Update or New Version

tell me what the difference is between an updated version with enhancements and a new version with a new year for the number, or number period. Why is so much importance put into this when like a few reviewing sites say, with a new version really amounts to a new paint job. To me new updates target specific areas which is more important. Duh.

 

Duh!

New version each and every year means strictly that a company is strongly behing its product and that it works for it - hopefully to be improved . It is also important for the Marketing team and for the reseller - there is always something new to announce to your clients .

However , if you don't have new product , this means that the company might not be working hard to improve its product but instead focuses on small changes . This is not always too good for the consumers and is not good at all for the Marketing/resellers , simply because it makes it difficults for people (like me) to keep clients' attention in us (and this is exactly what I want - I want my clients think about me and my product non-stop - this way I know that there are happy and that the chance for license renewal is bigger).

 

.
Depends on the type of software. New versions of security products often have improved features because they need to keep responding to the changing and growing threats. In fact most security products automatically upgrade you to the latest version if you renew your subscription, so you're not choosing between the old and new versions.

 

Yearly updates are stupid and are just a mean to fool users into upgrading each year just because of a new paint job and a new year number.
I prefer avast!, AVIRA, NOD32 and a like that don't use stupid yearly numbers and are thus not bound to change the interafce every year just for the sake of new year number. They change it when needed without forced rushing of new versions just because new year is closing in.

 

Well there are some nauances in the Yearly versus old fashioned release numbering.

There are more or less 2 mainstream approaches

1. Stick to the software release schedule
This assigns version numbering along these lines (simplified)
x.x.9 bug or exploit release which could not wait until next functional improvement schedule

x.9 This is a release in which minor functional improvements or limited intenal code overhauls are grouped together to provide real functional improvements (in the existing functionality). Often a number of client based user requests and a number of not urgent bug fixes are released in a x.9 release

9 This means that a basic new feature is provided (e.f Avast 5 will have a behaviour/advanced heuristics function, or DefenseWall V3 will have besides its HIPS a FireWall) or the software is ported to a new OS/HW platform.

2. Annual release numbering
The idea behind is that the user pays a yearly lisence for a software application which basically provides a need of the secundairy level. It facilitates correct usage, while primary level need programs actually add functionality (e.g. your Text processor, Spreadsheet, VOIP, web browser or e-mail program provide real end user functionality). By adding the year number to the product. you visually and phisically add an attribute to your soft product. Marketeers also claim that this makes sence since a subscriber pays an anuual fee, so it makes more sence that your product is labelled differently also. This last argument would make sence when the invoicing would also use the same yearly heart beats (which they do not, when I buy a AV lisence, I get a yearly lisence period from the day I buy, in stead of paying until 31 december of teh running year and from than on for every year from first of january).

Bottem line
The more or less product oriented vendors (like Avast) argue that a yearly numbering also implies that innovations and breakthroughs have to be implemented at january first. Which is quite stupid given the fact that some innovations might take a year and half to develop and test. Another argument is that innovations can't be forced into yearly heart beats (they just pop-up).

The more market orientated vendors argue that it persuedes more users to renew their lisence, hence the yearly numbering itself is a security improvement.

I personally think Avira has a pragmatic approach which focusses on engine numbers. This means you can somehow obfuscate what is in the new engine and add more or less marketing noise depending on the customer visibility of the new features.

Verdict
Does it matter?, to quote a famous movie "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

 

.
There is a simple way to cut through all the FUD created by marketing and that is to focus on the product and ignore everything else. It doesn't matter how it is branded or marketed. What matters is how it performs. When I buy a security product I want the best one on the block and I don't care who makes it or how it is packaged.

 

From an operational perspective for those products which are subscription based (e.g., Norton Internet Security), the differences between major versus minor versions are irrelevant -- since, users with a valid subscription are entitled to both upgrades and updates for free, anyway.