Join 3,523 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The bastards at Symantec
August 12, 2000 4:19 PM   Subscribe

The bastards at Symantec are now charging for virus updates. They've just lost a customer, a hopefully many more. The feedback form is here if you feel the need to bitch at them.
posted by skallas (20 comments total)

 
Whoops, some grammer screw ups in there. Must have happened because I'm pretty pissed off.
posted by skallas at 4:22 PM on August 12, 2000


Well, good luck finding another product. I've been using the F-Prot engine in some form or other since 1993. I gave up on Mcafee for windows machines cause it's a resource hog. I didn't like the InnoculateIT products. There are three products that use the F-Prot engine, Command Antivirus, F-Secure, and the free DOS version of F-Prot which comes with a good win32 compatable shield tsr/program and has free updates.

I don't usually trust or recommend computer magazine reviews but, check for yourself at Winmag.com for some resonable comparisons. None seem to charge for updates.
posted by Dean_Paxton at 4:56 PM on August 12, 2000


Allegedly Symantic "has" to do this because otherwise they must recognize the revenue from the virus product over some long period of time (since they keep giving you service forever). If they charge you for the updates then they can recognize the initial revenues up front.
posted by faisal at 6:46 PM on August 12, 2000


If they're going to charge for updates, they should at least sell the program very cheaply, if not just give it away. You know, sort of a Gillette scenario: They don't make much off the razors, the blades are where the profits are.
posted by aaron at 7:19 PM on August 12, 2000


Its such a scam, without updates a virus "protector" like NAV is useless for obvious reasons. They shouldn't be allowed to change from a product to a service like this. I'd call for a class-action suit but I'm sure somewhere deep in their EULA there's some disclaimer. Some clever hacker should find a way around this.
posted by skallas at 8:14 PM on August 12, 2000


WHAT!!!! Another company is actually expecting people to PAY FOR THINGS!!!! When is this going to end???!!! When will businesses realize that things should be free. I can't believe the nerve of these assholes actually expecting me to pay for things. What right do they have to charge for their products? Dickheads. Well they're never getting another penny of my money. Not until they see the light and start giving things away for free.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:39 PM on August 12, 2000


y6y6y6 would have a point if this wasn't commercial software I already paid for.
posted by skallas at 8:47 PM on August 12, 2000


All I know is, the next time something like "ILOVEYOU" comes along, spreading like wildfire and scaring the everyone into believing that if they don't update nownownow they're going to lose all their data, they're going to be massively pissed off at Symantec when they discover they aren't going to get any update because they don't have their credit card with them at the moment.

All this is going to do is lead to SAM updates being the single most-pirated piece of software.
posted by aaron at 9:19 PM on August 12, 2000



That really just adds insult to injury, AV software is more or less a critical application when running a windows machine. Norton is hedging his bet that most people will be willing to pay his extortion rate than lose all that valuable data they have on their HD. The execs woke up and realized that they have a lot of users by the short hairs and they might as well milk them for everything their worth regardless of the $40 they've already payed.

Makes you wonder what keeps Norton from writing their own kick-ass virus at this point.


posted by skallas at 9:26 PM on August 12, 2000


Yeah, I know what you mean y6y6y6. Of course this stuff is rampant these days. Why can you believe that after spending thousands of dollars for my car, the greedy jerks actually expect me to pay for the gas too? I mean come on - the car is worthless without the gas!
posted by willnot at 9:32 PM on August 12, 2000


willnot would have a point if I bought the product knowing that it was a pay-for-service when in fact I bought it told it was offering free-updates. Using your analogy, thats like GM giving away free gas to saturate the market then one day saying "too bad now pay up losers."
posted by skallas at 10:01 PM on August 12, 2000


I could be wrong, but it appears this is referring to the live update feature. I imagine the actual virus definitions are still free, you just have to manually download them from time to time, instead of relying on your cpu to check in itself on a regular basis. I don't think this is anything new, live update always peter'd out a year after installation.
posted by thirteen at 10:13 PM on August 12, 2000


yep, still free. There is a link at the bottom of page on the charging for updates link in the threadstart post.
HAPPY DANCE
posted by thirteen at 10:20 PM on August 12, 2000


>>Makes you wonder what keeps Norton from writing their own kick-ass virus at this point.<<

Aren't Norton and Symantec the same company?
posted by aaron at 10:32 PM on August 12, 2000



They are now.
posted by thirteen at 10:36 PM on August 12, 2000


I havn't used virus protection software since the 80's. Just how much pirate software do you folks download?
posted by john at 10:46 PM on August 12, 2000


beware file attachments from John.
posted by thirteen at 12:59 AM on August 13, 2000


AV software is more or less a critical application when running a windows machine.

Maybe I've been lucky all these years, but I've never had antivirus software on any of my PCs (except at a couple of jobs where it was strictly enforced). I've never had a virus infect my PC, ever, in 10 years of using Windows 3 - Windows 2000. Not in the 6 years of DOS before that. Not even on the TI/99-4A before that. In my opinion, a little common sense about what software and programs you run does a better job of protecting you than AV software.
posted by daveadams at 6:44 AM on August 14, 2000


Good one Thirteen,


But as Dave said, I use common sense about what I download and I don't ever open attachments that I don't specifically know about. On a network it's a bit different. Security is only as good as it's weakest link and working for big companies you have a quite a few weak ones.
posted by john at 9:19 AM on August 14, 2000


I wasn't trying to smack you John, just teasing. Most viruses are easily avoided if you are careful. I need to have the software loaded just because I cannot trust my users not to double click on every word file that stumbles into the office. If I take a day off around definition update time, I will come back to a macro virus theme park. I recommend NAV administrator highly, beats shlepping around the office hitting machines one at a time by a mile.
posted by thirteen at 4:58 PM on August 14, 2000


« Older So you wanna be an indie-rock expert?...  |  Madonna has another child.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments