Les wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:30 -0800, Peter Gordon wrote:
> snip
>> Anti-malware companies, which make their large profits from the infestations
>> and insecurities of Windows, have a huge say in what Microsoft can do with
>> their OS. Unfortunately for such a companies as Microsoft and others, this
>> profit is apparently worth more to them then consumer satisfaction and good
>> design principles.
>> --
> snip
>
> Can you post a source for this assertion? I find it highly unlikely
> that Microsoft even talks to these folks other than to give them the
> same access to Redmond that any other Windows Certified developer has.
I asserted no such idea; but their actions speak for themselves.
My statement was that, should Microsoft actually fix
their security holes and design practices, it would likely break
backward-compatibility quite severely, as well as preclude the need for many
anti-malware packages. This, in turn, would drastically harm the business
of these companies as well as force software companies that made use of these
"features" (*ahem*) to fix their software - which could create quite large
potential costs. This, in turn, makes them charge more for the software,
which in turn reduces the potential total amount purchased (price-demand
curve), which in turn means that people will not purchase as much Windows
software and support (*ahem*...if that's what they call it). This, in turn,
means that people will be much less inclined to use anti-malware products,
and the cycle continues.
Thus, should MS fix these things, they and many other companies potentially lose
quite a lot of money.
One change in a generally-undeviating economy can wreak havoc through the
economic system of that society... (This is all theoretically, of course...)
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
This message was sent through a webmail
interface, and thus not signed.
