Print 28 comment(s) - last by tjr508.. on Feb 9 at 4:47 AM

Microsoft Windows OneCare Live launches in June for an annual fee of $49.95

Microsoft plans to jump in feet first with its first foray into the software antivirus market. The company's subscription-based Windows OneCare Live software will launch in June of this year

Over 20,000 beta testers have been putting the software through the ringer since November of last year. They have provided much needed input for the security suite which offers antivirus and spyware protection, an integrated firewall, backup utilities and performance tuning software.

Microsoft's established competitors aren't sitting idle while the Redmond-based company enters the a market which is expected to top $6 billion by 2008:

Last week, Symantec's CEO John Thompson said the company would make investments to fend off Microsoft and any other potential competitors.

Symantec, the world's biggest security software company, said it plans to offer its own all-in-one subscription-based software product code-named "Genesis" that it expects to introduce later this year.

Microsoft Windows OneCare Live will have a price tag of $49.95 annually for use on up to three machines.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

That will be the day...
By AGAC on 2/7/2006 8:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft security (that just does not sound right). And it is for sale? I don´t get it... MS makes expensive bugged OS but it wants me to pay them for the securiry that was not supposed to be breached in the first place? I bet the R&D in securiry patches will be affected. M$ is waaaay out of line on that one.

RE: That will be the day...
By ncage on 2/7/2006 10:28:02 PM , Rating: 2
If your stupid enough to click on some stuff in emails ecct ya. Your statement makes NO sense at all. No matter what OS you have you should have a virus checker. It doesn't matter if you have unix/linux/os2/windows you need a good virus checker. Im not saying windows in the past hasn't helped virus writers make easy viruses. No matter how careful you are in writing software there always be viruses especially with the complexity of software skyrocketing. I will wait till the reviews come out if its a good product then i will subscribe to it. Their anti-spyware app is pretty good so far. Its not as good as webroot spy sweeper but its still pretty darn good.

Ive seen security holes in just about everything that has nothing to deal with windows or microsoft. Oracle DB, MySQL, Linux, apache..the list goes on and on and on

RE: That will be the day...
By Clockworks on 2/7/2006 10:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
Fun facts:
- Windows corners the largest OS market in the world and therefore will be the biggest target.
- Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar company so I HIGHLY doubt that its R&D department will be compromised.
- "MS" (it's with an S not a $) is trying to combat its security problems by introducing low-cost software to the masses in order to protect them from themselves.

Jeez people, this is something the majority of you won't buy, this is a simple and effective way to combat viruses and hackers for the average Joe.

By kelmon on 2/8/2006 3:10:14 AM , Rating: 3
I'm interested by a number of people leaping to Microsoft's defence on this one. Do you not find it unethical the company making the operating system is now charging for a service to fix holes in it?

It is an understood fact that software systems as complex as operating systems contain flaws. However, I do find it somewhat disturbing that the manufacturer is effectively charging customers to fix flaws that are found in its software. Potentially the company is able to add a new revenue stream by introducing bugs and then ensuring that their security software fixes the bug before the competition. I'm not saying that this IS or WILL happen, just that it COULD happen. It is for this reason that I find this product unethical and a potential conflict of interests.

If this was a free service then my opinion would be much different and I'd be wholly behind the product.

RE: Unethical?
By Nekrik on 2/8/2006 3:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
From my point of view I don't believe the're changing their security releases and patches for the OS to a pay service and calling it an AV app. They'll continue to run the Window's Update as it was before. One Care will included a simplified BU utility, a live AV scan for email and files, fixes to infected machines with this/that worm, etc... much the same as Norton offers.

I think more people are coming to the defense as they see MS taking steps to correct a lot of the problems they've had in the past, many which were the result of trying to allow too much freedom as that was what customers thought they wanted. Ten years ago 95% of the users would have said 'give me admin mode, passwords annoy me, I know what I'm doing' they now realize security is a pain in the ass.

As far as them hiding information or planting holes/bugs in the OS so they can fix them, I think that's a conspiracy theorey waiting to happen, but has no merrit. They have far more to lose by doing so than they could ever gain. As far as I know, they're not really hurting for funds.

RE: Unethical?
By Brassbud on 2/8/2006 4:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
Although I don't think this is a "bad" thing, I am a little suprised by the price, as the whole situation is a little ironic. And of course one can't deny the apparent conflict of interest this creates as well. I guess if it keeps people more secure I'm all for it, but I fear this is just another step towards another anti-trust case.

RE: Unethical?
By pixelslave on 2/8/2006 12:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
Do you not find it unethical the company making the operating system is now charging for a service to fix holes in it?

When you find an OS that has absolutely no security hole, let me know.

RE: Unethical?
By pixelslave on 2/8/2006 12:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, btw, I guess you don't fly or drive because you will wait for a plane or car that won't crash, right?

RE: Unethical?
By tjr508 on 2/9/2006 4:47:51 AM , Rating: 2
100% Agreed. I've never had anything against MS. I do use Open Office but only to save $300 as the spell checker alternative suggestions suck compared to MS word =p.

But to the anti-virus statment, yes I think this is a raw deal for the customer and may send consumers a bad message. It seems very shady to charge a fee to essentially patch one of their own products.

This may be ok as long as it is indeed a service to the customers, but why would MS have to charge a fee when much smaller companies offer similar software for free? This leads me to believe that this is a venture to produce revenue within itself and not just a service to promote the windows OS. And like any business when your goal is to make money, you don;t let much stand in your way, including ethics.

