Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 72227" data-source="post: 778172">Just playing devils advocate here, but do 3rd parties really have the best interest for users in mind? Like you said they are making money off it, so it&#039;s a business, and we all know that businesses do not always have the best interests of their customers in mind (this includes Microsoft). My point being, do you honestly think that if Microsoft fixed all these issues that 3rd parties won&#039;t cry and complain about it, saying it&#039;s a monopoly? They cried when Microsoft was adding kernel protection to vista, saying Microsoft is trying to block them out of doing their thing. They cried when they added WD saying Microsoft is going to have a monopoly, etc...Point is, despite the fact that they claim to &quot;protect users&quot; and are champions of security, they cannot applaud Microsoft for at least trying to make things more secure. There&#039;s always backlash and it has nothing to do with them trying to improve things, its always about companies saying Microsoft is trying to put them out of business. So the question is, is it really due to Microsoft being lazy, or is it that no matter what they do some how they are being labelled as trying to have a monopoly and putting people out of business, or a combination of both?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 72227, post: 778172"] Just playing devils advocate here, but do 3rd parties really have the best interest for users in mind? Like you said they are making money off it, so it's a business, and we all know that businesses do not always have the best interests of their customers in mind (this includes Microsoft). My point being, do you honestly think that if Microsoft fixed all these issues that 3rd parties won't cry and complain about it, saying it's a monopoly? They cried when Microsoft was adding kernel protection to vista, saying Microsoft is trying to block them out of doing their thing. They cried when they added WD saying Microsoft is going to have a monopoly, etc... Point is, despite the fact that they claim to "protect users" and are champions of security, they cannot applaud Microsoft for at least trying to make things more secure. There's always backlash and it has nothing to do with them trying to improve things, its always about companies saying Microsoft is trying to put them out of business. So the question is, is it really due to Microsoft being lazy, or is it that no matter what they do some how they are being labelled as trying to have a monopoly and putting people out of business, or a combination of both? [/QUOTE]

Verification