We absolutely allow trials of Cylance PROTECT and if you're not 100% satisfied, we offer a money back guarantee. We are also currently offering the Malware Tips Community a 20% discount which is the best deal anywhere on Cylance PROTECT!
So my traditional AV is the main AV for my system? What happens when a malware strikes? Because both are in real-time will my traditional AV reacts first then follow by Cylance or vice versa? Or Cylance is smart enough not to react since my traditional AV already acted?
You really don't have to know about this. As long as the product is made as a companion antimalware, then it's understood that it is made to be compatible with other AVs (of course, incompatibilities exist, which should be reported).
Cylance (assuming that indeed it is a companion AM), for example, is made by its developers to be complementary to AVs.
So, it really depends on the intention of the developers, and how they made the product, if a product is compatible with AVs or not.
We absolutely allow trials of Cylance PROTECT and if you're not 100% satisfied, we offer a money back guarantee. We are also currently offering the Malware Tips Community a 20% discount which is the best deal anywhere on Cylance PROTECT!
Are you having a laugh? I'm really surprised at this.
Your trials should be freely available to anyone as they see fit to download them without having to enter their credit card credentials prior to the trial - as a security vendor yourself you should know that it is basic good online practise to never enter such details without testing things properly to make sure all works correctly. Regardless of your "money back guarantee", it's still unethical to have this as a strict requirement.
I don't see any of the other trusted, ethical vendors requiring such sensitive details for the 30-day trials: Avast, Avira, Bitdefender, ESET, Emsisoft, Kaspersky, Trend-Micro...
You really should reconsider this rule because if you made the trials available without requiring these details, as long as your product really isn't a pile of bogus, you'll most likely end up making more sales than currently (making it beneficial to yourselves in the first place)... People will want to test your product and strain it's capabilities/functionalities as far as possible, and trust is earned over time. You can't just expect people to trust you and hand over their credit cards.
Why don't you want to allow the trials to be publicly available at any-time? It just begs me to wonder what you are all hiding... It's not normal behaviour from a "security vendor".
I requested a demo a dozen days ago and received an e-mail but... Still nothing. In fact, I requested a demo a dozen months ago and... Still nothing.
If I misunderstood how this "trial" system works, please let me know by correcting me.
@Malware Managed
I will be honest. For any potential user that has enough experience, just watching the youtube video you have on the website is not enough to convince such user to pay and use it blindly.
Please do reconsider some sort of trial, or at least a selective trial to some users so to speak.
Personally, I will not blindly pay for something without testing it first.
Same concept when you go shopping, you try clothes/sizes prior to buy correct?
In any case this is just a suggestion.
To everyone else, regardless of Cylance's decision to allow or not trials, please refrain from being abusive or critically negative. Instead, offer valid arguments whilst being polite.
Trial version should be a privilege to everyone without charge cause people are careful to decide if the money will be worth it and submitting transactions details is critical.
Plus it's an off move by majority of customers when trial version is not free to test.
PROTECT runs concurrently with most signature based anti-virus programs. Where there could be issues is if another endpoint security solution also runs anti-exploit memory protection - in which case you'd have to choose to turn the memory protection off on one or the other.
PROTECT is a full anti-virus replacement so concurrency is not optimal.
PROTECT runs concurrently with most signature based anti-virus programs. Where there could be issues is if another endpoint security solution also runs anti-exploit memory protection - in which case you'd have to choose to turn the memory protection off on one or the other.
PROTECT is a full anti-virus replacement so concurrency is not optimal.
Can you please tell me why the trials are not freely available to anyone? I'm interested as to the reason behind this... Why would I hand money over to use a product I haven't even tested? You are a security company, you should understand.
I had an e-mail that my demo request was received on the 4th of November, heard nothing about it until I requested another on the 12th of November. Still to this day, no one has contacted me.
They said it's because the solution is hosted on the server and it has a cost. So them being a small startup makes it hard to be able to offer it for free without credit card details to show you are serious on buying. It was something within this lines but was too lazy to try and find where i read this.
They said it's because the solution is hosted on the server and it has a cost. So them being a small startup makes it hard to be able to offer it for free without credit card details to show you are serious on buying. It was something within this lines but was too lazy to try and find where i read this.
That makes more sense, but I would have thought a product so powerful like CylancePROTECT would have made them a ton of customers. It's "Next-Gen", so it's automatically better than all other security products out there, for sure...
Are you having a laugh? I'm really surprised at this.
Your trials should be freely available to anyone as they see fit to download them without having to enter their credit card credentials prior to the trial - as a security vendor yourself you should know that it is basic good online practise to never enter such details without testing things properly to make sure all works correctly. Regardless of your "money back guarantee", it's still unethical to have this as a strict requirement.
I don't see any of the other trusted, ethical vendors requiring such sensitive details for the 30-day trials: Avast, Avira, Bitdefender, ESET, Emsisoft, Kaspersky, Trend-Micro...
You really should reconsider this rule because if you made the trials available without requiring these details, as long as your product really isn't a pile of bogus, you'll most likely end up making more sales than currently (making it beneficial to yourselves in the first place)... People will want to test your product and strain it's capabilities/functionalities as far as possible, and trust is earned over time. You can't just expect people to trust you and hand over their credit cards.
Why don't you want to allow the trials to be publicly available at any-time? It just begs me to wonder what you are all hiding... It's not normal behaviour from a "security vendor".
I requested a demo a dozen days ago and received an e-mail but... Still nothing. In fact, I requested a demo a dozen months ago and... Still nothing.
If I misunderstood how this "trial" system works, please let me know by correcting me.
I understand your concern and we allow you to purchase a subscription via PayPal, Amazon Payments and Bitcoin in case you're not comfortable using our credit card payment processor (Stripe).
We have some limitations as to what we can do in terms of blindly making PROTECT available so we encourage demo seekers to contact Cylance and request a demo. We can provide free demos to anyone who's vetted by Cylance. If you are a competing AV vendor and want to get access to PROTECT, please also go through Cylance; we are only in business to help legitimate Customers gain access to PROTECT.
