This is an interesting debate. Is Microsoft really being a monopoly when it comes to securing and patching its own operating system? Shouldn't we expect to be able to buy a computer operating system that is secure so we don't need anti-virus software in the first place? It is interesting, the marketplace for consumer products that Microsoft inadvertently created is upset at Microsoft for reducing the need to buy third-party. So what, consumers should have a less secure operating system and be required to buy a third party anti-virus software? BusinessWeek reports:
McAfee (MFE) placed a full-page ad in the Financial Times to run an open letter against Microsoft (MSFT), saying the software giant is abusing monopoly power to promote its own line of security products—a claim Symantec started to make loudly last week in public statements. Said Samenuk in the letter, "Microsoft seems to envision a world in which one giant company not only controls the systems that drive most computers around the world but also the security that protects those computers from viruses and other online threats. Only one approach protecting us all: when it fails, it fails for 97% of the world's desktops."
In this particular case, I'm not so sure I see Microsoft is doing anything wrong. Doesn't Microsoft have an obligation to protect us from the security holes in it's operating system? What do you think? Read the full article at BusinessWeek and let us know what you think.