Norton Shuts Down After Subscription Expires

Norton Security | Norton Internet Security
21

The newspaper analogy is not a good one.  But to the extent anyone accepts it, it supports my position.  If my newspaper subscription expired yesterday, the carrier does not enter my house, grab yesterday's paper, and take it back.  I can read yesterday's paper as long as I want.  Its value degrades with time, but it is mine and I can keep it.  I just don't get today's update.

 

I still use software that I bought three, five, even ten years ago.  No one else takes it back.

 

What I don't get is the latest version.  That's OK.  If I want the latest version I will buy an update.

 

I use Quicken.  Every three years my version stops getting stock prices over the Internet.  If I want to continue the update service I buy a new copy.  If I don't, the old program will keep working, just not with the stock price update service.  That's OK.

 

If I want to take a chance and go a few days or a week without updating my Norton virus definitions, that's my decision.

 

But for Symantec to reach into my computer and turn off a program I bought - that's wrong.  Yes, they can write it into the fine print and make it legal.  I concede it is legal.

 

But it's not the industry standard.  And it's wrong.

 

No other program in my computer works that way.  None.

22
bilofsky wrote:

The newspaper analogy is not a good one.  But to the extent anyone accepts it, it supports my position.  If my newspaper subscription expired yesterday, the carrier does not enter my house, grab yesterday's paper, and take it back.  I can read yesterday's paper as long as I want.  Its value degrades with time, but it is mine and I can keep it.  I just don't get today's update.

 

I still use software that I bought three, five, even ten years ago.  No one else takes it back.

 

What I don't get is the latest version.  That's OK.  If I want the latest version I will buy an update.

 

I use Quicken.  Every three years my version stops getting stock prices over the Internet.  If I want to continue the update service I buy a new copy.  If I don't, the old program will keep working, just not with the stock price update service.  That's OK.

 

If I want to take a chance and go a few days or a week without updating my Norton virus definitions, that's my decision.

 

But for Symantec to reach into my computer and turn off a program I bought - that's wrong.  Yes, they can write it into the fine print and make it legal.  I concede it is legal.

 

But it's not the industry standard.  And it's wrong.

 

No other program in my computer works that way.  None.

As you said, the newspaper analogy is not a good one; but then you leapt on that dieing horse and went gallumphing off.

 

So I'll just follow along the trail.

 

No one's stealing your copy of NIS.  It's sitting right there in your computer.  You just can't make it do anything it wasn't intended to do.

 

I think the horse is dead by now.  Do you still insist on beating it?

 

 

 

 

Come on, already!

 

 

 

 

You have just killed heaven knows how many pixels to make an argument for your right to keep a software application that if it did load and run would be more dangerous (because it implies a non-existent safety) than not having one at all.

 

This is your argument?

 

I won't ask you to share your name, so I can actually publish this on my on personal website to share with the rest of the world.  Mostly, because I don't think anyone would actually believe this is what you mounted your charger for.  Children are dieing in Africa, white slavery abounds in South America and the Far East, drugs are weakening entire societies, rain forests are being destroyed in the name of technology, drug companies are withholding cures for terrible diseases simply because of lack of ability to pay, teenage pregnancy is rampant ... and this is the battle worthy of your time?

 

As for your contention that no other program on your computer does that, that is specious.  How many apps did you have that wouldn't load in Windows XP?  In Windows Vista?  And now in Windows 7.  Hey, you bought those applications.  You bought the right to have them run any time you want them to, didn't you?  And by golly, they should.  So, why don't they?  And what about that printer, that camera, that scanner, the other hardware that wouldn't come over because some company didn't take the few hours necessary to write you drivers (that, btw, I think is much more of a crime, that a perfectly functional piece of hardware won't function for lack of code rather than lack of capability)?

