The following text is
copyright 2005 by Network World, permission is hearby given for reproduction,
as long as attribution is given and this notice is included.
An
inherent conflict of interest
By Scott
Bradner
Microsoft
is getting into the anti business.
The anti-spyware, anti-virus and, in general, the anti-bad stuff
business. The anti business is a
pretty good one to the tune of multiple-billion of dollars per year. The fact that almost all of the value
of the business stems from the fact that Microsoft has not been able to get
security right the first time makes Microsoft's entry into the business more
than a bit conflicted.
According
to published reports Microsoft's OneCare offering be more than just an
anti-spyware, anti-virus package.
It will be a subscription service, targeted at home rather than
enterprise users, that will provide an auto update function as well as
protecting against viruses and spyware.
Microsoft is trying it out on its own employees in the near future but
has not yet announced when the service will be generally available nor have
they announced how much it will cost.
When I
first heard about the new service my reaction was 'hey, wait a minute,
Microsoft caused this problem why should their customers have to pay extra to
fix it?' But on second thought,
since it may actually be technically or practically impossible to fix the
problem at its source (so to speak) by not having so many bugs, charging to fix
it may be the right thing from a number of points of view.
o From Microsoft's
point of view, it would be out of character to leave so much money on the
table.
o From
the point of view of the current players in the anti-virus and anti-spyware
game having Microsoft as a competitor is far better than Microsoft deciding to bundle
the software into the base operating system like it has so many times before
with other types of applications.
o From
an anti-trust point of view, it is not clear that Microsoft had much choice
other than to charge a reasonable amount if they wanted to play in this field
at all. They have been put on
notice in a number of legal jurisdictions to stop bundling new functions into
Windows that other companies are already selling.
But
Microsoft does have some significant advantages, even if they are ostensibly
just another competitor in the field.
They
will get very early word of any new exploits, likely before any of its
competitors except in the case where a competitor discovers the vulnerability.
They can add one of their marvy nagging pop up balloons reminding users that
they should subscribe to OneCare (again and again and again ...). They do not have to do more than appear
to break even on OneCare to have a creditable anti-trust defense story and thus
may be able to undercut their competitors who actually have to try to make a
profit. It's easier for Microsoft
to figure out how to integrate into Windows and, in particular, future versions
of Windows.
And then
there is the advantage of being able to delay fixing underlying bugs to
encourage sales of OneCare -- but Microsoft would never do that.
disclaimer:
Delaying graduations would not be all that good a sales tool for Harvard
anyway, as far as I know, the
university has not expressed an opinion on this topic thus the above opinion
must be mine.