Security Essentials RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • If 'Windows Live One Care' was not profittable, what incentive does Microsoft have to keep 'Security Essentials' up to date and viable.  It will take some expense to keep up.
    Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:18 PM

All replies

  • Windows Live OneCare had a huge server infrastructure requirement to support its update, circle and activation systems along with the additional costs of supporting the operation of all of these systems at the client itself.  This meant that a large number of clients were required to pay for the infrastructure and since the market for another pay anti-malware application was limited, it hadn't yet succeeded well enough to pay for itself.

    Microsoft Security Essentials, by being stripped down to only the anti-malware portion removes most of the costs associated with OneCare and only requires support of updates, both definitions and the program itself.  Since these are performed using portions of the exisiting Windows/Microsoft Update systems these costs are kept to a minimum and share almost all the same infrastructure with the Windows operating system, which is what MSE is protecting after all.

    In fact, this is the entire reason that MSE exists, to protect Windows users, so it's simply an overhead of supporting that portion of the business.  The incentive is obvious, keep customers buying Windows and the other programs it supports, so Microsoft has a vested interest in the success and future of MSE.

    Sunday, February 28, 2010 11:38 PM