23

Don't worry Mijcar

 

People who I have had to spend some hours removing a group of Malware  Combination  because once 1 gets in it floods more in realise their mistake and are very happy to pay a year subscription to as it's a lot cheaper in many ways to buy a top security software, than to think that the PC is stuffed, as good as a doorstop, while realising that have important docs on the HD, and they buy a new subscription before the old one is finished.

 

I still remember the PC I dealt with that had 8 sets of rootkits, Virut and gawd knows what else, I had a fight my hands for hours, but Quads one.

 

But the family learned  their lesson.

 

Quads 

 

 

24

One or two posters particularly those writing in support of Symantec are close to the limit of being rude, if not already over the limit!

 

I have always renewed any subscription whether for Norton or any other software supplier in advance of the subscription running out in addition renewed through the Norton website direct rather than looking for cheaper methods.

 

My father who is relatively new to the internet has relied on me to help him with such matters, he did not have the benefit of using computers at work as he retired 25 years ago before they were in everyday use even in the workplace. I think he has done well to firstly obtain an old pc to help him with a hobby and more recently buying a new laptop and using the internet. We both could have used the internet security provided in my subscription to my ISP which was Norton now McAfee, which is one reason why I don't use it, but I prefer to have Norton installed seperately.

 

Yes it is always necessary to keep any antimalware program upto date but as already explained I am working away from home and it is very unlikely that I will be able to return home until after Norton expires early next month. Surely Norton which is 99% upto date is far better than having no Norton at all!!!!!! It would be very useful if Norton continued to work for a short period after the subsciption runs out to give me a chance to return home to sort it out. There must be other circumstances where this would apply.

 

Whatever people say about the "rules of the game" what choice other than to go elsewhere do we have when the program says choose "I agree to the terms and conditions" or "I do not agree to the terms and conditions" does the programs just continue to load if you say no, of course it does not, we have no option other than to agree to whatever the software supplier feels they want to include in the terms and conditions. In the UK I think they call that Hobson Choice.

 

Michael

25

Michael, I sympathize with your father's (and yours) situation.  But do you think that his having a security suite on his computer that is NOT getting its updates is providing security?  In all fairness, this deserves a yes or no answer.

 

If you say "yes", how do you find it so?

 

If you say "no", then what is the point of the argument?

 

As to the problem updating his subscription, you can do it from home.  You need to be neither on his computer or in his physical location.  Find the best deal, get the product key and when you're ready, read it to him over the phone.

 

1.  Tell him to click on the Norton icon in the bottom right of his screen and open the Norton screen.

2.  Tell him to click on the Express Renewal link on the bottom right of this screen.

3.  He will have a space to enter the Activation Code.  Read it to him and let him enter it.

4.  There will be an arrow to click.  Tell him to click.

 

That's it.  Done.

 

Or:

 

Renew for him on line.  Since you're managing his computer for him, you'll have his email address and password.  That's all it takes.  No effort on his part.  And subscription renewals are added to the end of his time, so you won't lose any days.

 

 

As for his getting the latest version.  If he doesn't already have NIS2010, that can be initiated by a single link NIS2010.  Visit the link yourself and see what is involved.  There is no need to uninstall/reninstall.  I haven't done that for my own family or any of my clients.  Clink the link and follow the prompts (which are press "ok" a few times) and be very patient.

 

 

OR

 

If you feel you have to be there, then go there to install the new product ... at your convenience, since it has nothing to do with renewal whatsoever.  You can install NIS2010 before or after the product has been renewed.  There is absolutely no connection between the two.  Re-install for him as I explained, then visit at Christmas and install the update.

 

OR

 

If you need other alternatives, I can probably think of them.  This is the best delivery process of updates and handling of customers I have seen in twenty years!

 

So, good luck to your father and to you.

 

 

 

 

26

Just in case you think I was being facetious, this method of long distance renewal is how I maintain all my clients' accounts.  I haven't gone to a client's home or office to renew a subscription in two years!

