Next thing you know, cable and sat providers will complain that they can't compete with free-over-the-air broadcasts, so televisions will have to present options when they are turned on.
In my opinion, 9 out of 10 people running without security software won't opt to buy the software, so what is Panda really missing out on? Besides, MSE will only install on WGA verified systems. Panda can have all the pirated installs of Windows.
That is a very miniscule portion of the installed Windows base and, therefore, largely irrelevant. It's otherwise known as reductio ad absurdum.
Sorry, really. You guys don't know much about anti trust laws, do you?
Please understand, I take this stuff very seriously. I don't brush it off with a mere wave of the hand.
Since you know so much about anti-trust laws, where is the anti-trust here? Offering a optional opt-in download from an optional opt-in service? Please enlighten us.
Furthermore, Microsoft already has a ballet screen that comes up in Security Center when you do not have an antivirus: (By click the button "Find a program online") http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ant...windows-7.aspx Even Panda Security is on it!
Don't say that....the wrong person will read it, suggest it, and it may just happen.
If this kind of thing were to actually happen, for a FREE-Optional piece of software, then the next thing is Email. Same thing would happen with Windows Live Mail ( I can see Mozilla thinking this one up already).
Sooner or later, all we'd be left eith is the base OS, just enough to get to the desktop.
Never mind. You guys do not get it. Sorry. The fanboy MS mentality is too pervasive here. I love MS, I've stated such previously. This is an issue that relates to marketing to the installed user base and the leverage therein.
I see I'm in the minority here, by far, so I'll let y'all tout, in this thread, the obviously, inherently, exemplary marketing practices MS always uses.
I'll carry the moniker of a pariah while y'all ignore the ramifications of the very thing for which you are arguing.
^^^ Meaning, you cannot enlighten us. That is how I read that. If you cannot communicate the point you are trying to make, that is your own fault. Saying we "do not get it" or calling us "fanboy MS" is unwarranted. If you cannot be bothered to make your point clear or explain it, then why should we take it into consideration?
There has also been almost zero marketing by Microsoft for Security Essentials, none in the consumer space. Any and all marketing has been purely by word of mouth and independent publishing. So what marketing practices are you referring to? The only people that even knew Microsoft was putting MSE on Microsoft Update where those that read the press release. Average consumers do not read such press releases.
This is a forum for discussion, if you cannot be bothered to discuss things and demand we accept your point of view out right, then you shouldn't bother coming to a discussion forum.
I've already explained it. You just did not want to read it. The same as you refuse to understand anti trust law and the reasons more than one AV provider has raised concerns over this action by MS regarding MSE.
Don't laugh at me, Lordbob75, I have been presenting my posts concisely and respectfully with no derision. If you think my posts and my contributions to this topic warrant an ROFLMAO response, I have nothing more to say to you.
Actually, I can't refuse to read it since you never posted it...I've already explained it. You just did not want to read it. The same as you refuse to understand anti trust law and the reasons more than one AV provider has raised concerns over this action by MS regarding MSE.
Don't laugh at me, Lordbob75, I have been presenting my posts concisely and respectfully with no derision. If you think my posts and my contributions to this topic warrant an ROFLMAO response, I have nothing more to say to you.
I get that this could be seen as Anti-trust. Believe me, I do. I just think this is ridiculous in light of how the anti-trust ballot for browsers worked.
Personally, I think you are misinterpreting how we are viewing this situation. After all, the internet browser ballot was basically ineffective, and this appears to basically be a publicity stunt by a failing product.
I agree that you have been very concise and respectful with your posts. Deciding to not post in a thread any more simply because we "refuse" to read your argument is also acceptable (and many of us have done it). However, you have not explained these anti-trust laws you know oh so much about and that we refuse to understand.
See where I am coming from?
~Lordbob
Quote