All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company

Microsoft: Users may have to pay for security

(1/2) > >>

Ice-9:
RSA 2002: Microsoft is considering charging for additional security options, and admits it didn't move on security until customers were ready to pay for it

Microsoft "may offer new security abilities on a paid basis," according to the company's chief technical officer Craig Mundie. The possibility is under consideration within Microsoft's security business unit, recently set up under its own vice president, Mike Nash.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2123526,00.html?rtag=zdnetukhompage

LOL, now this is a good way to satisfy their customers, isn't it?   :D

Chooco:
their customers were never satisfied, it's just that there isn't a possible alternative. pinkos in the USSR didn't like driving ladas but they were sort of forced to because there was no alternative.

Ice-9:
You would be amazed to see how many people claim they're satisfied with M$ .....
Until I paint them a picture of the road they're walking, straight to M$ world domination, while M$ is building walls all around them to try and prevent them from going anywhere else than where that particular road goes.

When they will realize where they're going it will be too late for them to leave the road, there will be walls with barbed wire all around them ... and if they jump really high they will see me cruising in the open field with my SuSE ;)

Calum:
lethargy and apathy have been bred into most of the people who did not die young in the sixties and seventies. Most of everybody alive today is pretty apathetic because they think it is easiest not to rock the boat. They will have arguments and fights so that they can avoid having an opinion that differs from other people.

It's a complicated situation.

Also, what's the problem with M$ not moving on security until people were ready to pay for it? M$ is a business, they did not get rich from giving people stuff for free when they needed it. They have to allow people to develop a thirst for something and then get them to pay for the thing that the people 'need'. In this case, people do need security, if they are going to network their computers, but this rule applies to media player, msn messenger, internet explorer, some new feature in M$ office, whatever. Anything really.

Ice-9:
What I think is wrong with that approach is that Windows is a bloated and insecure OS because of design flaws and programming incompetence (I might be wrong but that's what I think).
When you deliver a product full of bugs/security holes/design flaws you don't make people pay for the patches.

I can see a near future when M$ will upload security fixes to people's computers using "automatic update", without the people knowing it and then at the end of the month they will receive a bill for xx patches that were uploaded to their pc.

If they refuse to pay for the bloat, their pc will simply stop working.
Too pessimistic? I don't think so, but hey, everyone's entitled to his own opnion, right?   ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page