ZDNET blasts AV forced update prices

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Dr. Ben, Apr 22, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dr. Ben

    Dr. Ben Guest

  2. I don't have that problem. My NOD32 license covers engine upgrades and version upgrades until March 31st, 2005. No more to pay. Zero. Nada. Zilch. 10/10 to Eset for honest business practice.
     
  3. root

    root Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Posts:
    1,723
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    He he. I've got to give the guy credit for one thing. I think that is the first article I've seen from ZDNet say anthing significantly negative about Norton products.
    One thing the guy failed to point out. Because of the cost, many don't use or update/upgrade their AV products and as a result, this increases the ease at which viruses and worms spread across the net, which in turn costs millions and millions of $$$ in damages.
    I honestly believe that AV vendors can made sufficient profit from selling their products without charging for database updates.
    Probably won't see that happen though. :oops:
     
  4. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,513
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
  5. Lee

    Lee Guest

    Here's one - read this - "I suggested, as I've written about before, that antivirus updates should be free--at least for home users. He responded: "Doesn't our name have value with the customer?", so now we have to pay extra to Symantec for crashes - bugs - and what ever else they decide to throw at us, Symantec must live in a big house on a big hill with big windows and the only words you here from them is "HERE'S ANOTHER ONE".

    Lee :D :D :D
     
  6. notageek

    notageek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Posts:
    1,601
    Location:
    Ohio
    I think this pay a yearly fee is BS but you know you can get a manual update for free. :) Now that's a smart thing. give a free manual update but make people pay to use the updater. :D
     
  7. Lee

    Lee Guest

    It's not only BS to pay a yearly update but the way Symantec have gone about this shows that they are out for a killing on unsuspecting internet user's. It has allway's been the way with Symantec when a product of their's has a defect they hold out on releasing a update/patch for as long as they can, the reason being if a user buy's a product from them they hold-out long enough so that the customer is unable to take the product back for a refund - Symantec the bring out a new release with the new fix and the attitude seem's to be TOUGH S**** buy the new one, I think this was the case with the early version's NPF, also my father-in-law purchased a copy of NPF 202 with the flaw that PC Flank found - NO SIGN OF AN UPDATE - no just a new release, I have contacted Symantec time after time for an explanation about how they are going to fix this flaw and time and time again I was told by tech support the they are working with PC Flank to find out how the flaw is created and how to fix it, but in the time being they have released another firewall with no flaw.

    I THINK THAT SAY'S IT ALL

    Lee :mad:

    Lee
     
  8. Lee

    Lee Guest

    That's better - now I've had the chance to rant and rave, my apologies to anyone who uses Symantec and also Symantec themselves, I myselfe have a copy of NAV as a first line of defence and I suppose I will upgrade because let's face it the stuff is good and to add to that all company's are out for profit, also Symantec are again the first of many if not all company's to go down that road.

    Lee :oops:
     
  9. Madsen DK

    Madsen DK Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Posts:
    324
    Location:
    Denmark
    Couldnt have said it better myself.
    Eset s policy is very admirable :) :) :cool:
    Regards
    Ole
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.