I couldn't agree more -- read the full post for more details.
"The Commission understands Microsoft's desire to make Vista more secure than its predecessors," an EC spokesperson said this week. "[The innovation that comes from a variety of security companies] could be at risk if Microsoft was allowed to foreclose the existing competition in security software markets. Less diversity and innovation would ultimately harm consumers through reduced choice and higher security risks."
Sorry, but that's insane.
Source: Commentary: EU Jumps the Shark in Latest Vista Complaint
4 comments:
Insane? No, sorry. I think you're just plain wrong there.
This is most likely the EU following up on informal complaints lodged last year.
See http://www.not-so-rapid.com/philipstorry/dxblog/not-so-rapid.nsf/dx/12092006205738MDOREK.htm
Basically, the EU seems to be within its remit at the moment. If they didn't do this, I'd bet that Symantec et al would simply lodge a formal complaint anyway. And that would be a rather dramatic 11th hour option that they probably want to avoid, so as to maintain their grace and favour with Microsoft...
So you're saying Microsoft shouldn't be able to improve security in Windows -- e.g., preventing on-the-fly kernel modifications, which have never been supported via any Microsoft APIs (or exploited by any Microsoft products), in order to protect Symantec's business interests?
BTW -- at least in the US -- anti-trust was supposed to be about protecting consumers, not competitors. How does attempting to force Microsoft to ship a dumbed-down security model in Windows protect consumers?
Peter,
No. Microsoft should absolutely be able to secure the kernel with dynamic address allocation, windows file protection and the like.
However, bundling products like the spyware defender or advertising OneCare could be construed as using a monopoly product in one market to try to gain a monopoly in another market.
And anywa, define "consumer". Most people who will be upgrading to Vista themselves should have some security in place already - that was the point of the Security Centre in Windows XP SP2, right?
And most companies upgrading will have their own security products in place too.
So this is effectively a grab at the OEM market. You may not think of them as your typical consumer, but they are the gateway to the consumer. Microsoft knows this, and has used it time and time again. Companies like Symatec and McAfee will suffer if they do not have equal access to that market, and some possible security offerings from Microsoft could destroy that access.
As for documented APIs - Microsoft bought its security products from outside. So I believe you that you have equal access to securing Windows as 3rd party products have. Microsoft wouldn't be so dumb as to refuse to provide documentation to third parties that it enjoys when creating the same product, would it?
It must be said that the exact nature of the security features being debvated seems to be missing from just about all reports. Until we have more details on what, exactly, is concerning the EU and third parties, I think we'll just be shadow boxing here. ;-)
Again great points; thanks for sharing. I still think Microsoft is going to be vindicated in this context, however...
Post a Comment