backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 44 comment(s) - last by Randalllind.. on Sep 29 at 7:38 AM
Adobe and Symantec voiced their concerns about Vista to the European Union

DailyTech has been on top of Microsoft's battles with the European Union (EU) over the course of the past few months. Microsoft was slapped with a $634 million USD fine in 2004 by the EU and was then hit with another $357 million USD fine this past July for not complying with antitrust rulings. And just last week we learned that the EU was once again after Microsoft to remove the included security features from Vista which are there to make the operating system more secure.

Today we have learned that two companies are the driving force behind the EU inquisition: Adobe and Symantec. According to The Wall Street Journal, the two companies have been lobbying the EU to strip Vista of features to help them compete better in the marketplace.

Adobe is concerned that Microsoft's XPS (XML Paper Specification), which is freely available to use and create, will be going toe-to-toe with its PDF creation software which Adobe charges for. Adobe already won the first battle in this war as Microsoft agreed to remove native support for “Save to PDF” and “Save to XPS” options from Office 2007. The two features are available, however, for download from Microsoft’s Download Center. Symantec, on the other hand has a whole host of issues with Vista. Windows IT Pro reports:

The firm alleges that Microsoft's Security Center console in Windows Vista should be replaceable by third party software, despite the fact that Security Center can be populated with links to third party products, including Symantec's. Microsoft is even allowing Symantec and other third parties to brand Security Center with their own logos and icons. Symantec has also complained about a new security feature called Kernel PatchGuard that prevents software--malicious or otherwise--from altering the Windows kernel at runtime. In the past, security companies have been forced to patch the Windows kernel because so much malicious software does so as well. That process will not be possible in Windows Vista, which should make the system more secure. Symantec wants it removed.

It all comes down to money in the end. Adobe has been providing its Acrobat Reader software for free for years making PDF the dominant standard online for electronic documents. As a result, its profitable Acrobat creation software could come under fire from Microsoft XPS format. Symantec has also profited heavily over the years from customers with Windows-based machines. Vista's beefed up security somewhat blunts its ability to provide an over abundance of security software for the platform. In the end, it should be interesting to see who flinches first.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Oh the irony
By Lord Zado on 9/21/2006 12:29:02 PM , Rating: 4
Microsoft is bashed for years for lackluster security features and now they are fined millions of dollars for putting them in.

I understand that Symantec wants to be able to compete, but the biggest problem today is that inexperienced users don't go searching for security products. MS is right to have that built it so these types of users don't have to worry about it.




RE: Oh the irony
By alexsch8 on 9/21/2006 12:41:52 PM , Rating: 4
I also found that Symantec's products have become more and more bloated and people have started to shy away from it because of that. There are also plenty of free alternatives to paying for Symantec's stuff.

Symantec should come up with some new innovative security software - not forcing Microsoft to take out their security so that Symantec can sell their bloatware.

The integration of needed features is just not gonna stop. Some of these features are extremely necessary.

Linux comes with all kinds of security stuff included and add-ons are usually free as well.

I don't see a security concern for the customer driving these EU sanctions, I see the money concerns of companies that are too lazy to come up with new stuff.


RE: Oh the irony
By Hakuryu on 9/21/2006 2:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm one of those users that has finally stopped using Norton AV after 6 years of using it. The bloat and problems with automatic updates had me researching other products, of which I finally decided to go with Bit Defender.

Instead of refining their product and making it less bloated, they seem to be rushing to expand it's features in an effort to increase their product line. Reading about them wanting MS to remove security features just reinforces my decision to move to another product.


RE: Oh the irony
By cgrecu77 on 9/21/2006 12:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
microsoft cannot give for free things that other charge, but others are allow to give linux for free (which arguably is a bigger threat to MS than Vista is to Symantec/Adobe)


RE: Oh the irony
By Ringold on 9/21/2006 2:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
See, this is what gets me. Really, we DO pay for an OS. Now, my view of an OS is software to stick on my computer that does a whole lot of basic things out-of-the-box. Basic anti virus, firewall, wordpad, internet browser and so on are essential services. Hell, every guide out there for n00bs tell them to do what? Install AV and make sure a firewall is up before even thinking of connecting the Ethernet cable from the router to the NIC! That makes it pretty clear it's essential.