As much as I respect what MS has done for computing, I believe this may be going way too far.

So irresponsible
By nomagic on 2/7/2006 9:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
Instead not releasing patches or service packs to improve security of THEIR OWN OS , they make security suite!?

Security suites exist because OS is not secure. Now, why dont they go ahead and make their OS secure?

RE: So irresponsible
By Snuffalufagus on 2/7/2006 10:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to have a good grasp of everything. Why don't you have your own billion dollar company yet?

RE: So irresponsible
By shortylickens on 2/7/2006 10:49:33 PM , Rating: 3
Because like every other American, he found out its easier to piss and moan than to stand up, brush the crumbs off his fat belly and head outside to make the world a better place.

RE: So irresponsible
By czarchazm on 2/7/2006 11:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I resent that. 'Sec, let me get some chips. "HONEY, COULD YOU PLEASE FETCH THE DORITOS?"

RE: So irresponsible
By mxzrider2 on 2/8/2006 1:47:38 AM , Rating: 1
now i know that many americans fit in your saying, but you cant stereo type it on everything. so shut up cuz u did the same thing about him. go take him to the gym and whip him into shape, now i am doing something about u *gets gun.

RE: So irresponsible
By segagenesis on 2/8/2006 6:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
So we just tossed out the First Amendment because someone disagrees with you? Billiant.

Now imagine if you owned a car and there was a safety recall because the tires were defective? Or any other product that had issues with it? (You should know what im talking about) Your supposed to put up with that now these days? You had better pray to God that nothing breaks in your household ever.

You pay money for a product, and if that product is defective you should either get a refund or an exchange for a working one. It's not his job to fix the security vulnerablities in Windows. Is it yours?

Security Holes?
By BigT383 on 2/8/2006 11:05:39 AM , Rating: 3
A lot of people act like this is supposed to fix "security holes" in windows, and are mad you have to pay for it. From what I see, it looks like antivirus software. Security updates are still free- those are what fix holes that allow viruses to get on your system in the first place. Once a program is on a computer, an OS's job is to run it. An antivirus's job is to remove it if it's bad. Those are two different goals, and therefore two different products.

First everybody gets mad that microsoft ships IE with windows, now they're mad that they don't ship antivirus with it as well.

RE: Security Holes?
By jkresh on 2/8/2006 1:13:30 PM , Rating: 3
I was waiting for someone to make that point. Microsoft has to charge for this, if they didn’t there would be another antitrust case backed by Mccaffe, Symantec, and Zonelabs... Also as you said they aren’t charging for patches, they are still trying to make a secure OS (and it looks like Vista may be there best try yet), these tools are there when standard security fails. One thing I would hope is that the developers for this and Windows talk with each other and that if a Virus shows up for a flaw that isn’t patched (as many virus’ show up after patches and just take advantage of people who don’t patch), that within a short time of the antivirus updating to handle the virus the patch is released. If they ever decided to let the antivirus handle most of it and released patches slower or not at all for certain things then they would be taking advantage of the situation and causing problems. Also if they made it difficult for others to release security suites for Vista then that would be a problem. However, at least for the moment their intentions seem to be fine, they just want to make it easier for people to stay secure.

By Tegeril on 2/8/2006 1:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one miffed at $50/year? Even for 3 computers, that majority of people wont fall into that category and will be burning money.

RE: Price!
By jkresh on 2/8/2006 1:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
Norton Systmeworks (or even just Internet Security) costs at least that much and is only licensed for 1 user, so for 3 users thats actualy quite reasonable, probably among the most reasonable of any of microsofts offerings (price wise anyway). I think they should add that 3 system use to Office and Windows (for homes, not business) maybe at an increased price of 50% (still offer the standard package for 1 system) something like Apple is doing and they would increase both their revenue and the number of legitamate users.

RE: Price!
By Aquila76 on 2/8/2006 2:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, this is comparable to Norton SystemWorks Premiere in terms of included programs (AV, Firewall, backup, utilities, etc.). Last I checked, NSWP was around $100 a PC. For $50 for 3, this is a bargain (Roughly $15 a PC). Let's just hope the software is better than the $15 'suites' currently available out there.

Best anti-virus
By exdeath on 2/7/2006 8:04:48 PM , Rating: 3
The best anti-virus is a little epoxy under the mouse buttons so they cannot be clicked.

RE: Best anti-virus
By Tebor0 on 2/7/2006 8:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like you forgot to install yours. ;)

By Nekrik on 2/7/2006 9:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
This will finally be an incentive to all the AV makers to up the quality and start working on the performance hit.

AVG Free + Spybot + ZA
By NFS4 on 2/7/2006 9:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'll stick with AVG Free, SpyBot and ZoneAlarm Free

By Dustin24 on 2/8/2006 12:56:54 AM , Rating: 1
Shortylickens & Snuffalufagus would be the Germans saying, "hey if you don't like the concentration camps go make your own country."

By Nekrik on 2/8/2006 2:17:31 AM , Rating: 1
either bordering on bad taste, or just bad taste: good title for your analogy.

By shabby on 2/8/2006 7:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
Wtf does microsoft know about security?

Office liscenses
By raldrich on 2/8/2006 6:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Unless they have changed it, Microsoft already lets you use Office Products on up to 2 computers with 1 liscense.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki