Security Companies Prove You Can Compete With Free
from the peace-of-mind dept
For companies struggling to transition to the digital age, the idea of having to compete with something offered for free causes a lot of consternation. But while price is obviously a factor in any transaction, it's clearly not the only factor. In music, obviously, the existence of free, pirated music, hasn't stopped the rise of the iTunes music store. The software industry is facing similar issues; Microsoft is increasingly competing with startups that offer Office-like productivity apps for free over the web. Lately, in the security space, the amount of free anti-virus and firewall software has been on the increase. But people are still buying from the incumbent vendors, because they can offer better service, more updates, and all-in-one packages. And when it comes to something like computer security, people generally don't mind paying for the superior product. With the rise of web applications, open source and, yes, piracy, more companies are going to have to figure out how to compete with free. But if the product remains a compelling value, such competition is definitely possible.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Isnt it a bit early to make this claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It remains to be seen...
I'm not saying that Innerdaemon doesn't have a valid point, I just think that it may also be too premature to forsee microsoft dethroning Symantec and McAfee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I close the hole...
That is what Microsoft is doing. The mere fact that anti-virii (and the other) products CAN run as system processes is what is inherently wrong, and why so many other things can take over the system. Microsoft is changing the architecture to prevent anything other than the SYSTEM from acting on behalf of SYSTEM.
They are not "replacing" the security companies in vista. They are just closing the hole that allowed the security software to do what it did. This makes the system overall more secure. But it kicks out all the so-called security software in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The free security programs out there are not as full as what you buy commercially, the free music out there is exactly the same as the music that you pay for.
If you could get exactly the same protection free as from something that you pay for, do you really think anyone would pay for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free music not the same
If you are a fan, you will buy the CD for the quality, and to own the official CD with it's extras that can not be digitized. You will go to concerts and buy t-shirts and other products. If music companies were smart, they would treat mp3s the way TV shows treat fanfic. Get communities together to talk about the bands and swap music as fan clubs, then sell your better products to true fans, who now want to own official gear to impress the other fans.
Business works best when it's not adversarial. The way things are now, the RIAA and the like are mere treating all potential fans as criminals, and making us not want to buy from them or anyone connected to them. The extremes they go to make us lack sympathy we may have had if they had been a little more reasonable and connected to their fan-base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free music not the same
This argument is getting tired as there is no proof of this. All you have to do is look around techdirt articles and you will see how many people "never have, never will" paid/pay for music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music is not the same as software.
In the case of music the stuff you pay for is 10x WORSE than the free stuff. You actually get PUNISHED for having paid for the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consumer Reports
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the only real downside of the "free" companies i see, is that i don't know the business practice. with pay companies, macafee/norton....you know they have smart business practices, don't hire bad people and whatnot. who knows who may post an update or work for the free companies. but we all have our "price"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free antivirus, like Avast!
Avast! (or more accurately, awil software) does concern me in that I do have doubts about trusting a company located in the Czechoslovakian republic. I still use them, but I am at least aware if the issue. Free for home use, and paying for commercial use makes sense, and is a great marketing plan designed to build a loyal customer base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free music not the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the rise of the iTunes music store
Secondly, there are two scenarios that are similar to what's going on with Security software. One option is Red Hat Linux adding value to a free offering, with a respectable degree of success. And the other option is that the "Incumbent Security Vendors" are more like Netscape right when Microsoft unleashed IE. Ad of course, THAT was an unqualified success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Topic Now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free or Free?
The reason I think that this needs to be asked is because there is a big difference in the two types of software. One is a closed-development product that has features limited with the specific aim of encouraging potential customers to purchase an upgraded, enhanced or more fully-featured version of the same product, whereas the other is, as the name suggests, and open-development environment with the specific, un-diluted aim of performing the task at hand.
I'm not saying that all companies release free versions just to get you to buy the full version, but that they have to do that as a matter of survival - one of the best ways I can think that a company may encourage people to buy full software is through quality of service.
If referring to free-version software, then of course it you can compete with them, because they are intentionally limited in one way or another, whether it be a time limitation, the lack of a certain feature, or a feature being restricted (eg. AVG Free cannot scan network drives). All you have to do is provide more features.
Open-source, on the other hand, doesn't have limitations because there is no profit to be had, but just the usability and how well the program is constructed (or ported to a specific platform). Therefore, if you get an open-source program that is well written, well presented, and has enough publicity, then companies providing a commercial security product will have a much more difficult time of marketing their product against a 'good' free alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Character Encoding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yarr, what about antitrust and the RICO act?
Ye canna be selling protection fer yer own cannonball-sized security holes, that's racketeering matey!
It'll be gratifying to see someone in Redmond walk tha plank.
talklikeapirateday.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]