Why not have a 'build' licence

I know DCS doesn't charge a yearly fee for PG etc, and I for one am glad to have a program what will always work.

Yet I also know it costs money to research and upgrade products. And I got to thinking, why not just charge a 'build licence'. Ie there is an upgrade fee (even a small one)...not on a yearly basis, but only for a 'new engine' (as opposed to small improvements).

It wouldn't have to stop your current PG from working when a new engine comes out, just that if you want the new one, there be a small fee. (so for example you could choose not to upgrade, still have a working product, and never have to pay anything more)

Or maybe a 'build licence fee' with one free build upgrade, so you would only be pay for every second build, like PG5, PG7. PG9 etc etc...as I'm sure these would be a few years apart <but still have the working product if you chose not to upgrade>

anyway, just a thought

 

Wow! Vikorr! Asking a company to take more money from you (and others...hint, hint)

You must be one truly satisfied customer....although I'm guessing that this idea probably won't exactly be greeted with open arms by the masses. The "one time fee" is probably a key selling point to many, and perhaps the reason that several users decided to purchase the product. Could be kinda risky...especially when the product is still fairly new and not as established as DiamondCS probably hopes for it to be eventually.

I applaud your courage to suggest this, though, I just wonder how it will be received!

 

no no, read again, I wasn't asking that they take more money off me or anyone else ...unless we wished to purchase any future upgrades that is <and then only at a reduced price>...the way I suggested it, the one we currently purchased should always work, whether we decided to upgrade or not.

I just don't know why no company seems to do it that way. To me a much more preferable way than a yearly fee.


Also a worthwhile way to see to the future development of such programs.

 

Vikorr,
Having free upgrades also reduces support costs for the vendor and doesn't just benefit the customer.

 

Hi,

I too would be happy to pay a yearly fee to support future upgrades to the product. I would much rather see Diamondcs have the money and resources to put into research and develoopment of new products than some of the other vendors out there like Symantec or Microsoft. An extra $15 - $25 a year is the cost of one good meal. I could easily forgo that meal for a better product or more timely releases/upgrades of current products. For me, it is a no-brainer.

Rich

 

vikorr,

LOL...I know, I read that, and I was just messin' with ya. But you know, if there are "new releases", that's means that the product has been altered (and in nearly all cases, IMPROVED), and it is human nature for consumers to want "the newest and improved", so most probably wouldn't just "keep the original" and would want the upgrade. Throw in the cash factor, though, and many might not be as inclined to even make the initial purchase (knowing that they'll be paying again.....and again, etc.)

and rich,

Perhaps you should just "donate" money to the cause (LOL). Suggesting for others who have already purchased the product expecting a one time fee to start coughing up more cash doesn't really seem like the most popular way to go, though. Unless DiamondCS comes out with a financial report which indicates they are struggling to stay afloat and might be forced out of business or have to greatly cut back on research and development as a result, I can't imagine why you would even suggest this. The "one-time fee" is one of the key selling points that is attracting me (and I'm sure attracted others) to this product in the first place!

I know you guys are absolutely sold on the product and it's effectiveness and usefullness, but remember, others may have purchased it because one of the main selling points is that it is a one-time fee. Of course, they could uninstall the product and cancel their relationship with DiamondCS if it did go to a yearly pay model/service, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of having a "satisfied customer" who will spread positive experiences by word of mouth and thus attract NEW business as well.

Just something to consider.....

 

In my opinion the above considerations are redundant.

The real questions is whether there will be any significant updates at all. Jason, the coder who is mainly responsible for PG, left DCS. It remains to be seen how much knowledge about kernel driver programming/low-level stuff is still left with DCS. Hopefully, a lot of knowledge was transferred prior to Jason's departure.

 

Well, losing key members responsible for the R&D of PG does make a big difference....now I understand the concerns a little more. Sorry, was unware that Jason had left or what was happening from within the company.

 

Hi all,

I worked in many capacities with software firms (literally hundreds) for many years. It is very difficult for a software company continue to improve upon products (much less make new products) if the business model that does not have a recurring revenue stream. I have never seen it otherwise.

If DiamondCS set up a mechanism for donations, I would contribute. I contribute all the time to companies that I believe are delivering good products, though I wish they would set up a different business model so that they would not have to rely on donations.

Agreed, anyone who purchased based upon a one-time payment, should have this agreement honored. However, this does not have to apply to future products. Most top-rated AV firms have a defined revenue stream, and I think it is this type of revenue source that allows them to provide top-rated protection. I try to be practical and realistic about these things. There is lots of long-term benefits to me if good software companies have ample resources to create new and better products.

