"Unless you are suggesting Microsoft owns patents in using the standards and somehow might sue users over that, but both OATH and IETF have patent grants in place regarding the standards."
Exactly what I'm suggesting. Both Microsoft and IBM regularly file plenty of patents pertaining to about anything they create. They also regularly sue companies over them with Android alone producing hundreds of millions in revenue from such suits. So, one shouldn't use anything from Microsoft that might need to be cloned or ported later unless having a copyright and/or patent license. The risk with them is too high.
"Open source under any particular license (esp. and inc. the GPL) is orthogonal to it being immune to patent suits and/or lock-in/EOL."
A number of OSS licenses specifically include a patent license for use of that tech. It's implied by GPL for forks, too, which is not the case for OSS clones of a closed but free product. So, it's not orthogonal but directly involved via creation of patent licenses & protection of forks. It eliminates a good chunk of the type of liability that Microsoft likes to create.
"It's also orthogonal to security and/or privacy you can have secure apps both with and without open source."
I've made the claim myself & my background in high-assurance security lets me know the difference. This app isn't high-security or evaluated to it by any trusted party. So, we have to assume it's not secure by default like anything else. Nonetheless, this tangent doesn't matter at all to my point that Microsoft + closed-source offering poses risks that Microsoft + GPL offering don't. And that Microsoft makes such risks real for companies often enough for it to matter.
"it's still a better cross-platform option than SMS (and Google Authenticator which isn't as cross-platform, but has as many risks as you mention here as Microsoft's option)."
I don't use these products at all. So, I can't evaluate their features, UX, portability, etc. I'll take your word for it as a user that it might do a good job or offer advantages. My starting point based on comments here would probably be FreeOTP as it's free, open-source, and Apache includes patent provisions. I can imagine it not having Microsoft or Google's features to point I'd use them for overall cost-benefit analysis but I'd certainly have fall-back option.
The applicable tech is already under a patent license (see OATH and IETF documentation). The IETF patent literature seems particularly strong and particularly binding. (Which is good because a lot of the internet relies on IETF standards.) There's no greater risk with a Microsoft option than a Google option; it's open standards and all the options interoperate (regardless of what Google and other TOTP and HOTP apps have accidentally and intentionally told people and what confusion exists about the technology in general).
FreeOTP looks like a good option. It doesn't support every platform yet, and it doesn't have a mainstream recognizable brand name. Yes, it's a great fall-back option, though, for folks that want to "graduate" from the Google/Microsoft/other options.
I am just pointing out that of the mainstream brands that the public in general knows (and trusts to any degree) Microsoft's option has the best cross-platform reach and is the easiest to find in the respective app stores. That carries a lot of weight in getting a security feature that everyone should be using into more hands. I realize a lot of technical folks are still highly suspicious of Microsoft and feel there is a lot of risk in Microsoft's name.
Yes, it would be better if it were open source, but it is patent unencumbered, as much so as open standards typically get. I realize it might not be your preferred option. I was hoping, however, to point out to people that is a good option (not a perfect one, but a good one) to spread the gospel of Real Two-Factor Authentication.
(«I don't use these products at all.» You probably should be using at least one by now, if not several. OATH TOTP (RFC 6238) and OATH HOTP (RFC 4226) are the best options we have right now for Real Two-Factor...)
"The applicable tech is already under a patent license (see OATH and IETF documentation)."
There's patents that cover a specific tech, for its uses, for underlying mechanisms, and for vague extensions. These are the risky types that show up the most with most of it obvious to point it shouldn't be patented. Expensive to fight, though. Microsoft goes for all three. So, either IETF would have to own patents for all use cases and underlying techs or Microsoft would have to issue patent license for all such categories if they have any. A patent license for the whole product to be used or cloned however, as in the open licenses, is still safer.
"There's no greater risk with a Microsoft option than a Google option"
Unbelievable. You've looked at the court histories to find that Microsoft and Google have caused about equal damage to companies with patent suits, lock-in, or obsoleting core products. They haven't. Google doesn't even compare, esp the billions Microsoft extracted with legal suits, except on encouraging lockin where Google at least stays ahead of most competition in terms of capabilities instead of stagnating. Virtually no comparison in actual damage done although I'll concede Google is becoming more like Microsoft every day in terms of sneakiness & lock-in strategies.
" I realize a lot of technical folks are still highly suspicious of Microsoft"
You should try the non-technical folks who've been burned by them with Windows activation failures, forced upgrades of hardware, forced ads on their paid Xbox Live, BSA developing snitches in organization, licensing schemes, lawsuits over nonsense patents, and so on. You don't have to be technical to be suspicious of an organization that pulls as much BS as Microsoft. I've met many non-technical people using Mac's (or enterprise Linux) because they didn't want the trouble of dealing with Windows or Microsoft. Worst horror stories I hear from Apple users in terms of company are the "Apple tax" and issues with non-Apple hardware. Also the PPC to Intel transition at one point. Collectively not in same ballpark as Microsoft's behavior, esp in financial risk.
"Microsoft's option has the best cross-platform reach and is the easiest to find in the respective app stores."
This could be true. Again, if it's usable, better than others, and you can avoid lock-in, then sure go for it as it's best option. Also, go for it if others are so bad they wouldn't use them anyway. Better than nothing. These are potential use-cases.
"You probably should be using at least one by now, if not several. "
It usually means they hit two targets instead of one. My opponents can do that. I just don't trust the accounts at all. I assume my machine is compromised then work from there. Far as riff raff, I use a Linux desktop, update my software, secure the wireless, make randomish passwords, and so on. I could improve it but the few times I've had to change something was when online service itself was compromised. Yahoo and LinkedIn being only ones I know recently. I'm not saying other people shouldn't do it necessarily but little benefit for me given threat profile.
Exactly what I'm suggesting. Both Microsoft and IBM regularly file plenty of patents pertaining to about anything they create. They also regularly sue companies over them with Android alone producing hundreds of millions in revenue from such suits. So, one shouldn't use anything from Microsoft that might need to be cloned or ported later unless having a copyright and/or patent license. The risk with them is too high.
"Open source under any particular license (esp. and inc. the GPL) is orthogonal to it being immune to patent suits and/or lock-in/EOL."
A number of OSS licenses specifically include a patent license for use of that tech. It's implied by GPL for forks, too, which is not the case for OSS clones of a closed but free product. So, it's not orthogonal but directly involved via creation of patent licenses & protection of forks. It eliminates a good chunk of the type of liability that Microsoft likes to create.
"It's also orthogonal to security and/or privacy you can have secure apps both with and without open source."
I've made the claim myself & my background in high-assurance security lets me know the difference. This app isn't high-security or evaluated to it by any trusted party. So, we have to assume it's not secure by default like anything else. Nonetheless, this tangent doesn't matter at all to my point that Microsoft + closed-source offering poses risks that Microsoft + GPL offering don't. And that Microsoft makes such risks real for companies often enough for it to matter.
"it's still a better cross-platform option than SMS (and Google Authenticator which isn't as cross-platform, but has as many risks as you mention here as Microsoft's option)."
I don't use these products at all. So, I can't evaluate their features, UX, portability, etc. I'll take your word for it as a user that it might do a good job or offer advantages. My starting point based on comments here would probably be FreeOTP as it's free, open-source, and Apache includes patent provisions. I can imagine it not having Microsoft or Google's features to point I'd use them for overall cost-benefit analysis but I'd certainly have fall-back option.