 

 

And, yes, I do walk them through upgrades by telephone -- without a complaint yet.  If I happen to be there for other reasons, then of course I'll install the upgrade; but that happens rarely.

 

 

Message Edited by mijcar on 12-01-2009 09:00 AM
27

If Symantec are such a caring company then why have they only just started doing this?

 

Here's another analogy for you to play with, people are shooting at you, which would you rather have between you and them, a wall that is 95% complete or no wall at all?

 

If I hadn't already bought a copy of NIS2010 I might have been tempted to just go thru the renewal process when the ransom screen appeared last night and my bank account would be £21 lighter as a result.

28

To mijcar

 

Thank you for your post, I would take a little more interest in it if you had read my posts before giving advice.

 

So what you are saying is that if you miss one update from Norton the program is useless ? If that was the case what is the use of having it in the first place ! Of course it is not and using the program which is a little out of date is far superior to having no program at all. I have installed other antimaleware programs on his laptop which will help in the short term.

 

I certainly do not know nor wish to know the passwords my father uses.

 

Where I am staying i have to use a broadband dongle which even at the best of times is almost like using dial up when I first used the internet. My father is always present when I look after his laptop partly for his security and partly so that he can learn a few new tricks.

 

There are probably a number of ways around the situation, however, our preference is to do it our way which is not out of the ordinary and as a very loyal Norton customer, I have never used anything but Norton in one form or other for anti-virus protection, through thick and thin for Norton, and used other of their programs it would be nice to think that this goodwill would be reciprocated at times.

 

Michael

29
michaelsalis wrote:

To mijcar

 

Thank you for your post, I would take a little more interest in it if you had read my posts before giving advice.

 

So what you are saying is that if you miss one update from Norton the program is useless ? If that was the case what is the use of having it in the first place ! Of course it is not and using the program which is a little out of date is far superior to having no program at all. I have installed other antimaleware programs on his laptop which will help in the short term.

 

I certainly do not know nor wish to know the passwords my father uses.

 

Where I am staying i have to use a broadband dongle which even at the best of times is almost like using dial up when I first used the internet. My father is always present when I look after his laptop partly for his security and partly so that he can learn a few new tricks.

 

There are probably a number of ways around the situation, however, our preference is to do it our way which is not out of the ordinary and as a very loyal Norton customer, I have never used anything but Norton in one form or other for anti-virus protection, through thick and thin for Norton, and used other of their programs it would be nice to think that this goodwill would be reciprocated at times.

 

Michael

As one Michael to another, I must say it is as though we are using two different languages that accidentally have the same words, but have different meaning.

 

I never said, "if you miss one update from Norton the program is useless."  Honestly, I didn't, not even close to that.  I don't even know what that means.  I did say that if you miss a lot of updates (and Symantec delivers over 50 a day), you open a huge window to the worst kinds of malware (the old ones are relatively cleanable, but the new ones are just that -- new and still unexamined in terms of the extent to which they could do damage -- just because signatures are available is no reason to believe that there are good ways to remove them).  Anyone who goes an entire week without updating his security software and who is still using the internet extensively is asking for the worst kind of damage.  Someone came up with the metaphor of it's better having a 95% shield than known at all.  That's a well-duh, of course.  But the 95% protects against the old stuff which is more like b-b's and .22 ammo; and the 5% is against the new stuff which is like dum-dums and flame-throwers.

 

Using that 95% shield is misleading and suggests that the user is safer than he or she really is.  Symantec has learned a truth over time that old teachers like myself learned a long time ago:  No one listens to words.  Symantec's choice was whether or not to leave a program in place that provided a false sense of security and seems to encourage the user to do nothing about the risk; or to pull the rug out and say "I'm serious" so get your protection now.

 

And what you suggest in regard to your Dad makes the point.  If with a 30 day notice, he still has taken the five minutes to get a new activation code or else to extend his subscription, then he is not going to pay attention to any verbal warning at all.  But he will pay attention when his security program refuses to open.

