Win 8 Security Bundle An Antitrust Magnet

DTN107 said:
Although I do understand where you guys are going at and I don't mean to crash the party but....

The locks aren't made by car companies to begin with as well as the factory radios, seats, or wheels.

A lot of car companies has outsourced their audio equipment decades ago to pioneer, alpine, or some other company. Of course 95% of these cars are equipped with low tier stuff that can't touch real aftermarket stuff.

Since when have we seen "Ford tires" or "Nissian tires"? Never because they don't make it. It is pretty common to see car companies switch tires on a newer year car even if it is the same generation.

There is a handful of cars out there with their seats made by companies like Brembo. Although Brembo makes high end bucket seats they also make some OEM stuff. I know the 8th gen Honda Civic Si has some comfty bucket seats made mostly by Brembo. I think the STi seats is made by Brembo as well.

Car locks I am not too sure really.
Click to expand...

Delco radios. But they still have options...like Bose, etc... MS does the same, they give basics that work and let you upgrade from there.
 
Solidstate89 said:
Yeah, next they shouldn't be allowed to bundle a browser with Windows. Yes yes, we all hate IE, but the fact of the matter is they shouldn't be barred from giving their customers basic usage out of the box.

Maybe next we should ban Explorer and force people to install third party Windows Managers. Or force Microsoft to not include a Firewall so you have to pick the software. Or not include a default defragging program and picking people to force their own as well. Where does it stop?

Besides, MSE is better than any AV program that McAfee, Symantec, AVG, et all have put out in the last fucking decade, so unless they produce a better product I'll stick with what Microsoft is putting out.
Click to expand...
Haha all true.

How about remote desktop software, media player, photo editors, sound editors? And all those drivers they include are putting third party driver download sites out of business! And why are they locking out non-X86 and ARM processors? Shouldn't they be making one that works with IBM processors too?

If these antitrust lawyers had their way, they'd have to call it a "booting system", because it sure as hell wouldn't operate.
 
I'm not sure which one is more ridiculous. The broken patent system or this lawsuit.
 
teal deer

...but isn't Symantec's old CEO now on the Microsoft board?

funk that!
 
I commiserate with independent security and AV software companies, but the fact remains that Microsoft has to do something to stop the zombie hordes of infected machines aiding botnets, and if most people don't care enough to buy their own independent AV software, including it for free may force the mindless masses to actually semi-secure their computers.

At least it would be better than the current situation which is untenable.
 
ktk_ace said:
XP a minority?

must be living in a cave dude.
Click to expand...

The numbers differ depending on your source, but many of the web use statistics are now seeing XP FINALLY dip into minority status:

An example:
Code: 
2012	Win7	Vista	Win2003	WinXP	Linux	Mac	 Mobile
January	47.1%	4.7%	0.7%	31.4%	4.9%	9.0%	1.3%

Heck, even my work recently upgraded my machine to Win 7. I thought hell would freeze over before corporate users started embracing anything other than WinXP, but it is finally happening! :D

The sooner that insecure turd of an operating system finally dies off, the better for all of us.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038412947 said:
The sooner that insecure turd of an operating system finally dies off, the better for all of us.
Click to expand...

In fact, I wish MS could just send out an "update" that nukes every XP box on the planet. The internet would suddenly be a much better place.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038412948 said:
In fact, I wish MS could just send out an "update" that nukes every XP box on the planet. The internet would suddenly be a much better place.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. XP users keeps malware writers busy and leave Vista/7 users alone, like OSX. Get rid of XP and I guarantee you that malware writer will write for Vista/7 in force. Vista/7 is vastly secured compared to XP, but stupid users are still in the majority.
 
Just like a car needs tires to operate properly, a computer needs at minimum a browser and security. Just because another company makes these products, that should not prevent MS from offering them with Windows.
 
Yeah Intel\MacAfee isn't going to put up too much fuss about this, but Symantec might. Sure they can still try to sell their snake oil, but that doesn't mean people will buy it.

IMHO it's Microsoft's responsibility to make the OS Secure by Default. If third parties don't like it, then the hackers win.

