Solitude of ESET's NOD32 engine. . .

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by walking paradox, Mar 1, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. walking paradox

    walking paradox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Posts:
    234
    As a precursor to this discussion, let me clarify that this thread is not supposed to be about or intended to start a pissing contest and flaming war between the various AV fanboys, rather it is a serious question grounded in curiosity and as such the discussion should focus simply on the question posed. That being said, lets continue onto the subject matter itself. . .

    Clearly NOD32 and KAV are the long reigning kings of AVs, they are the big boys on the block, not of course in regards to their user base, but in terms of their longstanding effectiveness. Over time, these two AVs emerge and prevail as the two most effective, the first choice for many computer security enthusiasts. So my question is, why are there numerous 3rd party AVs that license and incorporate the KAV engine, but none (that I know of) that do so with the NOD32 engine? Is it because ESET refuses to license it out? Or because there are no interested companies vying for such a license? Or something else altogether?
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2007
  2. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    I would guess that ESET refuses to license the engine.
     
  3. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    I think so , too . And , in my opinion , it is better that they don't share their engine.
     
  4. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    817
    why?... I would have thought although licensing the engine will cause other AVs to have higher detections so NOD may loose a few customers, it will gain much more revenue (from the license)... suppose its up to the Marketing team (not sure if NOD's got one).

    TypicallyOffbeat, NOD's engine is one of the best in the industry and i am sure many AV companies wouldn't mind incorporating it into their products... Would have thought NOD's stance on licensing its engine is a NO NO (or license too expensive)
     
  5. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Personally I think selling a product that is proven to another vendor is a terrible mistake. The engine may be great, but the paint job they may add, might be what sours folks to your product, even though it wasnt the engine that wasnt bad. I mean look at how people compare F-Secures suite and Kasperskys engine. You cant, as far as the total product goes, because nothing has changed about the engine supplied from Kas, but it is the added features, good or bad, from F-Secure, that people compare it to. I know it means more dollars for the vendor, but it can come, with some bad publicity if something else in the product goes bad. Nope. ESET should keep their little Ferrari, right where it is, in house.
     
  6. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    And I have converted in the realm of the paid subscriber. You really cant do better then this product.
     
  7. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada
    it might be legal reasons - who knows what sort of distributor arrangements Eset SRO has with it's various world distributors - there may be something about not competing with themselves by licensing to another party... ;)
     
  8. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    True, all I know is if I struck gold, I will be darn, if i am calling my best friend to tell him about it. :rolleyes:
     
  9. walking paradox

    walking paradox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Posts:
    234
    Can anyone from ESET comment on this? I'm curious as to the actual and official reason why their engine hasn't been licensed by another company.
     
  10. henryg

    henryg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Posts:
    293

    A perfect example of Zone Alarm with KAV integration. With all the bugs in Z.A..... doesn't do help much to KAV. I'm a long time NOD32 user and would not want see ESET lower their standards by licensing their A/V to be integrated in to a 3rd. party software that is riddled with bugs.
     
  11. walking paradox

    walking paradox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Posts:
    234
    Just to be clear, I'm not calling for ESET to license their engine in any way whatsoever, I don't really have a strong position as to them doing so, but I guess I'd probably prefer that they don't. Regardless, I asked this question not to sway their decision on this matter but simply out of curiousity as to why they haven't.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2007
  12. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613

    Read my lips: NO
     
  13. walking paradox

    walking paradox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Posts:
    234
    Why do you say that?
     
  14. jamesfedwards

    jamesfedwards Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Posts:
    15
    I actually stumbled accross Nod32 as a disgruntled Zone Alarm Internet Security user. The version 7.0 switch to using Kapersky has gone terribly wrong, with most users having no AV protection and not realizing it. It may not be Kaspersky's fault, but I can tell you that I'd never switch to it. I'm delighted with Nod32 as is, and it works great with the ZA Firewall.
     