 

I am bothered by what appears to be your desire to misinterpret my suggestions.  I gave you easy ways that you could be of assistance to your dad without being there and you create entirely new scenarios that miss the point.

 

I've tried to be helpful enough.  I'm tired, have a sick child, and a 95 year old mother to worry about.  You don't get it, fine.  You want to be angry and misinterpret my attempts to get through, fine.  There are people who actually want our help.

 

Frankly, I have no clue why you are here.

30

Okay, one last try.

 

I'm sure you're not going to change your stance, but perhaps I can at least convince you that Symantec is not just out to pick your pocket.

 

I just got back from picking my kids up at school and I thought of another way to explain this.

 

On the face of it, there are three situations:

 

a = having a working and fully up-to-date security suite

b = having a working but no longer up-to-date security suite

c = having no working security suite at all.

 

Your contention is that a is better than b; and that b is better than c.

 

You think that Symantec is engaged in some Wonderland dislogic in which it is claiming that c is better than a.

 

On the model above, you would be right and the rest of us would be loonies.  Because in a static situation, a is always better than b and b is always better than a.

 

But this is not a static situation and Symantec is using a different model.

a-now = having a working and fully up-to-date security suite now

b-now = having a working but no longer up-to-date security suite now

c-now = having no working security suite at all now

a-tomorrow = having a working and fully up-to-date security suite tomorrow

b-tomorrow = having a working but no longer up-to-date security suite tomorrow

c-tomorrow = having no working security suite at all tomorrow

 

Now Symantec's logic must go something like this:

Deduction 1:  Someone who has already bought a security suite has indicated by that purchase that he (or she) is concerned at least somewhat about the state of security on his computer.

 

Deduction 2:  But experience has shown that most people believe the presence of a security suite without updates is virtually as good as the presence of a security suite with updates.

 

This changes a static situation into a dynamic one.  Based on average behavior (Deduction 2), Symantec believes that overwhelmingly,

b-now ==> b-tomorrow.

 

They also believe based on Deduction 1,

c-now ==> a-tomorrow.

 

So while b-now is better than c-now, to Symantec b-now will lead to b-tomorrow while c-now will lead to a-tomorrow, and no one disagrees that a-tomorrow is better than b-tomorrow.

 

So, your position, which is inarguable, is that b-now is better than c-now.

And Symantec's stance, which is equally inarguable, is that a-tomorrow is better than b-tomorrow and c-tomorrow.

 

What is arguable is the gap between today and tomorrow.  The longer the gap, the longer one misses that a-tomorrow and exposes themselves to the risk inbetween.  And tomorrow becomes two days becomes three days becomes pretty soon becomes ... ?

 

What is also arguable is whether the needs of a large group of people who fall in the b-today ==> b-tomorrow outweighs the small group of people who fall in the b-today ==> a-pretty soon?

 

Symantec's contention is that the needs of the larger group who are missing the point outweighs the needs of the smaller group who deliberately expose themselves to risk.

 

That's a judgment call.  You pick one side of that; Symantec the other.

 

 

 

If nothing else, you can recognize and respect the logic behind it; and if you don't like it -- and this is not sarcasm -- McAfee will let you "own" a security suite for the length of two new versions, without ever making you get updates to it after your update license expires.  In other words, you can have a "working" McAfee that has no up-do-date virus signatures for up to two years, if that's what you want.

 

Both companies will have their adherents.  I will bear you no ill-will if you switch to McAfee and we will welcome anyone who (like myself) comes to Symantec from McAfee.

 

Edit:  Replacing commas that were mislaid somewhere.  OMG, how could I have done that?!

Message Edited by mijcar on 12-01-2009 03:33 PM
31

hi everyone,

 

i was waiting for a little while before jumping in this thread. i kind of thought that people would think the way that i do about this so it wouldn't get this heated. let me share with you my views on it.

