Google To Microsoft — Give Users Choices In Vista 240
An anonymous reader writes "A Google spokesman has asked Microsoft to 'preserve user choice for search and other applications' with its future products, such as Vista. The spokesman made this comment after meeting with European Union antitrust regulators, though he added that at this point, the company has no plans to make antitrust allegations against Redmond. Notably, McAfee and Symantec have accused Microsoft of not being forthcoming with the code they need to ensure their security wares run smoothly on Vista, and the EU has already expressed concern about Microsoft's potentially anticompetitive plans."
No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd care more if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again I'm on my Linux laptop running no AV software.
Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec (Score:5, Insightful)
This is getting ridiculous... (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess I don't understand why it's MS's job to make it easier for other software makers. If they want to market their software they should employ some programmers who are smart enough to code around MS. As long as MS isn't actively disabling competitors software I don't see why this is their fault..
We wanted them to be more secure in the first place!!!
And just so no one thinks I'm a fanboy, I'm typing this from a Mac
Re:This is getting ridiculous... (Score:3, Insightful)
Monopolists don't have the same rights than other people.
So they can't do what others can.
One thing is this: using their OS monopoly to impose their AV solution.
That is anti-competitive. You might say that it's not fair, but when you are talking about monopolies, the meaning of fairness changes, because they don't compete under the same conditions.
Re:I'd care more if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Other AV's work just fine without these tools Symantec and McAfee demand. This is not an issue of MS crowding out a critical component from potential competitors to take market share. This is MS making an attempt to do what they promised (ie secure windows more than they have in the past). Whether I agree with the method MS is taking or not, this has more to do with Symantec and McAfee being whiny brats that refuse to give up 'control' of 'security' to the ones who should have been doign that job in the first place. The compnent they want access to is the layer that provides basic system protection and notification to the user about the systems staus, so they can use their own interface on it with whatever they decide is important to be their. I don't trust either side to really get it right, but at least in this I don't see any point what so ever to allow the other companies access where they really don't need to be. This will not make people more secure, this is about McAfee and Symantec having to face reality that certain parts of the system don't function like they used to and whining all over the place that they changed things is stupid.
Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec (Score:3, Insightful)
So I ask again. Where is this claim validated?