  15. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    817
    Its not lowering standards though by licensing the engine... ZA having bugs has nothing to do with KAV, KAV's sold the license and made its money, its ZA's standards which are lowered because the Devs haven't fixed all the issues.
    Integrating NODs engine into a 3rd party software will only spread the name of NOD and earn it some money... if NOD's integrated into a buggy AV, its the buggy AV which will loose popularity... NOD will still be as good as always
     
  16. jamesfedwards

    jamesfedwards Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Posts:
    15
    I hear you, but to be honest, my bad experience has soured me on both ZA and Kaspersky.
     
  17. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    I also believe that when AV company 1 sells its engine , it is the AV2's fault and if somehow ESET sell the engine , NOD will not loose popularity . However , NOD32 is perfect technology that should be kept in proper hands -> ESET .

    I'll 2nd that :thumb:
     
  18. madaro

    madaro Guest

    I like the fact that NOD32 does not license their technology to other vendors. It's a unique software, with a unique user base.
     
  19. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    817
    Hmmm... suppose thats where marketing has to be carefull... have to remember every user has different opinions... some (like you) will blame the AV (ZA) + the AV providing the license (KAV) and some (like me) only blame the AV (ZA) which made a buggy product and not the AV who supplied the license ;)

    *Note, I haven't tried ZA7 and dont know about bugs/problems... just going with the flow of what yall on this thred are saying.
     
  20. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    Because he is in the know.

    Cheers :D
     
  21. walking paradox

    walking paradox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Posts:
    234
    So in other words nobody from ESET is going to comment on this matter? Why is that? What do they have to lose by responding? There is no risk involved. As a principle it is simply bad business practice to ignore customers and potential customers. If the matter being discussed could potentially harm the company, or there was some risk or cost involved in responding, then it would make sense to refrain from doing so. However I fail to see any of that in this case. My dismay in their abstaining to respond is moreso due to the principle of it, rather than out of my unfullfilled curiousity, though both play their part.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2007
  22. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,794
    Location:
    Texas
    I believe they commented in post twelve.
     
  23. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    Count me in as another NOD user who believes that it would NOT be a wise marketing/business decision for Eset.

    If someone wants NOD32 antivirus protection, they can simply buy the Eset product....not a "rebranded/repackaged/renamed" version of the product that gives the credit (or blame) to a different (essentially competing) company.

    @TypicallyOffbeat - You mentioned something that I think is vitally important. You said that NOD32 and KAV over time have basically emerged as "the first choice for many computer security enthusiasts.". Those words are key, especially when you consider that when the "typical/average user" purchases a product that has the "NOD32 antivirus engine included".....many (most) of these average users don't really care about exactly which AV engines are included.....that is something that would mainly be in the minds and interests of the "enthusiasts". So for NOD32 simply to remain as an Eset brand.....the best thing for them to do is to keep the product in-house and sell/market/service NOD32 as an Eset product exclusively.

    Eset is trying to build it's business, image, reputation, and name recognition. For example, they will be introducing a new "security suite" with firewall/spam, etc. in the very near future. And in a day and age where everything seems to be up for sale to the highest bidder....I actually respect the fact that Eset wants to retain the rights to and service it's product (and name brand) solely.....

    http://forums.fantasyfootball.com/style_emoticons/default/twocents.gif
     
  24. walking paradox

    walking paradox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Posts:
    234
    Oh, I didn't know that mrtwolman was from ESET as there was no indication that he was. I figured representatives from ESET would be moderators, or would at least have some sort of indication as to their status. Regardless, it being the case that he is indeed from ESET, my apologies for the remark about the absence of a response from ESET. However, I still fail to see why ESET would be hesitant to the point of flat out refusing to even comment on the issue, aside from the not so cordial response from mrtwolman. Can anyone think of a good reason why they would want to conceal this info?
     
  25. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    817
    why is it so important to you on what business decisions NOD makes... it doesnt make a difference to you weather NOD does or doesnt sell its engine... NOD32 will still be the good old NOD32.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.