This topic has been discussed online and in podcasts around the net over the last month or more. Finally I’ve seen an article in print that asks the real questions. John C. Dvorak in PCMag.com calls Microsoft’s latest support policy, The Microsoft Protection Racket. In the article he asks the question, why would Microsoft ever fix any of their software if they are making good money off of charging for it’s support?
Does Microsoft think it is going to get away with charging real money for any sort of add-on, service, or new product that protects clients against flaws in its own operating system? Does the existence of this not constitute an incredible conflict of interest? Why improve the base code when you can sell “protection”? Is Frank Nitti the new CEO?
Dvorak goes on to say that Microsoft can no longer control the problems it’s created with spyware and viruses in WindowsXP. He wonders if the new Vista versions will have the proper security built in to begin with, after all, if the software will really work and be absolutely secure from the outset, what will happen to the cash cow that Microsoft has built selling protection?