M
MICHAEL
Adobe, Symantec Behind Complaints to EU About Vista
by Paul Thurrott, (e-mail address removed)
So now we know. According to a report in "The Wall Street Journal,"
Microsoft competitors Adobe Systems and Symantec are behind recent
European Union (EU) investigations into Windows Vista. The two
companies have lobbied EU regulators to prevent Microsoft from
shipping free features in Vista that compete with products that these
companies now sell to consumers.
It's too bad that both complaints are completely bogus. Adobe is
complaining about Microsoft technology that offers part of the
functionality of Adobe's powerful PDF format. What's different,
apparently, is that Adobe charges customers to create PDF documents,
whereas Microsoft's competing format, XML Paper Specification (XPS),
is free. PDF is widely regarded as a de facto standard, thanks largely
to Adobe's practice of giving away its Adobe Reader 7.0 software,
which can display PDF documents but doesn't let you edit or create
them.
Symantec's complaint is more tenuous. The company alleges that users
should be able to replace Windows Security Center in Vista with third-
party software, even though you can populate Security Center with
links to third-party products and Microsoft is letting third parties
brand Security Center with their own logos and icons. Symantec has
also complained about a new security feature called Kernel PatchGuard
that prevents software--malicious or otherwise--from altering the
Windows kernel at runtime. In the past, security companies have been
forced to patch the Windows kernel themselves to reverse kernel
patches applied by malicious software. Such patches won't be possible
in Vista, which should make the system more secure. However, Symantec
wants the feature removed.
Microsoft's response to these complaints has been interesting. Earlier
this year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer wrote to the European
Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes and asked whether she wanted
Microsoft to remove XPS from Vista. Kroes never responded, though the
EU has said publicly that "it is for Microsoft to decide how they
package and sell Vista."
As for Symantec, Microsoft has been working with it and other security
companies for years to ensure that they're up-to-date on the changes
in Vista. I spoke with Stephen Tolouse at the Microsoft Security
Response Center. He said that Microsoft is providing only a baseline
of security in Vista: There's plenty of room for third-party products,
as before. With Vista, information about third-party solutions,
including Symantec's, is even available in Security Center.
Here's the thing. Back in the bad old days a decade ago, when
Microsoft was busy integrating Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) into
Windows solely to harm the competition, one could easily make the case
for anticompetitive behavior. There's room for debate about whether
features such as Web browsers and IM applications need to be bundled
and deeply integrated into an OS. Today, however, few could argue that
improving the security of Windows is anything but a good idea. In
fact, one might describe such changes as mandatory.
What Symantec--and, ultimately, Adobe--is really worried about is that
its gravy train is about to end. With emerging electronic threats,
Symantec and other security firms will have enough opportunities to
keep busy and remain profitable. But everyone wins when Windows
becomes more secure. As for Adobe, it's telling that this firm has yet
to broadly ship a low-cost way to edit PDF files. If XPS simply lowers
the price of entry into the PDF world, well, that too will benefit
consumers.
In short, Microsoft's competitors are simply running to the friendly
ear of antitrust regulators because they can do so easily and without
cost. If these companies spent more time worrying about their
customers, and less about an OS company that deserves to improve its
products legally, none of this would have happened.
Longtime readers will remember how strongly I came down against
Microsoft's IE bundling strategy. I still feel that those decisions
were wrong and that they served as the foundation for a decade of
security vulnerabilities and customer pain that we're still
experiencing. Adobe's and Symantec's complaints, however, bear no
relation at all to those of Netscape a decade ago. Today, Microsoft is
doing the right thing for its customers. Frankly, it's about time.
by Paul Thurrott, (e-mail address removed)
So now we know. According to a report in "The Wall Street Journal,"
Microsoft competitors Adobe Systems and Symantec are behind recent
European Union (EU) investigations into Windows Vista. The two
companies have lobbied EU regulators to prevent Microsoft from
shipping free features in Vista that compete with products that these
companies now sell to consumers.
It's too bad that both complaints are completely bogus. Adobe is
complaining about Microsoft technology that offers part of the
functionality of Adobe's powerful PDF format. What's different,
apparently, is that Adobe charges customers to create PDF documents,
whereas Microsoft's competing format, XML Paper Specification (XPS),
is free. PDF is widely regarded as a de facto standard, thanks largely
to Adobe's practice of giving away its Adobe Reader 7.0 software,
which can display PDF documents but doesn't let you edit or create
them.
Symantec's complaint is more tenuous. The company alleges that users
should be able to replace Windows Security Center in Vista with third-
party software, even though you can populate Security Center with
links to third-party products and Microsoft is letting third parties
brand Security Center with their own logos and icons. Symantec has
also complained about a new security feature called Kernel PatchGuard
that prevents software--malicious or otherwise--from altering the
Windows kernel at runtime. In the past, security companies have been
forced to patch the Windows kernel themselves to reverse kernel
patches applied by malicious software. Such patches won't be possible
in Vista, which should make the system more secure. However, Symantec
wants the feature removed.
Microsoft's response to these complaints has been interesting. Earlier
this year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer wrote to the European
Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes and asked whether she wanted
Microsoft to remove XPS from Vista. Kroes never responded, though the
EU has said publicly that "it is for Microsoft to decide how they
package and sell Vista."
As for Symantec, Microsoft has been working with it and other security
companies for years to ensure that they're up-to-date on the changes
in Vista. I spoke with Stephen Tolouse at the Microsoft Security
Response Center. He said that Microsoft is providing only a baseline
of security in Vista: There's plenty of room for third-party products,
as before. With Vista, information about third-party solutions,
including Symantec's, is even available in Security Center.
Here's the thing. Back in the bad old days a decade ago, when
Microsoft was busy integrating Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) into
Windows solely to harm the competition, one could easily make the case
for anticompetitive behavior. There's room for debate about whether
features such as Web browsers and IM applications need to be bundled
and deeply integrated into an OS. Today, however, few could argue that
improving the security of Windows is anything but a good idea. In
fact, one might describe such changes as mandatory.
What Symantec--and, ultimately, Adobe--is really worried about is that
its gravy train is about to end. With emerging electronic threats,
Symantec and other security firms will have enough opportunities to
keep busy and remain profitable. But everyone wins when Windows
becomes more secure. As for Adobe, it's telling that this firm has yet
to broadly ship a low-cost way to edit PDF files. If XPS simply lowers
the price of entry into the PDF world, well, that too will benefit
consumers.
In short, Microsoft's competitors are simply running to the friendly
ear of antitrust regulators because they can do so easily and without
cost. If these companies spent more time worrying about their
customers, and less about an OS company that deserves to improve its
products legally, none of this would have happened.
Longtime readers will remember how strongly I came down against
Microsoft's IE bundling strategy. I still feel that those decisions
were wrong and that they served as the foundation for a decade of
security vulnerabilities and customer pain that we're still
experiencing. Adobe's and Symantec's complaints, however, bear no
relation at all to those of Netscape a decade ago. Today, Microsoft is
doing the right thing for its customers. Frankly, it's about time.
