Sunbeltblog comments
Wow, this is interesting, but it kind of makes me want to buy oneCare... Am I a bad person?
Do you trust OneCare to really protect you against the latest viruses?
Microsoft MVP says no!
i wouldn't trust onecare either... the only thing i really trust microsoft's security products to do is to remove or at least seriously change microsoft's incentive to fix the problems in their software...
"Incredibly, Microsoft has pricedt hemselves almost 50% below the market leader, and no one has said a peep."
I said a peep.
http://cbronline.com/article_new...27-
FA6CEA109E0D
heh. russian criminal v2
http://videoscash.com/
Kevin -- nice peep!!
Joe Wilcox of Jupiter Research agrees with you: http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/...ves/
016106.html
Second Microsoft MVP says no!
Paperghost and I are both security MVPs, too. In the case of Microsoft's security products, it could be that you are getting what you pay for -- a cheap, poor quality product.
I'm not an MVP. Hell, my MCP has long since expired. I still wouldn't trust their software. Ever since they started an affiliation with claria and started removing known bad programs from the block or notify lists of their earlier anti-spyware software without ever letting anyone know, I haven't trusted them.
Here at work we're currently running SAV CE everywhere. I'm not overly fond of its abilities anywhere, but it is what our parent company is basically forcing us to use. I've given up on the subject of preferred software and now take the stance of "something is better than nothing" and just hope it catches on to something (anything) with enough time to let us know that we need to run something better to clear the infection (this applies to both virus and spyware/adware infections).
Another area that worries me is the lack of firewalls on clients, this "something is better than nothing" approach has been applied again with group policies forcing the crappy windows firewall service to the "on" state with rules as tight as I can make them.
I am in the maybe category. The price they are offering seems too tempting, especialy for a person with 3 PCs....
However, and this is a big however, I feel there is a conflict of interest in Microsoft offering such security software, when they make the operating system.
To clarify, for those who have seen Tommorow Never Dies (Jame Bond film) you get that moment when they say "As requested, the software is full of bugs so people will have to buy upgrades from us for years to come"........with Microsoft previously there was never any real gain from releasing a poor OS - they just have to patch it themselves and keep patching it.
Now though, there is an incentive to release bug filled operating systems, because be honest, the home market will not switch away from them. Not as long as they have a hold on the PC Games market.
Which means, people will be buying security software for them as long as their operating system is filled with flaws.
In fact, with their intimate knowledge of the coding of Windows, I can see a case for the release of the Windows Source Code to other security vendors to even up the market.
Maybe a government will step in and demand it - slap an anticompetitive order on them (much like what happened with Windows Media player in the EU, and to a lesser extent Microsoft Office).
So why can't the other software companies charge less than microsoft? Wouldn't you make more money selling in volume rather than selling a few copies at higher prices?
But then again it doesn't matter how much you charge if the software sucks. Take for example Norton Antivrus. A few years ago it used to be the king of antivirus but they sat on their success and didn't make any improvement. New people came into the playing field that offered better virus protection for a nominal price or free.
If it's cheaper and works better I would buy that instead of buying a product based solely on the name of the company.
I'm not a security guru like all of you are, but know enough about keeping my box secured and protected. I would not trust M$ for a nanosecond to do that. Their patches to fix patches to fix patches is enough for me. They can't even take care of their own home and I should trust them to take care of mine. NOT! I use a free AV and firewall on one box and a free firewall and paid AV on the other, Spybot, free Ad-Aware, and all the other "malware finders" and have not had any nasties invade that they did not catch and remove before I had any serious problem with them. I would gladly pay whatever $$$$ than to use M$ security, even if it is cheaper.
Now I know I'm not paranoid....thanks for your comments MVP's.
Eugene Kaspersky (Kaspersky Antivirus) has some inteesting comments about Microsoft's entry into the security/AV market.
http://www.kaspersky.com/
cyberth...apter=188361044
Onecare sounds painfully tacky to start with. Almost like a pension plan from companies that allow you to release some of your equity before swiping your house from your inheritors.
I was under the impression that Counterspy was also a licensed clone of Giant (I could be wrong). It makes me wonder why MS dropped this software for the Windows Defender rubbish.
