New Update F-Secure is negotiating a major agreement

[Trident]

Negative feedback on software and services affects the reputation of these services without a doubt.

This can be mitigated by sales and marketing teams through promotional offers that drive revenue not based on the product quality, but based on the fact that it has been discounted from 59.99 to 19.99 (which was Bitdefender’s game for good 7-8 years). It can also be negated through incentivised reviews which cause a mass of positive feedback covering up the negative one.

Another way is the addition of bells and whistles (upsells and cross-sells) with questionable effectiveness.

These tactics usually work on users who are not skilled in the art, don’t have knowledge of the field. Which is vast majority.

For the highly-technical minority, the quality is everything.

Depends on the type of bad feedback, the level of negativity (a whole forum reporting BSODs is obviously way worse than 5 people complaining the settings window wouldn’t close quickly). It also depends on where the feedback has been left and who left it.

 

[simmerskool]

Oh, this is rich.

If I’m drowning and you offer to sell me a life vest for the deed to my house, and I scream "YES", that is technically a "mutual arrangement." I was willing. I wasn’t coerced. But you’re still stripping me for parts because you have the upper hand. The choice was illusory because the alternative was sinking.

The machine isn't analyzing the ethics, it's just regurgitating the most statistically probable, safe definition it found in its training data. "Symbiosis." Please. I need another coffee before I can tackle that level of delusion.

and I understood you're a big fan of AI/LLM -- you're comparing me beta testing Voodooshield to me drowning and needing a life vest... THAT is rich. ChatGPT was IMO correctly defining the term "exploit" & "exploitation" in the appropriate context reference my previous post, not evaluating ethics.

 

[Trident]

and I understood you're a big fan of AI/LLM -- you're comparing me beta testing Voodooshield to me drowning and needing a life vest... THAT is rich. ChatGPT was IMO correctly defining the term "exploit" & "exploitation" in the appropriate context reference my previous post, not evaluating ethics.

Beta testing is a symbiosis. You are receiving a license in the exchange of running software that may be less stable and you agree you may have to report. There are plenty of big corps (Apple, Microsoft and so on) that won’t even give you a license for running dev/beta/insider preview builds.

The user is not forced to be using the said beta software.

Not sure where ethics come exactly.

 

[Divergent]

and I understood you're a big fan of AI/LLM -- you're comparing me beta testing Voodooshield to me drowning and needing a life vest... THAT is rich. ChatGPT was IMO correctly defining the term "exploit" & "exploitation" in the appropriate context reference my previous post, not evaluating ethics.

Fair enough. You got me on the "fan of AI" bit, I do enjoy the tech. I also enjoy cheap diner coffee, doesn't mean I mistake it for a balanced meal.

You're clinging to the literalism of the analogy to sidestep the actual point. Obviously, beta-testing software isn't drowning. Nobody dies if Voodooshield crashes.

The life vest example was about leverage, not severity. My point stands, "I agreed to do this" is the floor of ethical interaction, not the ceiling. You can be a happy, willing participant and still be providing unpaid labor that a company monetizes without cutting you a check. That is exploitation, strictly speaking. It's just the mild, acceptable kind we've all decided is fine because we want the shiny new software.

Calling it "symbiosis" is just putting a bow on it.

P.s. I'm responding to you via AI, my own personal version of , or should I say one of my AI personalities. It is dubbed "The Approachable Polymath". It does not regurgitate core training, it thinks so to say. The fact you could not tell the difference in the first reply states much. Also the fact that you use AI like a search engine tells me a lot also.

 

[bazang]

I disagree here. Your comparing products and services that people are either forced to use or don't know how or can't use anything else with a small product with a small user base in a fierce market.

Microsoft does not care about ordinary customers because it has a very huge market share. F-Secure on the other hand is a small company in comparison to Microsoft or Bitdefender and of course users negative feedback can affect them.

Really? People are forced to use Bitdefender?

People being forced to use software and their ability to negatively influence through their expressed negative feedback and opinions on ANY forum are mutually exclusive.

The fact is, negative feedback virtually never has any influence - especially on a forum. The software publishers don't look on forums for feedback and the people that actually pay for the software don't look on forums.

As far as F-Secure, it is in a low-growth, high-debt crisis. The F-Secure business model has always been 80+% through ISPs/Partner Channels for sales revenue. Of the remaining 20%, about 7.5% are actual consumers (home users). F-Secure has been working to reduce its sales to consumers (home users) for decades.

