Analysis

Microsoft released another trial balloon, in the past week more than should do its anti-virus technology.

Speaking to a group of reporters, Microsofts corporate vice president for safety Business and Technology Unit, Mike said: Microsoft may sell its own anti-virus solutions.

Nash said Microsofts acquisition of Romanian annual anti-virus software company gecad Limited. At the time of acquisition In 2003, Microsoft publicly stated that it has not yet decided how to use accurate GeCAD assets. But float trial balloons, then it will create its own low-cost, anti-virus solutions, and may integration of new technologies, into the "Longhorn" version of Windows. And 2006 tentative release date, for example, is still a Longhorn software therefore not be long before any function can be put on or take off the table.

Microsoft basically have four options. Is not particularly good.

Microsofts initial approach has been used gecad assets AV vendors to improve the hook in the market and the development of Windows and offices, not to virus attacks. This is the way anti-virus software vendors would like to see most, because it kept its market. The biggest problem with the approach is that it does not small To deal with one of the strongest security arguments against Microsoft.

Critics pointed out that Microsofts monopoly instructed the software giant responsible for the omnipresent threat of a platform.

Of anti-virus, which means that Microsoft has some responsibility naive or cheap Windows users, they do not agree with anti-virus software , so that their systems become compromised then serve as the launch tower, Internet-based attacks.

This argument will lead to another option - Microsoft could bundle a anti-virus solutions, free use of Windows. Did not appear to be a natural.

Each user, which is so far on the latest version of Windows is automatic protection against virus attacks. In theory, no user action will be any time in the past needs to be some virus protection. Antitrust red flag over this option, however. In its current solution mode, Microsoft is unlikely to want to be intentionally or unintentionally, some smashing mature anti-virus firms, and regulatory attention to decline its own.

Other issues, this is a more subtle. Even supervision organs of the embarrassing position of Microsoft, where it is still likely to hurt us all. Microsofts anti-virus software policy is not the best. Microsoft has not yet proved to be Jiaojiangfa to quickly answer security threats. The companys security response measure days, sometimes months.

Anti-virus software vendors to introduce new virus signatures hours.

Microsoft may, I repeat, can be a good day, but specialized anti-virus software vendors will continue to accelerate in a long time.

Nevertheless, a free product that is the closest to being not good enough wipe mature anti-virus software vendor to the consumer space and narrow choice in the enterprise market. Once this market dries up, prompted Microsoft to improve or even maintain its virus response time will come to disappear.

Many of the same problems apply to Microsofts decision is one-sided direction - a low-cost anti-virus solution. However, this is probably the least developed countries bad choice, because it can reduce costs, the use of anti-virus software . This is an undeniable irony, because it is established In "br> Microsoft abused its monopoly with its own window, to provide anti-virus software in predatory pricing. However, if the anti-virus software costs 9.99 US dollars, 19.99 US dollars, or 29.99 US dollars, rather than 49.99 US dollars, and more and more users may Subscribe and save us all from our own zombie machines. Charging less means that the companys software does not have to be good, but still should be good enough for people to pay something. Order Microsoft incentives to vigorously into poverty alleviation and development. At the same time, it gives the competitive choice - either to lower their prices to compete, or to provide products, in order to better, the value of 1 0 yuan, or 1 5 yuan.

Also, of course, is another option. Microsoft can offer its own anti-virus prices of similar products in other products.

Is therefore no reason for Microsoft to match competitors prices. The cheap shot is that it will force Microsoft competition Comment on "br> advantages and therefore, the product will die quickly died. A more equitable assessment takes into account the fact that Microsoft apparently no desire to get into the virus protection market. Company feeling corner of the ways to solve the numerous problems users do not protect themselves. Providing solutions in the same prices because of competition will do nothing to get more users subscription virus protection solutions.

Difficulty facing problems, Microsoft has become a major reasons, the company is taking such a long time out of a strong public position on the issue. You look at how Microsoft should be how do? E-mail I sbekker@entmag.com.