When Free is Optional and Paid is Forced?

[Ink]

Hello this thread is not to bash, but based on some observations.

I want to discuss about how users may commonly find it acceptable for non-optional features to be installed by paid security, but generally unacceptable for free security to do the same, even if It is optional and can be uninstalled.

Here are some practices that can be observed seen by paid security software:

• All features are installed by default
• None or Limited customisation during installation
• Toolbars for Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox
• Multiple Browser Extensions
• Only repair or completely uninstall, no option to modify

All of the above is generally acceptable, if it's paid security software, but would be considered forced upon if done by free security software.

Here is an example I saw recently:

An existing user made a complaint about how an additional desktop shortcut was created on the desktop after a program update.

"If an additional feature was made completely free, why is this unacceptable?"

"If an additional feature was added in paid security, it's welcomed for most."

How much of the above do you agree or disagree with, and what are your thoughts about how Paid (are Forced) vs Free (are Optional) - Or am I completely wrong?

 

[hjlbx]

I am of the school of thought that all installs should be user customizable on a modular basis - no matter the soft.

 

[Ink]

That's interesting considering how highly praised paid security software, even when they do not offer that sort of delivering their software.

 

[Tony Cole]

I also agree, I think Comodo is one of few that allows such actions. What is annoying, when it gets to 30 days etc., it bombards you asking to pay, if you want to stop this, you either pay, or remove it. They do this to make MONEY, but how they do this is not fair.

 

[hjlbx]

That's interesting considering how highly praised paid security software, even when they do not offer that sort of delivering their software.

Unless one enters the realm of Enterprise softs, it is not customary practice to give Windows home users the option.

 

[Cats-4_Owners-2]

These many views are fascinating both sociologically & economically.
Attitude differs according to ones perspective. Perhaps some, if not most, users willing to pay for software have additionally chosen a path of conscious acceptance as well as committing to hope in the belief that paid software should provide more protection even when customizations are lacking whereas discerning users of strictly free software (as the proverbial squeaky wheels) may demand this more naturally because asking change can also be felt as a challenge to the state of what one sees as their computer software world too but (as hjlbx states above) whose actual customary practice...in the realm of Enterprise software, does not cater to those whom are home users.

Edit: Specifically, paid user are less dissatisfied because they've already found peace through buying into & contributing to the software's further development, & free users can afford (not having paid..yet) to remain on the fence of non-committal.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Theorically , free softs should enforce non-essential features or ads, to gains some form of incomes ; while paid ones should give more freedom to what should be installed.

 

[LabZero]

It is a psychological process.
Someone thinks that a paid product is always better than a free one, so even accepting the optional features.

 

[jamescv7]

I think that scenario may come up on some users, because on my experience and through environment; usually they complain on paid version when the free version is available. Plus they think that its more accessible rather on paid version so majority ends up to the shortcut thing to download cracked instead.

Well usually people urge to purchase paid is because of they believe on good investment and alongside they tend also to promote myth where free products are terrible enough.