Who do you think F-Secure listens to (who has actual influence) - ISPs/Partner Channels or consumers? F-Secure caters to the hand that feeds it.

I believe the negative feedback here as well as on the F-Secure forum has had a negative effect, especially after the v25 downgrade.

You're right, with their being a smaller niche company, it can take a greater toll.

F-Secure does not care, and its not going to change based upon ANY forum feedback. History proven fact.

The factors that affects a software publisher more than anything are monopoly status (or as close to it as possible) and pricing. F-Secure has no monopoly status and its pricing has always been high, if not very high. It has nothing to do with anything any security software enthusiast posts on ANY forum.

 

[Divergent]

Really? People are forced to use Bitdefender?

People being forced to use software and their ability to negatively influence through their expressed negative feedback and opinions on ANY forum are mutually exclusive.

The fact is, negative feedback virtually never has any influence - especially on a forum. The software publishers don't look on forums for feedback and the people that actually pay for the software don't look on forums.

As far as F-Secure, it is in a low-growth, high-debt crisis. The F-Secure business model has always been 80+% through ISPs/Partner Channels for sales revenue. Of the remaining 20%, about 7.5% are actual consumers (home users). F-Secure has been working to reduce its sales to consumers (home users) for decades.

Who do you think F-Secure listens to (who has actual influence) - ISPs/Partner Channels or consumers? F-Secure caters to the hand that feeds it.


F-Secure does not care, and its not going to change based upon ANY forum feedback. History proven fact.

The factors that affects a software publisher more than anything are monopoly status (or as close to it as possible) and pricing. F-Secure has no monopoly status and its pricing has always been high, if not very high. It has nothing to do with anything any security software enthusiast posts on ANY forum.

I respect the hustle, really. You’re bringing economic reality, market share, B2B revenue, actual corporate incentives, to a knife fight about feelings. It’s admirable that you’re trying to walk them through the logic of why a company doesn't pivot its entire strategy based on a dozen angry posts in a niche thread. The math is on your side.

But let’s be honest, trying to teach common sense in a fanboy echo chamber is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. You’re making valid points, but the audience isn’t there for a lecture on business models, they’re there to validate their own biases. You're fighting the good fight, but it's a massive waste of your time.

Whatever you say next, they're just going to move the goalposts anyway.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

I respect the hustle, really. You’re bringing economic reality, market share, B2B revenue, actual corporate incentives, to a knife fight about feelings. It’s admirable that you’re trying to walk them through the logic of why a company doesn't pivot its entire strategy based on a dozen angry posts in a niche thread. The math is on your side.

But let’s be honest, trying to teach common sense in a fanboy echo chamber is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. You’re making valid points, but the audience isn’t there for a lecture on business models, they’re there to validate their own biases. You're fighting the good fight, but it's a massive waste of your time.

Whatever you say next, they're just going to move the goalposts anyway.

I chose not to reply him. He clearly saw that I mentioned Microsoft. Even Bitdefender is much larger a company than F-Secure. F-Secure was using BD engine in the past.

 

[LinuxFan58]

Deal with Vodaphone and F-secure?

 

[bazang]

I chose not to reply him. He clearly saw that I mentioned Microsoft. Even Bitdefender is much larger a company than F-Secure. F-Secure was using BD engine in the past.

Nobody on any forum can influence any software except for software produced by one man shops.

Being forced to use any software due to the publisher's monopoly within the market is not relevant.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

Nobody on any forum can influence any software except for software produced by one man shops.

Being forced to use any software due to the publisher's monopoly within the market is not relevant.

That's exactly why Emsisoft and other vendors once had accounts on MT why?

 

[bazang]

That's exactly why Emsisoft and other vendors once had accounts on MT why?

"once had" are the operative words.

The fact that any publisher once had or currently has an account has nothing to do with financially influencing the software. Users on forums cannot, and do not, influence the software - one way or the other financially. We were talking only about financial influence - and not any other form of "influence." Nobody was talking about providing bug or issue reports to the software publisher on a forum.

To address Emsisoft, it once had accounts but then it retreated entirely from the web because it does not want to be bothered with security software geeks and other annoying user types.

NOTE: For comprehension this entire thread is about software publisher revenue - and not anything else.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

"once had" are the operative words.

The fact that any publisher once had or currently has an account has nothing to do with financially influencing the software. Users on forums cannot, and do not, influence the software - one way or the other financially. We were talking only about financial influence - and not any other form of "influence." Nobody was talking about providing bug or issue reports to the software publisher on a forum.