So nothing included with the OS is 'free'.

Of course, MS is out to make profit, so only the most basic services will be offered. Improved AV, firewall, etc they'll charge for, just like everyone else in a competitive market. Therefore, no foul play.

Only European anti-american zealots have a definition of an OS as nothing but an empty shell apparently. Nevermind they turn around and DL Linux distro's so damned bloated that they fill entire DVDs (and thats compressed!).


RE: Oh the irony
By mindless1 on 9/22/2006 7:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
Not at all, I'm in the US and my definition of an OS is also pretty close to an empty shell, CERTAINLY NOT antivirus and firewall. The browser, maybe, since it has been intertwined with everything else but not necessarily the email client.

I feel the OS should cost far far less, then let the consumer buy add-on packs for the rest, from MS or Adobe or Symantec or whoever (but frankly, there's no way I'd install anything from Symantec even if free). Adobe is a shame too, a shame that some of us have to install it to support PDF.


RE: Oh the irony
By ccmfreak2 on 9/23/2006 2:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
But,if MS strips their OS down, do you really think they are going to charge any less? They already know people will pay the amount they want. That's what made them a multi-billion dollar company. If they strip it down, it won't cost much less. So, if they are going to charge the money, I want to get my money's worth out of it.

Besides, MS is constantly under fire from the media as it is over security issues, despite the fact that literally no computer on the face of this planet is un-hackable if it connected to the net. It just annoys me that Symantec and Adobe has to wine about every little thing they don't like. "Microsoft is competing with us!" WELCOME TO THE BUSINESS WORLD MORONS!


RE: Oh the irony
By mindless1 on 9/23/2006 8:24:08 AM , Rating: 2
Your post already contains the essence of why they're doing it. MS being able to charge whatever they want is due to the monopoly. Bundling free features that devalue others' work is anticompetitive in these other (Non-OS) areas as well.

I can simultaneously find their complaint has some merit while also finding their alternatives poor.


RE: Oh the irony
By Randalllind on 9/29/2006 7:38:11 AM , Rating: 2
We really have no choice on price it cost millions of $$ to delay products and take our promise features. You don't think Microsoft is going to pay for that right?


RE: Oh the irony
By RogueSpear on 9/21/2006 1:30:37 PM , Rating: 1
There's even more irony to be found here in that Symantec puts out the crappiest software imaginable these days. Four years ago they were right at the top IMO, but they've steadily slip into this habit of putting bug fixes and stability on the back burner. Now all they do is throw in more useless and half broken features.

If Symantec is looking to blame anyone for any sort of difficulties they may be experiencing, a mirror should work just fine.


RE: Oh the irony
By Vertigo101 on 9/21/2006 6:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
I agree for their consumer line, but I'm still loving the corporate versions.


RE: Oh the irony
By peternelson on 9/22/2006 10:32:49 AM , Rating: 1
In MY opinion, Microsoft do have the right to bundle improved security.

However what REALLY concerns me is that they are not bundling it all for free.

What you are currently enjoying as windows DEFENDER for XP for free WILL BECOME CHARGEABLE ON A MONTHLY BASIS (after a certain date).

It is likely that DEFENDER in Vista WILL ALSO BECOME CHARGEABLE ON A MONTHLY BASIS.

IMO, it's bad enough being charged a lot for the OS, and paying it. If I additionally have to arrange monthly billing on an ongoing basis for the security, that's just too much hassle. If they want to go that route they should offer a premium cost OS which includes lifetime defender updates.

If things go down this monthly route how long before they just do it all that way: Windows is FREE, we just bill you for every month you use it: $50/month.

NO THANKYOU.

At the moment as defender is pretty much the only way to secure windows xp it's important to have it.

Monthly service fees will just increase cost of ownership further, and strengthen the case for linux.

