{"id":1363,"date":"2004-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-16T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2004\/12\/16\/microsoft-may-charge-extra-for-security-software\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:39:14","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:39:14","slug":"microsoft-may-charge-extra-for-security-software","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2004\/12\/16\/microsoft-may-charge-extra-for-security-software\/","title":{"rendered":"Microsoft may charge extra for security software"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Microsoft Corp. disclosed plans to offer frustrated users of its Windows software new tools within 30 days to remove spyware programs secretly running on computers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a shift from past practice, the world&#8217;s largest software manufacturer said it may charge consumers for future versions of the new protective technology, which Microsoft acquired by buying a small New York software firm.<\/p>\n<p>Microsoft, whose Windows operating systems have often been criticized for lax security, traditionally has given consumers &#8212; at no charge &#8212; separate programs to improve security.<\/p>\n<p>The company&#8217;s upcoming tool, available for its Windows XP and Windows 2000 software, will sweep for spyware and offer to remove suspicious programs.<\/p>\n<p>Rival anti-spyware tools, such as Lavasoft Inc.&#8217;s popular &#8220;Ad-Aware&#8221; product, offer similar functions and many are free.<\/p>\n<p>Microsoft&#8217;s disclosure that it may eventually charge extra for Windows protection reflects a recognition inside the company that it could collect significant profits by helping to protect its customers.  Microsoft and some others, meanwhile, said blame should be directed instead at spyware manufacturers.<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2004\/TECH\/internet\/12\/16\/microsoft.spyware.ap\/index.html<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1363","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-product"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1363","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1363"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1363\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3850,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1363\/revisions\/3850"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1363"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1363"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1363"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}