There is free software out there that trounces MS offerings in the security market so I will not be jumping on that bandwagon.
Also, please stop using the "national security" rubbish. This is most often used to pass laws that destroy citizens rights, not those of the ethereal enemy.
Circuit City this week ran an ad for One Care at $15 a box. Predatory indeed.
Remember when virus scanners where free? This isn't something I expected to last, but the fast 5 years have seen skyrocketting prices from $20/yr to $80/yr. And the tools that used to be seperate have be globbed together like Nero. They're not smooth or seemless. Where's the money going? The price McAfee and Norton want is too high. MS will act in their own interest it may and likely is predatory pricing from their point of view. From mine, it's leveling down to what it should be.
Predatory is what the antivirus companies have been doing for years. They have built a business that relies on the shortcomings of the Microsoft operating system and essentially extorting money from people to be able to protect their PCs. My only gripe is that OneCare should be free from Microsoft since it really is just a solution to fix all the holes in thier OS.
Considering that I picked up SystemWorks 2006 at Best Buy for an upgrade price of $20 (US), I'm not sure that $15 is so predatory.
Maybe Microsoft's software will work better than Symantec's. Fewer problems with multiple user's would be ideal.
The only reason this company calls the pricing "predatory" is because it cuts into their bottom line. To me this is call competition. If you can't compete or are too imcompetent to do so why don't you just sue microsoft? Everyone is doing it due to inferior product offering. Predatory my ass. Like I said before. Make a better product than what microsoft has to offer, sell it at a reasonable price. Selling it at $100, $80, $69.99, $54, or $39 is not reasonable. I think most people are willing to pay within the $20 to $29 range. You have a great product and sell in volume then you can make money. Until then shut the hell up about microsoft being predatory. It's competition and it's a free market. You make a great product and people will buy it.
Fyi, there is a distinct difference between low-balling and predatory pricing. In the predatory pricing model, low pricing is used to destroy compettition and then raise prices after the market is owned.
Well, I personally don't think that MS will be able to make much of an inroad into the corporate environment. Best practices should dictate the use of multiple security vendors for different stages of the environment (workstation, infrastructure, gateway, etc). This will eliminate a common point of failure. I just can not see corporations installing an MS based security product that is supposed to protect against MS based operating system flaws.
I'm gonna go against the grain here and say that while I don't use or wouldn't use OneCare, it does represent an option for those millions running a PC that aren't willing to shell out for a more expensive commercial solution. My view of OneCare is that it's far from perfect and is too immature a product to put total trust in, but it seems a lot better than some of the free solutions out there. Bottom line, it's better than nothing.
How is this different from Symantec and McAfee's net-to-zero rebate pricing?
Grasshopper: The lesson is not on the consumer. The lesson is on the enterprise. Look at the Antigen pricing....
I'm tired of microsoft bashing - get over it. The release of any new product incurs loss. I feel accusing MS of Predatory Pricing in this case is ridiculous since all it takes for MS to offer a product for half the price is double the sales volume. This is easily within microsoft's reach.
"Well, I personally don't think that MS will be able to make much of an inroad into the corporate environment."
Depends on what they do with the corporate version. If they integrate control of it with Active Directory, GPO's etc I know a lot of companies that will lap it right up.
Hell, I'm always groaning when someone requests software, any software, that I cannot control certain settings of at the corporate level (usually things I know cause problems, slow systems down, open them up, or make patching difficult).
What a ridicilous article. Most mailservers except Microsoft Exchange offer inbuilt anti spam protection, and offer anti virus as a low cost option (mdeamon and many others). Why shouldnt Microsoft be allowed to do the same?
I think this article has more to do with the fact that Sunbelt wants to make money of companies selling anti virus at much too high prices.
And the security industry is not anti virus alone - there is plenty of innovation going on in other parts of security industry. Face it, you just chose the wrong part of the security market to compete in!
