Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cruelsister" data-source="post: 173754" data-attributes="member: 7463">Without getting overly involved in this topic I&#039;d just like to make 2 points:1). Paid is better than Free- This statement speaks to the ignorance of a company&#039;s business model more than having any basis in fact. Two examples of this would be Baidu and Qihoo (no WAY I&#039;m mentioning Comodo here). Qihoo, and to a more recent and lesser extent Baidu, use the Anti-malware application as a &quot;loss-leader&quot;. Basically they want folks to like BAV and Q360 to draw them into using their respective browsers, which run their respective Search Engines, from which they derive the bulk of their revenue. To put it in perspective one must look at the market cap (ie. total market value of the company as a whole) of these organizations. Using Symantec as a baseline which has a market cap of about 13.5 billion USD, Baidu is really up there at about 56 billion, and upstart Qihoo is in a virtual tie with Symantec. So one can easily see these aren&#039;t fly-by-night organizations by any means and have consistently put money back into their security products to make them better.So instead of saying a Free Product can&#039;t compete with a Paid product, one should question how someone like AVG (market cap 1 billion USD) can compete with Qihoo!2). A statement was made that the testing done on Malware Hub is a little value. Perhaps this would be indeed the case if occasionally 10 or so rinky-dink samples were run every now and then. But that isn&#039;t the case, is it? Since I&#039;ve come on board at MT I&#039;ve personally run in excess (EASILY in excess) of 10 thousand samples, all of which were D+2 or newer, on primarily Q+CF (although I always find some time to mock other products). This combination has consistently shown to provide excellent protection and I can only assure you I know what I am doing. And it is Free.But should we dismiss this testing and instead drool over the results of things like the pathetic AV-C results? I think not.(note to friend Jasp- my tests are on live test boxes. I&#039;m also leery of doing any realistic tests in a VM, at least when samples are run. On demand scanning only wouldn&#039;t be an issue though if that&#039;s what others are using)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="cruelsister, post: 173754, member: 7463"] Without getting overly involved in this topic I'd just like to make 2 points: 1). Paid is better than Free- This statement speaks to the ignorance of a company's business model more than having any basis in fact. Two examples of this would be Baidu and Qihoo (no WAY I'm mentioning Comodo here). Qihoo, and to a more recent and lesser extent Baidu, use the Anti-malware application as a "loss-leader". Basically they want folks to like BAV and Q360 to draw them into using their respective browsers, which run their respective Search Engines, from which they derive the bulk of their revenue. To put it in perspective one must look at the market cap (ie. total market value of the company as a whole) of these organizations. Using Symantec as a baseline which has a market cap of about 13.5 billion USD, Baidu is really up there at about 56 billion, and upstart Qihoo is in a virtual tie with Symantec. So one can easily see these aren't fly-by-night organizations by any means and have consistently put money back into their security products to make them better. So instead of saying a Free Product can't compete with a Paid product, one should question how someone like AVG (market cap 1 billion USD) can compete with Qihoo! 2). A statement was made that the testing done on Malware Hub is a little value. Perhaps this would be indeed the case if occasionally 10 or so rinky-dink samples were run every now and then. But that isn't the case, is it? Since I've come on board at MT I've personally run in excess (EASILY in excess) of 10 thousand samples, all of which were D+2 or newer, on primarily Q+CF (although I always find some time to mock other products). This combination has consistently shown to provide excellent protection and I can only assure you I know what I am doing. And it is Free. But should we dismiss this testing and instead drool over the results of things like the pathetic AV-C results? I think not. (note to friend Jasp- my tests are on live test boxes. I'm also leery of doing any realistic tests in a VM, at least when samples are run. On demand scanning only wouldn't be an issue though if that's what others are using) [/QUOTE]

Verification