I'm not a great fan of symantec bloatware, but I have a *choice* to use their pay-for-keeping-up-to-date service either by subscription or keep buying new product boxes every few years.

With MS bundled software that is chargeable I don't appear to have that choice. If my OS in insecure, and I didn't subscribe to defender, MS will say "don't come crying to us".

IN THIS CONTEXT I think the EU is right to probe MS practices.




RE: Oh the irony
By clementlim on 9/22/2006 1:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think Adobe and Symantec wants EU to force MS to charge people using their antivirus/antispyware/watever. Because it's free and it's bundled, Adobe and Symantec have less grounds to grow their business. So in the end, MS have no choice (if EU determined to follow Adobe's and Symantec's argument) but to charge it's users... Also, Adobe and Symantec don't want them to bundled it so that they can have **equal** ground to compete...and then, they will ask EU to force MS to reveal all of their codes so that MS will not have an **advantage** in selling their antivirus/antispyware/watever since it's their OS and they know you better than everyone else...

I say STOP WHINING Adobe and Symantec!!! GO MAKE YOUR OWN OS!!!


RE: Oh the irony
By Randalllind on 9/29/2006 7:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
Symantec products are awesome if you hate fast machines. If you want a fast machine to slow down just install Norton. I use AVG free edition because it is faster and doesn't slow now my machine like norton.

I really don't see why Adobe is complaining. Why tell Microsoft to do away with save to pdf?



Pathetic abuse
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 9/21/2006 12:42:48 PM , Rating: 5
These lawsuits are, in my view and opinion, pure abuses of the Judicial system.

Capitalism is about the item the consumers choose to go with win, whether or not it is superior is not the question. If Symantec feels that Microsofts security features might be better than their own software that can be bought then they should strive to convince me, the consumer, that I should pay extra for their [Symantecs] features over what I can recieve as part of my package from Microsoft when I purchase Windows Vista.

What I still can't get around is this fact:

Let's say I am a automobile manufacturer called Wonderful and I have a host of accessory makers, one of which is a tire maker called Nuisance. Now my previous auto lineup had a major defect in the tires of which Nuisance was quick to capitalize on and offer a upgrade for my cars default tires. Now I am coming out with a new lineup of cars whose tires no longer carry nearly as much of a deficiency as my original lineup, though not fully impregnable. Now can Nuisance tell me that, "Hey, you can't do that and fix your own cars problem since it impairs our business. Keep putting out a faulty product so we can still sustain a profit from your own platform."

Becuase that is exactly from where I am sitting Symantec is doing. If Symantec thinks that Windows Vista default virus protection scheme is foolproof, then they should come out with a anti-virus system that gives you more control and options, or is easier to control in order to target a market. But this is pure anti-Competitive behavior of which I disavow.

-------
Chillin




RE: Pathetic abuse
By dwalton on 9/21/2006 4:08:46 PM , Rating: 5
I plan on starting a company selling bottled air, then im going to the EU and pay them to have all the European countries' trees chopped down and vegetation removed and put an air tight glass dome over Europe.

Then I am going for the big bucks and start an oil company and a light bulb company and have the EU blackout the glass dome and thereby removing the suns ability to heat the earth suface and provide light during the day.

Boy, I'm going to make a killing.


RE: Pathetic abuse
By NullSubroutine on 9/22/2006 4:49:33 AM , Rating: 1
wait...wasnt that the 2nd highlander movie?


RE: Pathetic abuse
By peternelson on 9/22/2006 10:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
No I think it was in Total Recall.

Fresh air was a precious commodity on Mars.


RE: Pathetic abuse
By NullSubroutine on 9/23/2006 1:15:43 AM , Rating: 1
yah but they did something similar on earth in 2nd highlander movie...i think i saw it when i was like 10 years old or at least back before i realized how crappy movies can be, so id ont remember


RE: Pathetic abuse
By Noobsa44 on 9/21/2006 8:35:28 PM , Rating: 4
Robert A. Heinlein said it best many years ago in Life-Line:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."