What would you pay for?

And thats the question…

These are 2 very distinct products.
one Product A that you pay but you have no guarantee that it will protect you from new malware and the other lets say Product C that if for whatever reason it fails, the company will clean up your computer (included in the purchase price). (the Product C takes the malware off your list of stuff to deal with effectively)

which one would you pay for?

your feedback is appreciated


Melih :slight_smile:

I am sorry, but I don’t vote :stuck_out_tongue: I am with Comodo, so I am sure I don’t have to pay for pc security ;D

Greetz, Red.

If I had to pay for security software, I would be back to Windows Vista Firewall and Windows Defender. :slight_smile: Offering to “clean it up” is not really useful to me because of mobile activities that require “right now” attention. I do imaging backups to make sure I have a “last good configuration” available to me, and have a backup computer just in case. Certainly if you are going to pay, product C is offering much more than product A. And to the average user is certainly a much better deal. Depends on how much availability you need. And how much effort you are really interested in putting in. And how cheap you are. :wink:

I voted for the clean-up for this reason:

I would say that the average user would like to feel the reassurance that if a virus were to get on their computer that they could depend on it being put back the way it was by someone that is reputable. I for one don’t trust a pc that has had a virus as you never know whether you got all of it or not. I always reimage a pc that has had a virus. Just my way of making sure it is clean.

The keys would be to making it affordable for everybody, to make it so that the process is not time intensive, and even make it so that a normal user could do it themselves, say from an image of their clean pc (as system restore isn’t always reliable when a pc gets infected).

Just thinking out loud.


Well of course, between the two, the second service is plain better, there’s no question about that. It would also depend on the price of course. Also I guess you could offer this service in some areas but not worldwide: how would you do it, would you send a technician?

Anyway it can be valuable for a lot of people, but there’s one thing. Back then when I knew even less about computers, if something was wrong with my computer I carried it to a repairshop. Then I’ve learnt that by doing so you may find of course really expert attention; but you may also find a technician who has studied a little and has some formal degree, but is lazy and knows the minimum required to deal with customers and make computers go one way or the other, but he’s not a real pro and the problem might be back or another one arise. It’s a little like car repair. If you make sure that this service has high quality, not only because it’s Comodo’s but because you’re demanding with your technicians, it would be valuable in principle. But, average joes won’t be able to tell the difference when they get real expert attention and when they get a shoddy job; and power users may deal with the problem themselves. And repairshops will always be nearer.

I didn’t vote on this either, it really is kind of obvious that option 2 is the better choice…but…
I, myself wouldn’t pay for a couple of reasons…

1)There are alot of free products out there that give me excellent protection, and layered protection.

  1. I am a safe surfer, and a file sharer, which means I have nothing personal on my machine, and I keep it clean.

  2. I have a great backup for my machine, so I can re-install in no time.

  3. I use common sense ~

Seems someone offered that in the past, but in looking at the details, it would’ve been a pain to take them up on it. Logistics is everything in that sort of offer.

Probably, most average users would take the 2nd option, I imagine. I wouldn’t, but neither would I take the 1st! :smiley:

There are good free products (aside from Comodo’s) with which I can protect my machine, and the guarantee means little to me. Like others, I create images. I don’t use System Restore, and I back up my personal files regularly. It’s been a long time since I had any malware, and if I did, I’d simply delete the partition, secure wipe the drive, and drop in the known clean cloned system. If for any reason I questioned the integrity of the clone, I’d fresh install the OS and restore my data from backups.

If push came to shove, I’d blow Windows out entirely and go 100% Linux (instead of 80/20)…


Of course that second option would be wonderful. But its unimplementable IMHO. If nothing else people would cheat and install the product after the damage is done, you would get blamed for ordinary hardware failures, and on and on and on with problems would be my guess.

But no harm in exploring options.

You didn’t say anything about the products relative prices :wink:
If A were significantly cheaper than C, that may be a consideration in As favour. If they were the same price, given all else was equal (but it never is) C is obviously the better choice.

If A were able to protect you effectively from 95% of threats, but C only 65%, you’d be better off with A, simply due to the fact that C would have to spend a greater amount of time cleaning the machine, and the inconvenience that would cause.

How would the repairs be carried out by C? Some bloke arrives from the internet to your door to clean out your pc?
Would a support person talk the customer through the removal / cleaning process? If so, what level of expertise / understanding would be needed by the user?
Bear in mind that A also has a support mechanism, for cases where their product fails to detect / remove a threat. What would differentiate C’s service to that already offered by A?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that you will not get any meaningful answers with the information you have provided…