avast! 7.0 released!

I'm not sure anything is wrong with it either. What I asked you is how does it benefit the company and/or the user by making the change. An advantage for the user could be in retrieving advanced settings, if that indeed is an aspect of the account vs registration process. The only clear cut disadvantage seems to be for computer techs who install the program on multiple systems. For them, it's an additional step.

Finally, the argument that it's okay because "most vendors do it anyway" is weak, IMO. It's like the old: "If everybody else jumped off the roof..."

 

maybe you answered your own question. They might want a multi system setup to get a volume license of Pro or AIS. It may be a way to recognize settings in the cloud. As far as I'm concerned your getting a great free program. You are getting something for nothing. If you don't want to register because you feel that its overboard or somehow tamping with your info, then don't use it.

 

RejZoR,

Any difference or advantage for Avast in terms of doing it with registration keys vs accounts?

 

RejZor,

But not all. EmiSoft just went the other way:

"User accounts are no longer required. Switched to a simple key-based system."

Any idea why one way or the other?

 

Why do you seem to always be looking for some reason? I mean why should there be any? They decided to make it this way and so it is now.

 

Adware/tracking toolbars that are required to complete a product's protection are a jaw-droppingly stupid ethical mistake on the part of a security vendor. There is no excuse or justification for that.

The picture changes if additional software is completely optional, not malicious, not part of the functionality, and as long as opt-in or -out procedures are simple and crystal-clear. In fact, it's easy to hide the Market option in the Settings. I really appreciate that, along with being able to hide the social networking features. That alone casts Avast! in a completely different light than the one you're shining on it.

I don't see where anyone stated that the old registration method was inaccurate to the point they had no idea how many people were using Avast! You came up with that conclusion. I also didn't come away with RejZor saying Avast! made money from the registration process. What I read is that the cost to you, the "fee", is now requiring an account instead of just an email address - that's the new "fee", the new "price you pay". If I got that wrong, RejZor, please correct me.

The new account requirement does not fill me with joy. It takes longer for some of my clients to come up with a secure password than it does for me to install the product. Fortunately, there aren't any additional steps like an emailed registration link. One mercifully short form and its done.

The only benefit to the end-user I can see is that all the installs and licenses are grouped in one account. At least I assume so - I'm still without an account due to existing licenses.

ETA: I see this discussion went on while I was composing this. Sorry if it's not timely any more.

 

It's not all that different than before really. Before you needed name and e-mail. Now you need name, e-mail and some password. It's hardly any different.

 

FYI, the registration form will soon be extended with one more mandatory field - a captcha.

But again, we hope it won't cause any problems for the users.

Insisting on the account is a very important thing for us as it allows us to make the cloud protection services more robust (I'd love to discuss the details but I don't think it's a good idea to do so in a public forum).

Thanks
Vlk

 

OMG! Not a captcha! Next thing you know their going to want a drop of blood or retina eye scan.

 

I also couldn't get a key and had to register in the offline area and it arrived via email in 20 minutes..but then it won't update..It tried 5 times then gave me an error message saying the package is broken

 

@vlk
Please consider the readability of the captcha, especially 'older' people or people with colorblindness have difficulty with reading some captcha's. The spoken captcha is no option for non-native English speakers.

 

But at least you're providing the logical rationale behind the change -- to accommodate/enhance the cloud features/services in the new version/release. Thank you. That's all I was asking. I don't expect you to divulge all of the particulars; providing the reason for making the change in the registration process from the previous to the current version is more than enough.

 

RejZor ...you have the patience of a saint ,and I salute your efforts in trying to educate folk ,but I fear some just dont want to listen

 

That does it no more blind users...

Why would you need a captcha within the user interface anyway?

I would understand if we were talking browser => account login.

Try to have a good day!

rrrh1 (arch1)

 

I also wonder why CAPTCHA is needed. Unless they have a logged number of robots that were somehow registering accounts like crazy.

 

I wish the online accounts could renew a registration to a client on the account.

 

Is avast! 7 compatable with win 8 consumer preview?

 

Version 7.0.1426 is compatible with Win8 CP.

 

I can think of two reasons for a CAPTCHA: 1) It creates one additional step and thus makes it incrementally more annoying to someone who would want to manually create different avast accounts for the different computers they use or admin, 2) It is designed to impede the easy through automation creation of different accounts for different machines. So in addition to any potentially important under the hood implications, there would seem to be one objective: reduce the odds of different accounts for different computers which reversed becomes increase the odds of one account for different computers.

Based in part on vlk's "personal information sent by the product is just the IP address and the Avast ID." from http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=95250.msg759758#msg759758 and in part based on thinking about how things might be implemented, I suspect that the information sent to avast (for example, a FileRep query) would be sent with your IP Address & Avast ID. I haven't personally looked for this or seen someone else provide proof of this, but lets run with that assumption for a second and conjecture....

A single avast account for multiple computers would provide a way to associate Avast IDs and by extension the information those computers send. It could serve to supplement any association that is done based on common IP address. For example, seeing different Avast IDs report information from the same IP address: those computers may be related due to sharing a home or business NAT, or they may not due to sharing an Internet cafe or open Wi-Fi NAT. If Avast IDs are linked to the same account, those computers are surely related. Even more tightly I would say if they share the same avast account and are sending information from the same IP Address. This becomes information that could be leveraged. Perhaps, for example, there is some benefit to weighing information received based on whether or not the computers are related.

 

So are you saying Avast is intentionally trying to discourage users from creating multiple Avast accounts? How would that be advantageous for Avast? I know you explained it below, but I don't understand the "leverage" aspect. Thanks.

 

RejZoR,

What exactly is your issue with my postings here? Or don't you understand the concept of due diligence? It was a simple inquiry with no attitude attached, unlike this reply.

Hypothetically, if you think there is no reason why Avast would change from key to account, then I've got a bridge to sell you. And, before you get on your high horse again, there is no ulterior motive for my asking the question, just trying to decipher the facts of this change.

 

I was just sharing one potential (not known to be fact, perhaps flawed and incorrect, conjectured) explanation that came to mind. I'm old school, we do such things in the hope that it will be supported, corrected, whatever and lead to better understanding. I think I presented that scenario adequately and stopped at an appropriate point.

I was reading CAPTCHA related comments when I started thinking about potential explanations, so that's where I started my comment. That scenario was about encouraging multiple related computers to be associated with one account and how that might feed into operation of the system as a whole. Simply encouraging multiple related computers to be associated with one account could possibly be useful in terms of limiting advertising, identifying commercial use of the free version, conserving resources, maybe other things. As for the CAPTCHA itself, it could just be a means to prevent bots from flooding the avast system with bogus new accounts.

 

I see a review of Avast 7 has been posted here. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401321,00.asp

 

Thanks. I was just trying to get a handle on what you were presenting. You did it quite well; it was just a bit (or maybe more than a bit) over my head.

 

I have MBAM and avast! on 5 computers and I have NO conflicts.

I'm sure many feel the same.