DigitalGriffin said:
Microsoft Windows reputation is damaged every time Apple hammers them with "It isn't secure"
Click to expand...

I always get a chuckle out of that one because when people ask Apple when iOS is going to be PCI compliant they say "Never". So who isn't secure?

Btw is OSX PCI compliant?
 
Koolthulu said:
Just like a car needs tires to operate properly, a computer needs at minimum a browser and security. Just because another company makes these products, that should not prevent MS from offering them with Windows.
Click to expand...

As other people have said, car manufacturers get together with third-party parts manufacturers to source what they need for their cars. Why can't MS get together with an A/V company to have them build an integrated security system that fits MS's needs?
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Microsoft Windows repetation is damaged every time Apple hammers them with "It isn't secure"
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the more recent updated one, but Apple playing the security card is just a whole bunch of crock at this point.




Apple's software/operating systems have plenty of bugs and security flaws. They just have a user base that is blindly obsessed with their products, and unwilling to admit it.
 
ryan_975 said:
As other people have said, car manufacturers get together with third-party parts manufacturers to source what they need for their cars. Why can't MS get together with an A/V company to have them build an integrated security system that fits MS's needs?
Click to expand...

Because you don't want to give away company secrets.
 
ryan_975 said:
As other people have said, car manufacturers get together with third-party parts manufacturers to source what they need for their cars. Why can't MS get together with an A/V company to have them build an integrated security system that fits MS's needs?
Click to expand...

Why pay another company to make something worse than what your own company already created? If you want me to go out and buy Norton or McAfee, make it WANT to buy, don't try circumvent the current system to push your product.

Ever notice how the browsers work? Firefox/Chrome made a better product than IE and people go out of their way on a new OS installation to get it. Norton/McAfee are living in the past and much like the RIAA/MPAA, need to get with the times or die and make room for new innovations, simple as that.
 
ryan_975 said:
As other people have said, car manufacturers get together with third-party parts manufacturers to source what they need for their cars. Why can't MS get together with an A/V company to have them build an integrated security system that fits MS's needs?
Click to expand...

Microsoft is free to offer their own security software. Even for free. They do this already with MSSE, and no one has a valid complaint against that.

Where it starts running amok of anti-competetive legislation is when they start including it with the operating system, and not as an optional download.

Suddenly no-one has a reason to ever download anyone else's software, and the argument is that MS. is using their market dominance in Operating Systems to damage companies in other markets and take their market share, which is an illegal use of their monopolistic powers.

In most cases I would agree with this line of reasoning, but in this case I feel the good of having every system on the market protected outweighs the harm, and there ought to be an exception.

Part of the issue is that Operating Systems and Security Software are seen as two different markets, when an Operating System really needs good security software to function well.
 
I think its pretty insane subject to broach... Though the last anti-trust did bring MS to offer the ability to select or fully remove things which are bundled... I like that option!

Though in my opinion MS should make these tools independent and easy to remove if you want (nag screens about security... ok can live with that).

I think the car analogy is pretty good... Items like tires come with the car, but can be replaced by the owner with better or worse performance. I see no difference with AV or other supporting software included on an OS.
 
devil22 said:
Didn't take long for a nix user to come in and post a ridiculous and nonsensical manifesto..
Click to expand...

He's mostly right though. (except maybe for the KDE part. KDE pretty much blows, I'd use Gnome (2.x, not 3.x) or even Xfce before touching KDE.)

Microsoft has huge problems. This should't be one of them. This one makes sense.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038413059 said:
Part of the issue is that Operating Systems and Security Software are seen as two different markets, when an Operating System really needs good security software to function well.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I wouldn't even consider this as an exception. An OS needs to be a total solution; it should be able to run all the basic functions a user typically performs, without the need for additional software. I think the "O" in "OS" says it all. In the past, we've seen OS'es that simply prepare a computer for necessary additional software required to actually DO anything with the software, other than play the simple games which came bundled with the OS.

Look at the past:

When IE was bundled, other browser providers (particularly Netscape) screamed. We still have IE.

When the basic ability to burn disks was added, other disk burning software companies screamed. We can still burn disks with Windows.

And the list goes on, but...

