Follow-up from my previous post on Microsoft getting into security software, the outspoken John Dvorak weighs in with this thoughts.
“Does Microsoft think it is going to get away with charging real money for any sort of add-on, service, or new product that protects clients against flaws in its own operating system? Does the existence of this not constitute an incredible conflict of interest? Why improve the base code when you can sell “protection”? Is Frank Nitti the new CEO?
…Microsoft has stayed away from the antivirus, antispyware game for a long time because it knew that there was this inherent conflict of interest unless it gave away such software for free. After all, the exploits utilized by malware are possible because of flaws within the Microsoft code base. There is no incentive to fix the code base if it can make additional money selling “protection.”
It was also obvious that Microsoft was so far behind the curve with antivirus software that it would embarrass itself if it entered that game, although it did quietly come up to speed over the years. But that still begs the question: Why protect the users when you can fix the code?”
I don’t entirely agree with John, but it’s an entertaining article nonetheless.
Alex Eckelberry