The Antigen pricing is definitely lower than it was in the past but anyone who knows the AV industry knows that there is a lot of discounting, especially at the enterprise level. MS simply does not provide much discounting flexibility in the enterprise space. Trend and Symantec will still have the opportunity to eat MS's lunch on pricing...however...the area will it may hurt is that now MS can "roll / slam" the Antigen products into a client's EA agreements...effectively changing the entire competitive environment and doing an end around the whole process. The advantages for other vendors are 1) the inflexibility of MS on pricing of larger deals (Antigen never sold at list above 500 seats) 2) the "real" discontent in the channel - Antigen resellers go from having 20-30 points and the ability to sell all size licenses to now 3-5 points and up to 250 users 3)the fact that the new version of Antigen sees virtually "no" changes/improvements (the MS AV engine is hardly a great benefit) from the version released in the fall of 2004 4) the people driving the Antigen efforts have no real experience in the space they are in (most of the experience people either did not come over in the acquisition or have since left - they really treated people badly). In summary, there is plenty of room to move for competitors, especially those that are agile and those that continue to focus on developing first rate products and those that listen to their clients and partners.
In addition to my last comment, I didnt see much innoviation going on at Symantec and Mcafee in the past few years.... They should have built in anti spyware and loads of other things. yet they didnt. Heck, i think Microsoft entry into the market will wake them up and make other companies provide better products and better value. All round win for customers.
What you have stated in your article no doubt rings a bell - especially when the netscape/IE browser war is still fresh in ones mind. But you left out one scenario. Which is the open source one. Microsoft can cut the price of their products as much they want but they do not have a chance of beating the open source products in the price cutting game. And also more and more companies are taking a fancy for open source solutions even in the enterprise level which makes it really hard not only for the propritery product companies but also big shots like microsoft.
No wonder microsoft considers free software as their enemy number one. Because they know that they just can't beat it on any front.
Like Symantec and McAffee are worth a fucking shit---come on---what are you smoking?
Or anything MS produces is even worth wiping your ass with?
Here is the equivalent of Chrysler, Ford and GM doing battle---what a fucking joke!
I'll take a toyota, or better for your understanding--PcCillin!
Ever wonder why MS started using PcCillin to scan their email attachments in HOTMAIL?
I cannot believe that you assholes call yourself Security Professionals---The Peter Principle once again at work---you are lucky that I don't expose you fro your ineptitude LOL!
Ravi, Open source for security? It works in many areas (IDS, spam detection), but open source antivirus? ClamAV?
Considering the fact that both symantec and mcafee are both making huge profits (see google for their earnings reports), I would suggest that they have used their dominant position in the market to overprice their offerings, and maximise profits.
to extend the open-source av argument outside of open-source proper for a moment - there are those vendors whose closed source products are also free for personal non-commercial use... while that doesn't mean they'll be undercutting ms in the enterprise market per se, it does mean they'll still able to capture 'mind-share' among the people making the buying decisions in the corporate environment (they're people too, often with home computers of their own)...
Realistically, Microsoft should just include AV as part of the operating system and not sell additional software to plug OS holes. Clearly consumers are being ripped off here. Take a look at many of the Linux distros which include AV. It's a no brainer.
Unfortunately, Microsoft is back to the same old tactics again - it's like they never learn. Microsoft should take the high road and bake OneCare or Forefront Client Security into the OS.
Why even use any MS product. If you worry about their pricing why buy an insecure product. Why not use other OS?
But if you only own 1 computer, you can't buy it for just $16.66 can you?
However, I can go to http://pack.google.com and download Symantec's NAV2005 with a six month subscription for free! Renew the subscription for about $25 when it expires and I get another 12 months use out of it. That's about $1.38 per month or $16.66 for 12 months. I would contend they are hitting the current market price for AV software. A little research yields similar deals to be found with a variety of products. Just build a better product than they make and you have no worries.
Your security products are overpriced - simple and direct - so deal with it. Microsoft is simply filling a need. Either get your business model in-line or go the way of the do-do.
Darwin, MY security products are overpriced? Excuse me?
I always thought security products for home are over priced. Last year Symantec increased their price 10% to milk us before OneCare cuts into their profits. Symantec will have a competing product with OneCare I believe for the 2007 line. After you buy a over priced security product, you can get discounts for the first time, but even more with a upgrade mail-in rebate. Sometimes even free after rebate. OneCare for $20 with no rebates is great and is competitive with other products after 2 rebates you must send in. I believe NIS 2006 is ~$30 for one user after rebates and I did see it for free after times after rebates. Also OneCare is light wieght and will push Symantec to stop bloating their products. But, NIS is more configurable for a power user. OneCare is for the average user.