Preventive security ISN'T a utility. It works on it's own to protect the OS in order to keep it running properly, so it seems much more logical to consider it a part of the OS, and not an aftermarket accessory. The only time it might be considered a utility is when it is installed after-the-fact in order to correct problems incurred by a lack of security altogether, and is utilized to remove malware and restore the OS to health.

It IS ridiculous, however, to assume that because of the latter condition, people's systems should be crippled from the start, allowing the possibility of malware intrusion between the time they install the OS and the selection of security software. As far as I can tell, logically speaking, any legislation requiring this puts everyone at risk.

If we can still use IE and disk burning features after the hubbub has died down, then Security Essentials is a no-brainer. Or should be.

There's no reason that consumers (or MS) should be crippled due to the fact that AV companies want to level the playing field, OTHER than making a great product at a great price. The only constant in the computing world is change, and just because AV companies have consistently made money doing the same old thing the same old way, doesn't mean they should be able to continue doing so. That's not what progress is about.

I use MS Security Essentials and it's great. Doesn't mean that I don't augment it with other tools, but the other tools I use are also free and ad-supported (or basic versions without extras). If these companies and individuals can make a profit with their leaner business model, settling for less, then Symantec, etc, all need to change, and not cripple the natural evolution of an OS that continues to provide additional features necessary for the use of PCs (which are also hardware-evolving.)

(sigh) When you buy a new car, it comes with a warranty. Using the logic of AV antitrust, the warranty should be an option and you should be given a list of competing third party warranties at the time of purchase. Ridiculous.
 
poee said:
I think the DOJ should look into the big anti-virus players like Symantec and McAfee and the rest. They clearly have a conflict of interest: they only exist in the presence of malware and the threat of malware infection. If MS can make their OS less vulnerable to malware infection this takes profits directly out of their coffers. If virus-writing scum and their script kiddie minions stopped deploying malware, these companies would go out of business.
Click to expand...
I don't know....you could say the same thing about any number of service professions. Contractors, mechanics, whatever. Hell, I've been pissed at getting nails in my tires repeatedly, and fleetingly thought maybe the tire guy was driving around town spreading nails around for more business.
I suppose he could, but in reality, it's not likely.

poee said:
So how can you even trust them? Their motivation is for you to remain fearful enough about terrorism/war/climate/economy/nukes/etc/etc/etc that you will pay them an annual fee for "protection." Sounds like the federal government to me.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you.
 
I think its important to bundle these feature with windows, some cant afford to secured their windows, Microsoft is smart to include it, to keep things safe, but this should also be optional to removed it to install 3rd party software.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038413059 said:
Microsoft is free to offer their own security software. Even for free. They do this already with MSSE, and no one has a valid complaint against that.

Where it starts running amok of anti-competetive legislation is when they start including it with the operating system, and not as an optional download.

Suddenly no-one has a reason to ever download anyone else's software, and the argument is that MS. is using their market dominance in Operating Systems to damage companies in other markets and take their market share, which is an illegal use of their monopolistic powers.

In most cases I would agree with this line of reasoning, but in this case I feel the good of having every system on the market protected outweighs the harm, and there ought to be an exception.

Part of the issue is that Operating Systems and Security Software are seen as two different markets, when an Operating System really needs good security software to function well.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't meaning that I didn't agree with MS bundling AV with their OS. I do, it would make my life 1,000x better if people used an up-to-date AV by default instead of the crap that gives you 60 days of protection when you buy the computer. I don't know how many times I've heard "There's no viruses on my computer, I have Nortons." and then when I do look at it it's a 4 year old copy that expired about as long ago.
 
ryan_975 said:
Sorry, I wasn't meaning that I didn't agree with MS bundling AV with their OS. I do, it would make my life 1,000x better if people used an up-to-date AV by default instead of the crap that gives you 60 days of protection when you buy the computer. I don't know how many times I've heard "There's no viruses on my computer, I have Nortons." and then when I do look at it it's a 4 year old copy that expired about as long ago.
Click to expand...

