Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Windows_Security" data-source="post: 786081" data-attributes="member: 50782">1. When other sources are sufficient, why develop an extension. Because Google and Microsoft collect more info from more devices they score better in URL blocking, as said URL blocking is a numbers game and for ANTIVIRUS protection it also is very important (For machine learning you need to feed/train the machine with data samples, more samples is more accurate recognition, it is as simple as that).2.The more detailed nformation collection still works for EAM users in full URL mode. For collecting more detailed information the extension needs to be installed in the first place. That is not going to happen for most users when it fails in comparison to simular extensions of other AV&#039;s&nbsp; That is why I suggested the partial URL block mode, The fact is that people take payload downloads into accounts when comparing extensions (look at AV-test lab extension and [USER=51905]@Evjl&#039;s Rain[/USER] tests as example). It is user (customer) perception that&nbsp; counts, not the product developers purpose.3.&nbsp; One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel impressionWhen the small Mercedes A felt over in the famous Goose test, it did not influence hard core brand addicts of Mercedes (mostly the more expensive bigger models). But it did impact cross-car-brand purchases. The people targeted by Mercedes (who bought smaller cars of competing brands like Audi and BMW) laughed about this incident and did not want to buy this car. It is a classic example how brand names can be affected by new products bearing the same brand name. How many people would be inclined to take the main EMSISOFT product into buying consideration when the extension of EMSISOFT is outperfomed in protection by extensions of other AV&#039;s. User perception does not need to be right and correct, but is the thing that counts for (buying/using) consideration.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Windows_Security, post: 786081, member: 50782"] 1. When other sources are sufficient, why develop an extension. Because Google and Microsoft collect more info from more devices they score better in URL blocking, as said URL blocking is a numbers game and for ANTIVIRUS protection it also is very important (For machine learning you need to feed/train the machine with data samples, more samples is more accurate recognition, it is as simple as that). 2.The more detailed nformation collection still works for EAM users in full URL mode. For collecting more detailed information the extension needs to be installed in the first place. That is not going to happen for most users when it fails in comparison to simular extensions of other AV's That is why I suggested the partial URL block mode, The fact is that people take payload downloads into accounts when comparing extensions (look at AV-test lab extension and [USER=51905]@Evjl's Rain[/USER] tests as example). It is user (customer) perception that counts, not the product developers purpose. 3. One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel impression When the small Mercedes A felt over in the famous Goose test, it did not influence hard core brand addicts of Mercedes (mostly the more expensive bigger models). But it did impact cross-car-brand purchases. The people targeted by Mercedes (who bought smaller cars of competing brands like Audi and BMW) laughed about this incident and did not want to buy this car. It is a classic example how brand names can be affected by new products bearing the same brand name. How many people would be inclined to take the main EMSISOFT product into buying consideration when the extension of EMSISOFT is outperfomed in protection by extensions of other AV's. User perception does not need to be right and correct, but is the thing that counts for (buying/using) consideration. [/QUOTE]

Verification