h a l f b a k e r yYeah, I wish it made more sense too.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Symantec just charged me 50 bucks for a years worth of subscription. Now I took it because I had to, but 50 Bucks seems like a steep upfront fee. Most customers would only pay it if they were relatively sure that they would get infected. But if Symantec allowed anyone to download, update and scan
their fully loaded version that would be awesome. People would definitely make use of this offer. Symantec has a 70% market share on security application market and could ramp it up to close to 100. But there would be a catch, while the application would be free each time one came across a virus Symantec would charge a fee for cleaning it. People would gladly pay $5.00 or $10.00 for cleaning a virus that is actually residing on their machine than $50.00 just as a preemptive measure. Symantec not only would get more market share but could end up making more money this way. Customers would be happy, Symantec would be happy.
Free
http://www.clamwin.com/
Open source [DenholmRicshaw, Apr 29 2005]
[link]
|
| |
Symantec would be very happy. They could leak the code for new viruses on message boards and then collect wheelbarrows of cash as they get to clean everyone. |
|
| |
Also, nobody in corporate worlds would use this, as they like to have predictable financial relationships. |
|
| |
What [sophocles] said. 'Predictable' is good and people will pay for the coverage. I don't like the 'fire fighting' aspect of this. |
|
| |
[sophocles], [gnomethang], [UnaBubba]. All three of you have brought out exceptional points. How naive of me. I have a question though... why cant this (the issues you raise) happen anyhow, with or without this free setup thing? |
|
| |
"This idea is purely semantic. It's never going to happen because the first thing a bugwriter will do is ensure you can't connect to Symantec." - you mean bug writers will not do it for a paid version? |
|
| |
"Symantec would be very happy. They could leak the code for new viruses on message boards and then collect wheelbarrows of cash as they get to clean everyone." -- awesome idea... and Symantec cant do this right now??? |
|
| |
They are incentivized to keep invasions low. You pay them for "protection". If you pay them for every invasion incident, then guess what you'll be getting lots of? |
|
| |
Ooooh, let me guess - presents? |
|
| |
People. Clearly you don’t think it works. And that’s alright. But if Symantec released both versions... the standard and this version there is no way some people would not find it more useful. And Symantec were to launch its own vulnerabilities I think that’s wrong... in fact I am pretty sure that’s illegal. |
|
| |
Every 6 months when my norton subscription runs out I simply reformat my hard drive and reinstall my 6 month trial... |
|
| |
hmm this sucks, symantec is a company, that has workers, unless virus protection is covered in taxes, this wont work... |
|
| |
You're not paying $50 for a virus cleanup, you're paying for virus prevention, with a cleanup backup option. I'd rather pay up front for protection, than pay less for a cleanup instance, never knowing when the next instance is going to happen. Condoms for your computer are cheap. |
|
| |