Solitude of ESET's NOD32 engine. . .

I agree with Dawgg's comment above. Companies do not usually discuss their business practices in public, especially in a support forum.

Regards,
Londonbeat

 

Seems like a fair enough explanation, but upon closer inspection it doesn't seem to hold true. For this maxim doesn't seem to be consistently applied, as businesses often inform their customers or clients the direction in which they are taking their company or products, or the reasons behind various things the company does or doesn't do insofar as that information is relevant to the customers/clients and poses minimal risk and cost. It seems that this instance meets that criteria. So while I admit that it isn't that important to me why the NOD32 engine hasn't been licensed, and that it was simply a matter of curiousity, I still fail to see why they would refuse to comment on this matter altogether.

 

Now that is funny ... who would buy engine from eset ? why on earth
they would want to do it... nod can't compete with kav even worse
they're weaker than norton anti-virus on the latest av-comparatives test...
but there is field for improvement and so in the future maybe there will be
some av companies which eventually will want to buy eset engine.

 

Yep, what you have written is really funny

 

While I agree that prww's remarks are indeed amusing in their idiocy, I don't see why you would respond to him but not to me. So if I was to criticize the value and worthiness of NOD32, then you would respond? I just don't get it. He posts what basically amounts to an attack on NOD32, and he gets a response from an ESET representative. While I posts what basically amounts to praise of NOD32 followed by a legitimate question, and I get nothing.

 

I would suggest that the only people that could answer this would be the VP of Marketing or Anton himself. Both gentlemen are extremely busy and rarely seen on the NOD32 Support Forum, and being that this is not a "support" issue there really isn't much further than can be said on the matter.

Cheers

 

Fair enough. But if this is true, then why didn't someone from Eset say this upfront, rather than "Ready My Lips: NO" ?

Many of the topics discussed in the Eset forum aren't "support" issues, and yet many of them get responses from Eset representatives, so this is not a valid excuse.

 

TypicallyOffbeat,

Simple, it's an internal business matter. Commenting either way puts them at a potential strategic disadvantage in the future.

This is a strategic business decision and trotting that out for every customer and competitor to see, comment on, and seemingly (in this thread at least) expect detailed information from internal sources is, at best, an amateurish way to run a business.

Obviously, some vendors have made a strategic decision to license their engine. There are cogent business arguements in favor of either approach. However, no matter how you position it, public discussion of future business strategy is not the way to run a successful business.

Blue

 

First off, I was never asking for 'detailed information'. All I was asking for was a brief explanation, to the extent of explaining why their engine has yet to be licensed out. Something along the lines of 'at this point in time we have decided against licensing the engine' or 'as of yet there are no interested third parties worth licensing the engine to' or whatever the case may be. Besides, I'm sure that many companies in the industry are already aware of Eset's position on this matter, for if Eset has decided not to license their engine out, and assuming companies have inquired about licensing it, then surely others already know Eset's decision on this matter. So I still fail to see any good reason for not responding on this matter. As I said before, I see no risk or cost involved in doing so.

For the most part this makes sense and I agree with it to an extent. However this doesn't always hold true. For instance, with the release of CounterSpy 2, Sunbelt elaborated on their strategy with the product and the eventual stand-alone AV that will emerge from it. I don't think it is necessarily a bad business decision to divulge this information. Regardless, this point isn't really applicable to this thread because I am not and never was asking about their future position on this matter, but rather their position heretofore.

 

Hi, TypicallyOffbeat

It their choice.

Take Care,
TheQuest

 

Wow, so enlightening. Utterly profound and insightful. Brilliantly put.

 

I wonder if the word "No",means no engine of his own

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but if you are referring to the 'NO' in mrtwolman's comment, I don't think what you're saying makes sense. Or else I'm simply misinterpreting either your's or mrtwolman's comment altogether.

 

To clear the positions let's get back to my original post.

Q: Can anyone from ESET comment on this?
A: Read my lips: NO

Hope no further comment is necessary.

 

Ah, they're not allowed to comment. At least on this query.

 

Someday someone will explain to me why a customer who spends $40 for a product thinks he has the right to know the company's policies and the reasons therefor. And then gets upset when he is not told them. What he has the right to is a product that works. In other words, value for his money. Period.

I saw this same attitude with the questions about version 3.

If you bought a 34 inch television set, would you expect to be told what the company's marketing plans were for the next year or whether they were supplying the "guts" for other manufacturer's tv sets? Of course not. So why here?

What gives software users such a sense of entitlement?

 

While there is no doubt about NO, could you please explain what Read my lips means.

Is it some kind of insult?
Or, a hint that you feel insulted by the question?

Thanks.

 

To explain the "read my lips" stuff, you should remember the 1988 Republican National Convention.

For more details take a look on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes

 

No it is not the same. Same thing if you bought a 34 inch TV set and they told you that you're entitled to a free upgrade to 35 as soon as it is available...after waiting over a year and this still ain't happening, you'd certainly ask them when you could get it and how long it would take...Use your brain

 

A fair question, and answered in a bad way,not very business like

 

software is software - development of a quality product USUALLY takes longer than originally anticipated ... look at how long it took to get M$ Vista to the marketplace... enough said?

 

First off, you're not making a fair and accurate comparison here. Customers that buy windows aren't paying for upgrades to future versions that come out. But customers that buy NOD32 are. So you're comparing apples and oranges. Besides, as has been mentioned before, customers and fans of NOD32 have been waiting a very long time for the new version, well past when they were told to expect it. The delayed development of the new version, while disappointing in itself, is understandable. However, the failure of Eset to inform and re-update its customers on when to actually expect it is simply unacceptable, and confounds the issue. This leaves their customers and fans further disappointed, and doesn't reflect well on Eset. Regardless, that wasn't even the topic of this thread, which was a legitimate question about why the NOD32 engine hasn't been licensed out. And as waters and cerBer have pointed out, the response by Eset was less than cordial. mrtwolman's explanation of his response only makes sense in one of two ways, if the comment was made in a political context, or if he was implying that the official response of 'no' (no comment), was going to be blatantly made untrue by later actions, such as an official comment being made about it at a later time, thus highlighting the blatant falsehood of the first comment. So, going with mrtwolman's explanation, if we pressure him enough he will go against his previous statement and divulge said information (answer to my question).

 

Since the question of licensing the engine is an internal matter of ESET's management, I'll draw this thread to a close instead of expressing here my personal opinions and to prevent further personal attacks.