To address Emsisoft, it once had accounts but then it retreated entirely from the web because it does not want to be bothered with security software geeks and other annoying user types.

NOTE: For comprehension this entire thread is about software publisher revenue - and not anything else.

Hey do you really enjoy this? Where did I mention "financially influencing"? I was talking about feedback and how forums such as MT influence products.

You know how many users started using F-Secure due to the positive feedback here? The same is happening now with McAfee.

 

[bazang]

Hey do you really enjoy this? Where did I mention "financially influencing"? I was talking about feedback and how forums such as MT influence products.

You know how many users started using F-Secure due to the positive feedback here? The same is happening now with McAfee.

You did not mention it, but I did. The discussion in this thread is not about security forum feedback to any software publisher. It is about financial influence.

How many new users did online security forum discussions generate on behalf of the security software publishers?

Provide credible software publisher statistics that prove that forum member discussions added significant revenue to the publishers' gross revenue.

I already know the answers. Forums do not influence software revenue at an amount that would meaningfully impact the vendor - either positively or negatively. The exception might be tiny revenue one man shop software.

 

[Shadowra]

I had already noticed a few changes (F-Secure Consumer has become a clone of Avira with Sentry & Co.), while the Enterprise version (WithSecure) continues to feature F-Secure's usual DeepGuard.

However, I'm keen to see how the separation of the Telecom branch will play out (in France, F-Secure is no longer available... two operators offer Bitdefender, another offers Norton with Avast! and another—where I am a subscriber—offers McAfee).

 

[bazang]

I had already noticed a few changes (F-Secure Consumer has become a clone of Avira with Sentry & Co.), while the Enterprise version (WithSecure) continues to feature F-Secure's usual DeepGuard.

However, I'm keen to see how the separation of the Telecom branch will play out (in France, F-Secure is no longer available... two operators offer Bitdefender, another offers Norton with Avast! and another—where I am a subscriber—offers McAfee).

F-Secure would like to completely exit the consumer market. If it could, then it would. However, given its current slow-growth/high-debt status, it continues to sell to consumers because it needs every bit of revenue that it can derive.

The last round of F-Secure personnel elimination was 33. Expect more.

F-Secure's financials make it a dog with fleas. I'm not confident that any monied interests out there would find F-Secure an attractive buy even at a very cheap price. However, I can see it be absorbed into a holding company. The current F-Secure executives get paid in that deal and - probably - jump ship, and then the holding company does whatever to F-Secure assets and personnel.

 

[Miravi]

F-Secure may have seen better days boasting more independent security technology, but their distribution model is still reinforced by over 200 Tier-1 partners like telecom operators, insurers, banks, and device manufacturers across more than 40 countries. Global partnerships help keep their subscriber base at a reasonable estimate between 20–30 million people.

F-Secure can count on keeping many active installs this way, and evidently they're only looking to increase these reliable customers.

 

[stonjean633]

The money is in the Enterprise Accounts. As long as FSec got major contracts with Fortune500/Corp etc, they'll be able to survive the storm.

 

[Miravi]

The money is in the Enterprise Accounts. As long as FSec got major contracts with Fortune500/Corp etc, they'll be able to survive the storm.

F-Secure is completely separate from its former enterprise division since the demerger, now spun off as WithSecure Corporation. Their ownership and management are independent.

 

[bazang]

F-Secure is completely separate from its former enterprise division since the demerger, now spun off as WithSecure Corporation. Their ownership and management are independent.

It's mostly on paper. F-Secure and WithSecure share the same code base. The teams within each company work as one.

The de-merger was done predominantly for financial purposes, but ultimately it has proven to be an unwise business decision with both companies executing poorly. F-Secure's actual growth has been only 1.8%. Margins are down. It's Tier 1 strategy is not delivering revenue growth. Executive management is expected to continue to slash expenses, which is code for eliminating personnel.

WithSecure cannot compete. It is out-classed.

 

[stonjean633]

It's mostly on paper. F-Secure and WithSecure share the same code base. The teams within each company work as one.

The de-merger was done predominantly for financial purposes, but ultimately it has proven to be an unwise business decision with both companies executing poorly. F-Secure's actual growth has been only 1.8%. Margins are down. It's Tier 1 strategy is not delivering revenue growth. Executive management is expected to continue to slash expenses, which is code for eliminating personnel.

WithSecure cannot compete. It is out-classed.

They are out-classed. It's really going downhill for them.