// Home / News / Security

Could Microsoft kill the antivirus industry?

By Stuart Turton

Posted on 7 Jan 2010 at 11:36

Not surprisingly, this argument doesn’t play well with rivals. “It greatly benefits consumers when Microsoft improves the security of its core operating system, but bundling free antivirus software is a different thing,” argued Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at F-Secure.

“I don’t think Microsoft would bundle antivirus software with the Windows operating system. It would definitely have an adverse effect on innovation and development in the field of IT security, and in the security industry innovation and research is critical to stay ahead of the game. Bundling would not be good for consumers.”

Microsoft played coy when we asked whether it would consider bundling Security Essentials with Windows, but it did open up another interesting possibility, with the company admitting it may consider offering the antivirus package through Windows Update should it see enough demand. So, where would the EC stand on this?

“If Microsoft isn’t offering antivirus with the Windows package there’s probably less concern, because customers have the freedom to go and buy another antivirus package from the shelves,” said Davis. “However, if it’s known to the consumer that they can go and obtain this for free through Windows Update, they might not think about buying it elsewhere. The Commission may not look too favourably on this.”

Microsoft can build a very secure product of very high quality, but people will not believe in the brand

Neither would Microsoft’s rivals, presumably. However, Eugene Kaspersky, founder of Kaspersky Lab, believes that even when offering a free package, Microsoft will have a hard time convincing customers to trust it. “Security is not part of Microsoft’s identity,” Kaspersky said in a recent interview with ZDNet Asia.

“Microsoft can build a very secure product of very high quality, but people will not believe in the brand. OneCare was good enough. They got very good engineers, a very strong lab – all the resources were in place. From the beginning, the product was good enough but it didn’t take market share at all.”

Which brings us back to those 1.5 million downloads. If Microsoft was looking for an indication of demand, this certainly fits the bill, and it seems likely Security Essentials will be arriving on Windows Update sooner rather than later. Only then will we find out whether the EU will act, and whether Microsoft has more than caustic comments from its rivals to worry about.

1 2

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

By Josefov on 7 Jan 2010

It may damage the home market slightly. Given that a lot of home PCs come with trial AV which you have to subscribe to. It won't affect businesses as they require centralised management and reporting

By james016 on 7 Jan 2010

Who is responsible for the Virus problem, then?

You could argue that with the insecurity inherent in Windows, Microsoft have a 'duty of care' to fix the problem...

By JohnGray7581 on 7 Jan 2010

McAfees and Nortons deserve nothing

There are already excellent free AV products on the market (AVG and Avira) which are the only way to convince customers to buy AV product.
McAfee and Norton survive only because of enterprise legacy and some jurnalists.
The outcome: I see no reason whatsoever to switch from Avira.

By dusanjovanovic on 7 Jan 2010

Not again

It would be nice if the general public could actually see both sides of this problem. I for one like the idea of everyone having at least some form of virus protection. But at the same time the thought that Microsoft could become the only significant producer of anti-virus software scares me, and I do not believe at all such a situation would increase the overall security of computers in the world.

Furthermore people like Josefov would do well to recognize the difference between hurting a non-exisiting plastic fork industry and putting the entire anti-virus industry out of business. There is very clear examples in the past and present of bundling practices doing enormous damage to consumers, it would be ignorant to deny this.

I don't know a solution here that is both fair to companies and consumers, but it would make me feel a whole lot better if people would recognize we have a problem here.

By Woudenberg on 7 Jan 2010

__________

"and it’s harder for people to justify paying £40 or more for a full security suite"

Suites like Kaspersky are often on sale for less than £20 for a free license.

And as for "insecurity inherent in Windows", I thought the idea that other OS'es were somehow paragons of security had been well and truly popped of late. Seems that some people don't keep up with the news much.

By Lacrobat on 7 Jan 2010

Isn't competitition supposed to be good?

I like the idea of several vendors competing to sell me computer protection. I like the idea that their edge is how well they deal with new threats and 3 PCs for £20 a year seems excellent value for some peace of mind.

By milliganp on 7 Jan 2010

Why does Microsoft have to be the one to produce another AV product, that it is not even making a profit on? If they are so worried about security, and if they cannot make the basic OS safe, then they could just instal nag screens telling you to go to get someone else's AV. Are they making so much profit that they can indulge in unnecessary side projects. At best its gaining market share for the sake of it. At worst they want to kill off competition, esp if its free or god-forbid open-source.

By davidsoap on 8 Jan 2010

Microsoft Freebies

Microsoft's policy on freebies seems to be 'just enough so you know whether it works for you, then you need to go out and buy'.
Some examples which i've used, which prompted me to buy the full product:
MS Write - MS Word
MS Paint - Adobe Photoshop Elements
MS Speech Recognition - Nuance Naturally Speaking
MS AV - Avira Security Suite
MS Excel - Minitab's Minitab
Draw in MS Word - MS Visio
free games - bought games

Some people get by on the free stuff - good luck to them. They weren't going to spend money anyway. Bundling free stuff lets you know what the computer CAN do

By hminney on 8 Jan 2010

Competition?

'“The EC steps in when a product removes the incentive for a customer to go elsewhere and get a competing product,” he said. “If Microsoft automatically included an antivirus package within the OS, then there’s no need for the customer to go and buy a rival package, so it would definitely be a problem.”'

I just bought a new Ford Focus and it came fitted with a Ford engine. Simply unacceptable, I should be given a list of engines from Ford and competitors (and they should be in a random order).

What utter rubbish. So they bundle antivirus with Windows - it saves money and if you prefer something else you download it or buy it. What's wrong there? Tne EU should concentrate on other areas of 'Competition' such as Intel's bullyboy tactics or prehaps Apple tying the iPod/iPhone to iTunes/Appstore or even Google cornering the market with linkups to Firefox etc.

By everton2004 on 8 Jan 2010

Microsoft Freebies

By hminney on 8 Jan 2010

"I don't know a solution here that is both fair to companies and consumers, but it would make me feel a whole lot better if people would recognize we have a problem here.By Woudenberg"

A good solution would be for Security software houses to keep the price of their anti-virus products low enough for everyone to consider buying one much like some of the free anti-virus packages which are free and then you pay a small, reasonable amount for a more comprehensive package if that's what you want.

By flopsium on 8 Jan 2010

Antivirus

I doubt that anyone could even come close to ending the virus age, there will always be a new young mind creating a new type of code..lets hope that the antivirus plus software on the market will keep up.

By doctore on 16 Aug 2010

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.