Microsoft Sux, many bugs. Tell everyone not to buy it...
It should be noted that those three OneCare licenses require the licensed PCs networked with each other.
No network, no license beyond numero uno.
Ever hear of rising Healthcare costs?
Working in Healthcare everday is a challenge to reduce cost...., everyday.
While education gets massive breaks in software licensing Healthcare takes a backseat.
Antigen at $10 a seat compared to $35 a seat? Absolutley! With 10,000 employees do I even have a choice?
All for email antivirus protection, not to mention the cost of the email itself, lets not even have a religious debate of Linux, Unix, Mac and MS, believe you me if there is a proven way to help the 1000 people in hospital beds that is free and has 24x7x365 support we are all ears. Remember it could be your daugher, son or other family member in that bed, you want the best. Remember that next time you hear about Healthcare prices and Cost.
Yes we will take the reduced Antigen prices thank you.
Oh if you even mention sendmail I will personally put you IN the Hospial. (grin)
nice blog
take care
My only issue here is that most security companies have inflated pricing any way. The three mentioned are usually the most inflated. Maybe this will cause companies to appropriately price products. After all I don't believe these companies are hurting for money.
i'm already late, but for the guy in this comment:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...8021412/
#346150
yes, i also hate sendmail, but you have other mail server, alot easier, faster and secure than MS ones and sendmail... like postfix
but if you want to reduce the price of AV, use clamav, its one of the best scanners for web and email and its free (as beer and freedom)
if you dont want to setup everything, you have ready to install soluctions like endian firewall or several other... full support, turn on soluctions there are already several also.
if you want to save money, go for free software/open source, not closed source...
higuita
"Clam AV is one of the best" -- sorry, that is a statement completely at odds with all the facts. --Alex Eckelberry
Edited By Siteowner
At first I thought you were having a laugh point out the sainted behaviour of security vendors and pointing out the evil empire building the next Death Star! I'm surprised that no one has pointed out the predatory practices of Symantec and McAfee!
For years they manage to get PC manufacturers to preinstall their crapware to poor customer's machines, on many occasions without any option to opt out of their crap being preinstalled. At least in the beginning they gave away decent licenses. Now you get a 60 day trial version if you're lucky!
How can it be right that it is cheaper to go along to places like PC World (UK) and purchase a new version of Norton Internet Security than it is to renew a license online!
Goodness, Symantec offer Norton 360 (3 computers) in the UK for silly prices. They strike deals with places like PC World to discount it to silly prices, including having it at £19.99 when bought with a computer.
Chickens coming home to roost strike a cord.
Personally, I'd like to see MS bundling in a security suite to Windows and have it as a free service! I'd love for the world to be a safer place for everyone without anyone having to think about it. Here in Europe, that is never going to happen with this loonies in Brussels listening more to Symantec and McAfee than watching out for the consumer.
"Clam AV is one of the best" -- sorry, that is a statement completely at odds with all the facts. --Alex Eckelberry
what facts?!
clamAV isnt target to replace home user workstation AV, but for samba shares, http proxies and email scan, its great. It detects almost all virus and trojans, its very fast to add new virus.
i have clamav, norton and MS forefront in the smtp scan, and with clamav being the first to run, only about once every three months i get norton or forefront detect something that clamav didnt detect.
if i go to http://www.virustotal.com/ and scan that new virus, most of the AV dont detect it, but next day clamav already detect it and most of the other still didnt add the new virus.
i tried once to swap norton and clamav and norton let more virus pass to clamav
You can test your self in virustotal site and see that clamav is one of the best.
again, if we talk about home user AV, clamav is bad, for server, its great.
clamav is opensource, build by the community, but if your problem is the apparent lack of the company behind clamav, think again, clamav is owned and supported by sourcefire - https://clamsupport.sourcefire.com/
higuita
Higuita, I don't want to get into a pissing contetst over ClamAV -- I really could care less. But needless to say, tests on the product show it consistently behind the rest:
Example, test from May by Andreas Marx last year:
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/
...ions_2007q2.htm
And then reteted in March:
http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/...-
antivirus.html
And so on.
Commenting by HaloScan
