Anti-Windows Catalog

Counterpoint: Microsoft and Predatory Pricing

Written by Alex Eckelberry, 7/13/2006

This is Sunbelt Software president Alex Eckelberry's response to the Pot Calling Kettle Black and Sunbelt Software Roundup commentaries. I applaud him for answering to criticism in a civil manner.

Regarding the [EULA]: That definitely should not be in the product. It was in an earlier version and I thought it was long gone. I will make sure it's toast.

Regarding iHateSpam's need to connect through an outbound port, I do agree it's annoying and will talk to the team about that issue.

Regarding predatory pricing, a lot of people have focused on the consumer part of my blog posting -- where I talk about OneCare. In fact, the major issue is on the enterprise, where Microsoft has significantly underpriced the market.

I compete with free and inexpensive products all the time, and in fact, I have a free firewall myself that I give away. The point is not price -- the point is predatory pricing -- where a large manufacturer like Microsoft comes into a market and undercuts the incumbents.

Perhaps some may think it's nothing to be concerned about, and perhaps they are right. One might, however, propose that the security industry should be a vibrant, diverse one; and that the business should not be dominated by one vendor who can be taken down by attack; and to whom the majority of the community relies upon. If Microsoft wants to compete fairly, I have absolutely no problem with that. But if they want to undercut the market, it makes things a bit different.

I REMEMBER FIFTEEN YEARS AGO when we had a variety of databases to choose from. Today we have primarily SQL and Access, at least for the small to medium business market. Microsoft priced Access below their cost, they blew the margins out the business, and took out the incentive for new entrants to innovate and push the envelope. As an ex-Borlander, I can say that it was certainly not a good thing...

The same goes for languages -- we had Borland and other really innovative companies. Now we have Microsoft as the dominant commercial language provider. Borland has finally given up and is moving into automated testing.

It's been the same wave in browsers, as well. The majority of the market moved to [Internet Explorer]. And after that, we had the massive wave of adware and spyware, directly targeted at IE. And on and on and on. Is this healthy in the security market? Will new companies be able to get funding for their products? Will businesses continue to invest in this space, given that Microsoft may dominate? That's the critical issue -- will companies go on cruise control in the security market because major investment just isn't worth it, while budding innovators put their efforts elsewhere?

THERE ARE THOSE WHO WELCOME Microsoft's entry into the security space, and many are feeling (justifiably) that there are security vendors who have been selling bloated, overpriced products and deserve a bit of a kick in their backside. It's just that I question whether or not it's healthy in the end to have a Microsoft hegemony in security.

At any rate, keep it up. I enjoy your site and you take a lot of people to task that deserve it (and if I'm in that line-up, I will work hard to get out of it). Many of your comments are spot on and you're making companies work harder for the consumer, which is a good thing.

Take care,

Alex Eckelberry
President
Sunbelt Software

Related Links:

• Microsoft Monoculture and Morris' Ultimate Lesson
• Firefox and Mac security sanctuaries 'under attack' -- The Register
• Microsoft incentives to influence your security vote -- The Register
• Let's taunt the Microsoft bashers -- VMyths
• GOOD news: Microsoft joins the antivirus industry -- VMyths

[Catalog Home]

Resources:

Recently Edited Categories:

Browse All Categories

Recent Commentaries:

Browse All Commentaries