In my experience it wouldn't matter if Norton is up to date or not. ;)
 
What happens if Windows 8 ships without any need for security at all (heh, quit laughing...it could happen)
Click to expand...
Sure it could, only problem is that you will have as mouths useability of that computer, as a terminal at a bank. :eek:

I would say frack Norton, any improvements on security in Windows is welcome, as I just reinstalled Windows again on a fully infested computer, and now did a full update on a friends computer.
And also installed AVG, as he is still to cheap to buy G-Data's TotalSecurity for $25 a year.
 
player-x said:
Sure it could, only problem is that you will have as mouths useability of that computer, as a terminal at a bank. :eek:

I would say frack Norton, any improvements on security in Windows is welcome, as I just reinstalled Windows again on a fully infested computer, and now did a full update on a friends computer.
And also installed AVG, as he is still to cheap to buy G-Data's TotalSecurity for $25 a year.
Click to expand...

Why do people still insist on using AVG? I just had a friend whose neighbor had to help her with something because I couldn't get over to help her for a few more weeks. He uninstalled MSE that I had put on there for her to install that garbage. To make it even worse, the problem she was having had fuck-all to do with her security software, so he had no business even dicking with any of it.
 
ianken said:
You can uninstall every four or six years. But we keep re-installing hoping that will speed up the system.

See, the problem is we think those clowns are a reliable a good old WIndows XP. If only.
Click to expand...

Definately a Windows 95 or ME.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038413045 said:
I haven't seen the more recent updated one, but Apple playing the security card is just a whole bunch of crock at this point.

(snip pics)

Apple's software/operating systems have plenty of bugs and security flaws. They just have a user base that is blindly obsessed with their products, and unwilling to admit it.
Click to expand...

Apple never said they were secured. They said they don't get malware like the PC does.

I can say I never lock my car door, but nobody's ever gotten into it. Doesn't make my car secured. It just makes me lucky and my car obscured by thousands of other cars.
 
I think the whole 'Car companies outsource radios to pioneer and apline, seatbelts to ___ and blah to ____' is a pretty rediculous reason why Microsoft might be in anti-trust is a fairly silly notion. Car companies likely outsourced radios to those compaines because its 'cheaper' than manufacturing radios themselves or outsourcing resulted in quality improvements as pioneer are more experienced in the audio field.

First thing that comes to mind that's wrong with this argument is that Pioneer provides a physical product which is inheritantly different from an electronic product. If Microsoft buys 10 or 120 million copies of Norton A/V for bundling into their OS, every copy of Norton is effectively the same and there is no change in the volume of raw materials, a factory or man-hours to produce additonal copies of 'Norton A/V'. Whereas buying more radios from Pioneer if you sold additional cars would require more raw-materials, a factory to produce said raios and labour.

With Microsoft, paying for 120 million copies of Norton or Nod32 (aka one copy per every copy of Windows 8 sold) is very unlikely to be cheaper than creating your own anti-virus. Even if they got a rediculous volume discount so each copy of another companies a/v was $2.00, that's sitll $240 million they could spend making a potentially superior quality product. Heck, most software development companies spend only 1/10th that amount to make a game title.

Futher, as others have pointed out, Windows Defender, Firewall and MSE together are in many ways a superior quality product than what Symantec produces and in the software field microsoft has technically been around longer/is more experienced. Unlike the case with pioneer radios versus GM radios.

Similarly, if you applied what's levied against Microsoft to car manufacturers to receive anti-trust lawsuits everytime they change a model of their own vehicles to add or remove hatchbacks as they make the vehicle inheritantly more or less secure and might negatively effect lock-producing companies by 'removing' that extra need for another 'door lock' for the hatchback.
 
ryan_975 said:
Why do people still insist on using AVG? I just had a friend whose neighbor had to help her with something because I couldn't get over to help her for a few more weeks. He uninstalled MSE that I had put on there for her to install that garbage. To make it even worse, the problem she was having had fuck-all to do with her security software, so he had no business even dicking with any of it.
Click to expand...

Why? Because the AVG Fanboy force was stong in that one. It's the same reason he might recommend she upgrade her ATI 7970 to an nVidia product because nVidia's drivers are "better". Or vice-versa with a 580 // ati.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top