Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bazang" data-source="post: 1098594" data-attributes="member: 114717">He will spend as little as possible because it is a freeware product. Spending as close to $0 is an appropriate financial model for that category of product.Melih said he has no intention of creating a revenue stream from Comodo. He said that years ago. It&#039;s buried on his thread in the Comodo forum.He paid for the creation of CIS\CFW and a long time ago he said that is what he is willing to do, but to expend the resources to make it a refined, highly-polished product - that he is not willing to do. Why? Because it would be very expensive to do so.He also said is has no interest nor intent to sell Comodo. He offers what he is willing to offer and users\people can accept that or just do not use it.&quot;We will fix bugs&quot; is not the same as &quot;We will fix all the bugs.&quot;On the Comodo forum, Melih&#039;s response to all the criticisms is &quot;I am OK with bugs. Software has bugs.&quot;Again, since the product has $0 revenue, the owner is going to spend as close to $0 possible.Comodo does have large revenue, but it is not derived from the Comodo software.The correct business model for software is that the resources spent on that software are directly proportional to the amount of revenue it brings into an organization. That is how the software industry works.For every 4 software engineers that I hire to develop &amp; support a software, that software needs to generate $1,200,000 USD in revenue. If it does not, then I do not hire anyone and the software receives the most minimal support.All software should be managed as its own profit center. Since Comodo generates $0 revenue, it &quot;earns&quot; minimal product support.All software is developed and offered &quot;As Is.&quot; Read any software EULA and you will see the same thing in every single one of them - &quot;This product is sold &quot;As Is&quot; and you, the user, are responsible for what you do with it and on your system.&quot; Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Norton, Avast, ......... they all say the same thing in their EULA.Comodo has no obligation or responsibility - legal, ethical, moral, or otherwise - to anybody - to fix a freeware&#039;s bugs.Should there be a provable security vulnerability then Melih has had them fixed over the years. The issue here at MT is there are members that categorize any bug as a vulnerability and that is not realistic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bazang, post: 1098594, member: 114717"] He will spend as little as possible because it is a freeware product. Spending as close to $0 is an appropriate financial model for that category of product. Melih said he has no intention of creating a revenue stream from Comodo. He said that years ago. It's buried on his thread in the Comodo forum. He paid for the creation of CIS\CFW and a long time ago he said that is what he is willing to do, but to expend the resources to make it a refined, highly-polished product - that he is not willing to do. Why? Because it would be very expensive to do so. He also said is has no interest nor intent to sell Comodo. He offers what he is willing to offer and users\people can accept that or just do not use it. "We will fix bugs" is not the same as "We will fix [U]all[/U] the bugs." On the Comodo forum, Melih's response to all the criticisms is "I am OK with bugs. Software has bugs." Again, since the product has $0 revenue, the owner is going to spend as close to $0 possible. Comodo does have large revenue, but it is not derived from the Comodo software. The correct business model for software is that the resources spent on that software are directly proportional to the amount of revenue it brings into an organization. That [I]is[/I] how the software industry works. For every 4 software engineers that I hire to develop & support a software, that software needs to generate $1,200,000 USD in revenue. If it does not, then I do not hire anyone and the software receives the most minimal support. All software should be managed as its own profit center. Since Comodo generates $0 revenue, it "earns" minimal product support. All software is developed and offered "As Is." Read any software EULA and you will see the same thing in every single one of them - "This product is sold "As Is" and you, the user, are responsible for what you do with it and on your system." Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Norton, Avast, ......... they all say the same thing in their EULA. Comodo has no obligation or responsibility - legal, ethical, moral, or otherwise - to anybody - to fix a freeware's bugs. Should there be a provable security vulnerability then Melih has had them fixed over the years. The issue here at MT is there are members that categorize any bug as a vulnerability and that is not realistic. [/QUOTE]

Verification