I am sure it was a difficult decision for DiamondCS to temporarily place resources on the PG project while delaying releases on their existing products, but reality is reality and we all have to live within constraints.

Rich

 

Hi I,

Doesn't concern me one bit because:

1) PG is a product that stands on its own.
2) My experiences with software companies is that there are plenty of good technical designers and programmers available in the marketplace. I think both DiamondCS and Ghost Security are doing well.
3) I think the primary issue for both companies is developing a good revenue model as opposed to technical issues. Both companies seem to have the technical side well handled.

Rich

 

My anonymous friend, you weren't here during the development of ProcessGuard so allow me to clear up your confusion.

ProcessGuard is a DiamondCS program, with all research and development paid for entirely by myself (I can assure you it wasn't cheap!), and also with myself leading the research, especially during the earlier days when the foundations of PG were laid. Jason was the lead programmer and we're very happy with his efforts, he was easily able to turn nearly all of my ideas and discoveries into quality working code while I researched away, but PG does not belong to Jason or any other individual, nor was it created by any individual, it's just too big a job. We actually created ProcessGuard before Jason was hired as we were looking into ways of preventing process termination by trojans. We're happy with where ProcessGuard is at for the moment so we're concentrating on TDS4, as we have literally tens of thousands of customers eagerly awaiting that. If anything needs to be changed in ProcessGuard that's not a problem, but for now it's fine so we'd like to concentrate on TDS4, as I'm sure most people can understand. Jason has gone on to develop his own software now which you can find at Ghost Security, I'd encourage you to visit.

 

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for the comments. I know it is a non-issue, but it seems like there are guests who bring up the same issue now and then, for what reason I do not know. It is clear that ProcessGuard is in great shape and at this time is fully functional with little need for substantial change.

Thanks for all of your hard work.

Rich

 

I think I have a idea....

 

Wayne:

I am glad that you perceive me as a friend in the meantime. This makes it much easier to openly express my mind.

Development Costs

Now I am curious. Did you spend "just" time or did you also spend real money (apart from the salaries paid and the computer equipment purchased). If yes: for what services etc. do you pay as a developer? (This is just my curiosity. No tricks. As always.)

Process Guard

I like it and I agree that it does not mandatorily require any updates at the moment.

Personally, I would like to get more detailed logging information (specifying the API functions blocked etc.) so that I can use PG as a monitoring tool. Moreover, it is a little uncomfy to add an application to be protected.

Taking into account the huge R&D costs, however, it is probably more important to develop a PG version which can be centrally administered and sold to large companies. A centrally administered PG is what all controlfreaks (like many admins) are dreaming of. A standard user could not run untrusted applications, could not execute malicious email attachments or download & execute "bad stuff" from the internet. It would be almost impossible for a "dumb" user to infect its computer, play games etc. Only "trusted", enrolled applications could be used. Termination of trusted applications would not be possible etc. Alternatively, a user could be allowed to run untrusted applications because PG will ensure that such applications cannot do any critical stuff like termination attacks, code injections, driver installations etc. A personal firewall (protected by PG) would make sure that such untrusted applications have no network access. For instance, the recent industrial espionage case in Israel would not have been possible if PG and a personal firewall had been installed on the infected computers ...

TDS-4

I am happy that you concentrate on TDS-4. Please feel free to release a beta at your earliest convenience. Yet another curious but hopefully justified (see http://tds.diamondcs.com.au/index.php?page=beforebuying ) question: Are you (and Gavin?) the only persons working on TDS-4 at the moment? Will it be coded in Visual Basic, C++ and/or Masm? Is it still planned to use of an emulation?

Cheers + happy coding

 

Opera does that.

I agree, and so do Opera users (including me) who gladly pay for the new versions!

-rich

 

*pictures Richrf passing food through the bars at DiamondCS HQ, casually disregarding the sign nearby: PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE PROGRAMMERS*

 

If they are hungry, - I'll feed them some kangaroo-burgers, but no alcohol! I need clean code. What's the address for the Care package? And why doesn't Wayne feed them anyway

Rich

 

He's too busy pounding the streets of Perth with a placard "WILL CODE TDS-4 FOR FOOD".

 

Wayne make sure you take the proper time to make TDS-4 never mine the ones who come in here as Guest and Just Complain!! TDS-3 is great as is and we await the release of TDS-4!!

Cheers Sir!!! And I mean SIR!!!!!!!!!

dagolag