If Microsoft wants to make a case for ecosystem value it needs to reboot how it works with Anti-virus and security vendors.
We need a complete overhaul.
We can’t have CA deleting critical windows components. We can’t turn off our current firewalls to install Microsoft security tools.
Come on Microsoft – up your game. You could do worse than start with F-secure, which is of course European…
But it just wont wash making an integrated innovation argument here – which only allows for seamlessness in homogeneous Microsoft environments. If the argument is that the only way to be secure is to buy Microsoft end to end, then we’re all in trouble.
Microsoft needs an ecosystem to make Vista secure, and must start acting accordingly.
Its all about the user experience-and right about now, user experience of Anti-virus and other security tools is beyond horrible.
If we’re talking economic costs and value, how many hours are lost by the “family support technicians” that have to fix their extended circle of friends and family’s PCs? Huh? How much is all that time worth? Can Stephen O’Grady bill you for his time? I spent two hours at my folks recently trying to get their machine sorted after they installed some anti-virus software supplied by their bank. its not bloody free when you factor in support, is it?
So sit down with your competition/partners and work it out please, sooner rather than later. Before, not after, Vista gets here.
I, for one, am fed up to the back teeth with the pathetic interoperability of security tools on desktops and laptops. I know I am not alone.
Of course the AV vendors have to take a lot of responsibility here – if they worried more about user experience it would be easier to negotiate with them and get them to do the right thing. Note to AV vendors-no. i. don’t. want. to. purchase. a. CD.
We need a common installer for security componentry. But perhaps one that Microsoft doesn’t own. Time for something open source? An Eclipse of Windows security tooling? What do you think, Ray? Why not be really bold here?
If Symantec is serious about moving up the stack it should be first in line to work with Microsoft to commoditise some of the lower level install and signature functions in the space.
Where is the installshield of security tooling?
Implicitly threatening the EU doesn’t solve any of Microsoft’s problems.
The recent patent non-assertion clause could be your best friend in talking to the EU about local economic opportunities- but instead you appeer to be using questionable numbers from an analyst firm to make a negative case in the press. Lets deal with facts though, not predictions.
To be fair I am expecting a briefing from Microsoft security on some of these issues in the near future, and obviously if things are set to improve i will say so here.
update: just after I posted this, I came across a related argument from Tim Anderson, a man whose writing and thinking I much admire. He takes a more sanguine line though – and appears to endorse single vendor sourcing. We both agree security software is a mess though:
First, the quality of these third-party products is mixed, and while the main contenders probably do a competent job, they invariably overreach themselves, befuddling the user with alarmist reports about mostly harmless features like cookies, or interfering with useful OS features like the Windows Scripting Host. Of all the products that a user installs, the security suites are the most likely to slow down performance and break other software.”
disclaimer: Microsoft is an occasional client.
Eclipse is a client.
My experiences with AV are pretty much uniformly horrible, which mostly inspired this rant.
tags: virus, Microsoft, Anti-virus, Symantec, F-Secure, Security, Vista, Windows, CA, Eclipse