to M$ "customer support".
But then again I suppose if anyone knows how to protect an MS Operating system effectively it would be MS themselves?
Whatever system they use though will be the one most actively targeted by the virus writers the same as IE is targeted at the moment.
Look at Firefox, once it takes a hold you will see holes appearing all over it.
Truly amazing is the number of people who welcome their exploitation by industry. Workers of the world begging to be put in chains. I suppose this is the Reagan-Thatcher legacy. Microshaft us, please.
Symantec have been doing it for years. Have you ever tried to get help from Symantec.
You go round and round in circles for hours before finally submitting your query. Then you finally get an answer directing you to a web page which is too technical for ordinary people like me. But it's ordinary people who use computers.
No phone number available it would be nice to be able to speak to a human being. It's so frustrating.
THEY CHARGE AN ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION FOR THIS and we are supposed to think the sun shines from them.
What's the difference?
I too,think this whole thing is incredible.A decent computer today is a rather expensive outlay.Load it up with a complete line of Microsoft products and the problems,threats,just keep on coming.Microsoft,just like major aircraft builders,ought to be held responsible for the proper and safe running of their products.To charge the consumer,the home-users for this new protection--that ought to have been protected to start with is simply outright fraud;a money grab.If this is the attitude of Mr.Gates;then perhaps it really is time to look elsewhere for better operating systems;a lesson learned?.Microsoft relented on the Anti-Spy program,kept it a free service and out of respect for all of us,I sincerely trust they will do the same for Microsoft OneCare as well.My thanks.
It's simply amazing how many people have so much to say about things they just don't understand. I think some of these readers should step back from their Microsoft bashing and take some time to REALLY understand exactly what Microsoft are offering with this service.
The OneCare service has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with providing security patches for their product. It is all about AntiVirus and AntiSpam.
Also how many anti-trust lawsuits will be incurred if Microsoft was to provide this service for free???
Anti-Virus software makers do not sell updates to flaws in their own software. They sell updates to the signature files-needing to be made by staff who receive examples of virii and then have to work against those virii that some UNRELATED annoying person made. Which is made worse by bad M$ design!
This is not the same business method as M$ who just abuse their position one way or another...
They already charge a LOT for their OS, they must already do a LOT of testing out-of-house via Beta testing (unpaid), they already release 'new' OS's like XP that are by their own admission only a ".1 " different to their previous one. They then charge much more than ".1 " of the previous one's price though! So don't defend them asfair, just and proportional... or you'll look like you're even contributing to that decreasing sense of justice that the USA seems to be suffering in the last 5 years!!
Wake up you nerds. Of course there are going to be security holes when you have 98% of the market share worldwide. If Linux was used by anyone other than pot-smoking hippies and Star Trek fans, it would be the target for hackers and would be just as vulnerable as Windows. Firefox has a tiny market share, but already there have been 4 security updates for that. Stop whingeing and pay a few bucks a year for some software to help secure an otherwise very useable and comprehensive operating system. Ok back to watching Star Trek repeats everybody!
This sounds a lot like the old Mafia scheme of "protection"
Microsoft is known for selling half-baked products. Everyone that disagrees hasn't been responsibile for filing the IT budget for the last ten years or is totally biased or ingnorant anyway. Fact is that if it were up to insurance companies you would pay more just because you have Microsoft systems within your IT environment. That's how risky they are. But you keep investing in those Microsoft systems anyway. I'm sure your competition is doing the same. At least, I hope for your sake that they are because if they're not you and I can compute how much lower their overhead cost are and thus their ability to put you out of the market.
Have a nice weekend.
Whats the difference,you pay for AV software that doesn't work either or they won't support.So why not Microsoft do the same thing,as is they give tons of free support.
Every piece of software has bugs and flaws. Microsoft has flaws that can be easily spotted because so many people use the os, and those people really use the os, not like most users of mac os who do not know how a computer works. Mac os has similar stability problems. They try to solve their stability problems illegally which is engineer their own software for their own operating system.
