I won’t be buying into Windows Live OneCare, will you? |
Loading ...Moves like this aren’t going to positively impact Microsoft stock, market share and/or please existing customers. Among the thousands of dollars in Microsoft software licenses we are budgeting for home and both our offices in 2007, Windows Live OneCare will not likely be among them. Emphasis mine below.
Windows Live OneCare, which will protect up to three computers for $49.95 per year, marks the latest step in Microsoft’s effort over the years to make its operating system less vulnerable to crippling Internet attacks.Windows, which runs on the vast majority of personal computers, has been a near-constant target of worms, viruses and other attacks, hurting countless users and forcing Microsoft to invest heavily in patching vulnerabilities and improving flaws.
After reeling from the thoughts of having to spend nearly $1,400 for Office 2007 Ultimate for two machine licenses, and Vista Ultimate for at least two machines, I don’t feel like it is reasonable for Microsoft to charge us even more to protect their own software from exploits.
Perhaps some readers, and Microsoft employees, might disagree, but it’s not just about an extra 50 bones a year. If it was, then why isn’t this price already included in the Ultimate editions (or is it? Please correct me if this service will be included in the Ultimate editions)?
In fairness to Microsoft, they have said all along they planned to one day sell this product. The day of reckoning is here. I thought this was an interesting move a year ago and wondered what the pricing would be. I had hoped however they would find some way to package this into their Ultimate editions.
I think charging yearly fees for this service is ill-advised, especially because they could monetize this through their Adcenter and play off the Google ad model. Fine, offer us OneCare as long as we look at AdCenter ads. That is a model I could go for, but paying for Ultimate editions of your software and then being slapped with another 50 bones a year per machine three machines? Peddle that dog to another kennel.
What about you? How many licenses will you be buying? Maybe Dare was right and I am jealous of a company that can make a product that continually gets exploited and abused and then charge us a yearly fee on top of the steep OS licensing fees to make it more secure (not!).
Linux and Mac OS X are looking better every day.
Related Posts- Microsoft OneCare is coming
- Zotob virus not hitting many websites, says Netcraft
- Microsoft releases security fix for download.ject
- Limited Ultimate Vista Upgrade Edition with Bill Gates signature
- Microsoft reduces the legal jargon with new Shared Source Licenses
- Microsoft Critical patch released
God I love Micro$oft.. Now they can carelessly code all their usual security holes into their software, and get paid another $50 by users of their products, just to be protected from such exploitable bugs. Yearly.
Nice job Bill.
Comment by Ned Porting — May 31, 2006 @ 12:30 pm PST
Precisely why I’m sticking with Symantec, despite all their flaws.
Comment by Sterling Camden — May 31, 2006 @ 12:53 pm PST
FWIW, it’s $50 for three machines, not per machine. I’m not debating your basic argument - I too would prefer this be built-in either for free or ad-supported as you suggest.
Comment by Marc Orchant — May 31, 2006 @ 1:30 pm PST
Marc - after publishing I saw that mistake and changed the text above to read three machines (see the strikethru above where I left the original error in tact). It’s possible you saw this through RSS and didn’t see the change before making your comment. Thank you for stopping by and pointing this out, however
Comment by TDavid — May 31, 2006 @ 2:00 pm PST
For sake of honesty:
Would you pay $100 if you had 2 desktops and 2 laptops at home?
Or would you pay the $50 and move on?
Comment by Ned Porting — May 31, 2006 @ 2:43 pm PST
Ned - we will buy the required licenses for our business and personal machines, so if we are going in, we’re going in for whatever the damage will be per the licensing agreement. I don’t see us upgrading all or even most of our machines to Vista. We currently have two licenses of Office 2003 Pro and yet it’s only installed on one or our machines currently, but we are budgeting for two licenses.
I should disclaim that periodically our family (except for the youngest teen) does beta testing up at Microsoft and they pay for this time in software, so it’s quite possible, assuming these beta sessions continue, that we’ll be able to offset some of these budgeted costs in 2007. Historically they haven’t offered subscriptions like this as part of these beta testing compensation deals, and they still 1099 the full retail value of any software, so it’s not like testers are getting anything for free.
With that said, it’s my personal opinion that all software priced over $50 USD — and definitely over $100 — should come with two licenses — one for desktop and one for laptop/tablet as long as it’s being used by the same person primarily. It would be a nice bonus to throw in a third license for mobile phones / PDA.
Even with unlimited personal license for 50 bones a year, Microsoft still shouldn’t be charging. They are making enough money on the raw cost of the software and the support they charge for (which can be hundreds of dollars per incident). This Live OneCare just has cash grab written all over it to me. Just my 2 1/2 rusted pennies.
Comment by TDavid — May 31, 2006 @ 3:13 pm PST
Windows Live OneCare goes live
The long and waited Windows Live OneCare has gone on the shelves as of Wednesday.
Trackback by Jim Burnett — June 1, 2006 @ 2:05 pm PST