Panda wants Ballot Screen for Windows Security Software

[Woz]

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.

 

[mikedl]

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.

 

[logicearth]

Sorry, really. You guys don't know much about anti trust laws, do you?

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/antivirus-partners/windows-7.aspx Even Panda Security is on it!

 

[MWRed]

The last time it was browsers, now AVs, whats next?

Ballot screen when you start installing Windows asking if you want Linsux instead?

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.

 

[mikedl]

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.

 

[logicearth]

^^^ 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.

 

[Lordbob75]

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.

:roflmao:

I apologize, but I can't exactly respect someone who argues so strongly for something, then refuses to explain his argument...

~Lordbob

 

[Grimmjow]

Microsoft is offering extra (optional) security to the people that are using their OS. If the program isn't good, doesn't matter is it free or not, people will not use it.

... the obviously, inherently, exemplary marketing practices MS always uses

Who doesn't? Apple maybe?
So, what's your solution about all this?
cheers

 

[mikedl]

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.

:roflmao:

I apologize, but I can't exactly respect someone who argues so strongly for something, then refuses to explain his argument...

~Lordbob

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.

 

[Lordbob75]

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.

:roflmao:

I apologize, but I can't exactly respect someone who argues so strongly for something, then refuses to explain his argument...

~Lordbob

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 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

 

[mikedl]

In a nut shell, this is the gist of the argument regarding all anti trust laws.

Posted a while ago. Thank you, Lordbob75 for a respectful response. I'll endeavor to do the same.

Perhaps y'all want a dissertation? Read the arguments presented by the two AV providers who have already responded to MS's action regarding MSE.

 

[Kari]

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.

According to everything I've read here, you might be the only one who does not know international anti-trust laws, what they mean and why they exist.

Read Logiearth's reply to you once more:

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/antivirus-partners/windows-7.aspx Even Panda Security is on it!

Microsoft does not automatically include MSE in Windows. Even if you have chosen automatic updates, WU does not install MSE, it doesn't even prompt during the update process if you'd like to install and use MSE.

An optional update in an optional update service. I can understand you bailing out, there's no way you could make this an anti trust issue, and you know it.

It's a bit risky to pretend to be smart. Sometimes your listeners aren't so ignorant and uneducated you'd thought.

Kari

 

[mikedl]

It's not the current offering that is at issue, It's the potential offerings by MS regarding MSE that the AV companies are up in arms about.

By seeking definitions regarding what MS can and cannot do in this arena, they are trying to lay the groundwork for clarification of future MSE iterations and the manner in which it can be presented to the installed user base of Windows.

Thank you for presenting the implication that I am "pretending" to be smart, Kari.

 

[Kari]

You are welcome

 

[logicearth]

It's not the current offering that is at issue, It's the potential offerings by MS regarding MSE that the AV companies are up in arms about.

There is no legal case for "potential" speculations. It is nothing but grasping at straws. This case would be shot down the moment it ever enters the courtroom if its based on "potential" speculation. Until any anti-trust laws are broken, there is no case. Speculating that there could be a potential anti-trust law broken in the future is not grounds for a case.

 

[mikedl]

It's not the current offering that is at issue, It's the potential offerings by MS regarding MSE that the AV companies are up in arms about.

There is no legal case for "potential" speculations. It is nothing but grasping at straws. This case would be shot down the moment it ever enters the courtroom if its based on "potential" speculation.

Perhaps, but the intent is to lay the groundwork and the provisions under which MS can offer MSE in the future. It's a preemptive strike, if you will, by the AV providers and their arguments clearly are sculpted from anti trust law.

 

[logicearth]

It will go no where. The court rooms are not for squabbles.

And as I said earlier, Microsoft already has a ballot screen. Users are more likely to see Security err Action Center's warning about not having an antivirus before then enable Microsoft Update, and actively select and install MSE. Action Center presents the user with an option to look for a program on the web. Which goes here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/antivirus-partners/windows-7.aspx a random sorted list.

 

[MWRed]

There's no point in arguing this whole thing.....it's a joke from the start.

There's no reason MS can't offer something. No one is holding a gun to people's heads.

Potential doesn't mean squat. That's like firing a person from a job today "just in case" he commits sexual harassment 2 years from now.

 

[Phone Man]

From what I understand MS got in trouble with IE because it came installed with Windows and could not be removed. In this case MSE does not come installed and you have to ask for it with TWO choices. First you have to turn on Microsoft Updates within Windows Updates in order for it to be offered and then you have to accept the install.

Here is the Microsoft Update selection which is turned off by default.



As you can see by the language you are asking for the information and it is not being forced to you.

Jim

 

[Tews]

Perhaps, but the intent is to lay the groundwork and the provisions under which MS can offer MSE in the future. It's a preemptive strike, if you will, by the AV providers and their arguments clearly are sculpted from anti trust law.

Does anyone remember where I put my tinfoil hat?? This sounds like a bad case of sour grapes from a mediocre software company that is having a hard time giving their product away... International law is based on actual violations that are made, not on the potential to violate a specific law...