The real deal with onenote is that microsoft has access to its own server code so they can secure their systems more easily. There is a court case in the EU running with this.
Symantec and its competators cannot compete with microsoft adequetly.
I mean, look at the whole norton line.......it a buch of garbage....it cant even stop a code much less run decently. The non-norton version of symantecs antivirus runs extremely clean and sleek but this is not a firewall.
I have seen comments like these so many times it hurts my brain to think they are general opinion. And I am speaking to both sides on this.
"Microsoft should not charge to fix their software."
They're not. The fact is, the Windows Update service is *free*. What they are charging for is the same thing other companies like Norton and Symantec do: you being lazy. The fact is, you wouldn't run into problems with viruses and antispyware (except very rarely) if you took the appropriate amount of precaution against them. You can find similar software for free. Microsoft is charging to do the legwork for you.
"Microsoft shouldn't have the financial incentive to release faulty software."
Think about it: all commercial software suffers from this same conflict of interest eventually. How else are commercial software companies to make money except by giving you an incentive to come back to them? The large difference is whether Microsoft or other companies intentionally introduce flaws in their software which they charge you to fix. Despite my negative feelings toward Microsoft, I seriously doubt this is the case. The fact that there are flaws in software is a fact of life, whether or not that software is free.
"*NIX is much more secure, bug-free, blah blah blah, <insert vague benefit here>..."
No. *NIX is just different, and with different characteristics. While it is harder to rootkit or otherwise incapacitate the average home *NIX desktop (no network servers of any kind) than a similarly-equipped Windows desktop, most users have at least one server, and it is also harder to actually secure a *NIX desktop because you have to actually know what you are doing (or know someone else who does). It's a matter of inherent properties in the respective designs of the softwares, not a difference in quality.
Now, on the other side of the debate...
"Who are you going to call if your *NIX gets rootkitted?"
This is truly an absurd rhetorical question. You call the people who sold you the support, of course, or you call an expert you know - this is, of course, if you are not capable of fixing the problem yourself. The vast majority of *NIX users are quite capable of fixing the problems they encounter by themselves, or are capable of learning how to do so. Or there is *commercial* or *free* software for *NIX that can usually perform the task given some mechanism of standardization. The users who cannot get a problem fixed in *NIX usually aren't trying or simply do not have an adequate resource network to be using *NIX. That's a fact of free software - if you use it, *you* take responsibility for it. If you're not willing to do that, then you must instead be willing to pay for your software or support.
"All free software is inherently insecure..."
And you think software of which you not only do not but *cannot* see the internals of is secure? It's a matter of philosophy here, nothing else. Open Source software is for the professional or user with a good resource network (or the willingness to learn). It is not for the average "know-nothing" user. If the average "know-nothing" user really wants to use *NIX, then he or she should also purchase the optional support for it from a respectable and reputable company. And no, it does *not* usually cost less for support in *NIX. That's a pipe dream. I don't use free software because it is free - I use it *because I can* and it is free.
"*NIX software is usually of low-quality, buggy, has bad support, etc., blah blah, blah, <add vague and unsupported accusation here>..."
So is Windows software. Actually, they're rather comparable in quality, in my opinion. And as for support, we've already beaten that one into the ground, I think. One thing of important note, however - if you *do* find a bug or secutiy hole in actively-supported Open Source software, you can usually find the fix and apply it *much* (on the order of days if not weeks) faster than with its closed-source and commercial co
Bill Gates is the anti-christ, open source software has no flaws, charging money for a product or service is evil, yadda yadda yadda.
This is getting so boring...
Microsoft WOULD give us this stuff for free if it weren't for the U.S and E.U fining them billions of dollars for bundling software with their OS. Look at netscape, Boo Hoo we can't make any money desinging software for your operating system. What do you think symantec and McAfee and the like would say if windows came with anti virus software as standard? That answer is obvious massive fines. So they make a product that people can then choose to buy and install and you whining hypocrites bump your gums out of ignorance.
And the world should be perfect. WaWaWa! They will get my money!