 

NIS and NAV are software as a service. when you think about it that way, its a service more than a subscription really. i subscribe to cable tv. when my cable tv expires, the service is shut off. i still have the cable box, but it doesn't do anything - just takes up space on my tv. i can't get any channels. same thing with the power to my house. when it expires, they turn off the power.

 

on my mynortonaccount.com i see the expireations date of my nortons. i expect that my service will be turned off if i don't renew by that day. i don't really think about it being bad on my part of the nortons part. its what i knew when i bought it. i bought a 1 year subscription and they gave me 365 (actually I think 366) days of service.

 

lots of antivirus companies do this now. its not for every software thats for sure. just softwares where they have to constantly keep you up to date for it to work, like antivirus softwares. im okay with the service. i consider it another utilitiy that i have to pay for, but its necessary in my book.

 

just my opinion, but hopefully that'll help people see it this way too.

32

Love the escalation, "I'l trump your 85 year old Dad with my 95 year old Mum".

 

What exactly does the operator ==> mean?

 

It's all a big con to make Symantec more money by scaring people into pushing the "Renew now" button. What will it be next year? Will we have to submit to auto-renewal before we're allowed to use the software? "Gimme your credit card details now!" Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "protection racket".

33

The difference between our positions is not what is best for us.  It is who gets to decide that.

 

I thought I was buying a piece of software.  Turns out - according to mijcar - I was really turning the configuration of my computer over to Symantec, who will take the software back when they deem it necessary for my own good (and/or to make money).  Again, no other software does this. And any responsibility Symantec may feel for an underprotected computer could be discharged less drastically by, for example, more explicit warning screens.

 

Back in the day, software was not copy protected.  Various forms of copy protection gave way to activation keys.  Now Symantec is pushing the envelope one step further in imposing a time limit not on updates for the software, but on the actual posession of the software itself.

 

There are arguments why doing this in the specific case of NIS may be best for the user. And certainly Symantec's software has evolved in the direction of being more and more the computer's nanny.  But if Symantec gets away with this, then other software publishers will not be far behind.  I look forward sadly to the day that my Quicken or Photoshop tells me it's going on strike until I negotiate a new contract.

 

Me personally, I don't need a nanny in my computer.  I need an antivirus, anti-malware program.  Those who are hired by clients to be their computer's nanny may find it advantageous to have Symantec backing them up.  I don't disrespect people in that situation for having a view opposite to mine.  But that view places expediency above what for me is a basic question of ethics.

 

I think that any program that turns itself completely off after a year is wrong.

34

Symantec is really not doing anything different than a lot of software authors are now doing. Most programs that I use will give you free updates for the version you have registered (i.e. 3.xx) and once they release version 4, they charge you again using an upgrade fee. Sure, you can continue to use the older version, but like someone already said, it may not work on the newest version of your OS. If you want the new features and what-not, you have to pay the upgrade fee. I will admit that I think Symantec’s upgrade/subscription fees are a little high, but there are ways around that. I just purchased a 2 year 3 PC version of NIS 2010 off of eBay for 12.99 delivered. The code has been entered and VERIFIED and now I am all set for another 2 years. I think what is upsetting everyone is that Symantec changed how they were doing things and basically left a few people annoyed in the way they did it.

35 
Symantec is really not doing anything different than a lot of software authors are now doing. Most programs that I use will give you free updates for the version you have registered (i.e. 3.xx) and once they release version 4, they charge you again using an upgrade fee. Sure, you can continue to use the older version, but like someone already said, it may not work on the newest version of your OS.

 

Actually Symantec is doing just the opposite.  During your year, they will even let you upgrade from NIS 2009 to 2010.  However at the end of the year, the software stops working.  Period.
I just purchased a 2 year 3 PC version of NIS 2010 off of eBay for 12.99 delivered.

No kidding?  I'm off to eBay.  Thanks.

 

I still think Symantec is doing an evil thing.  But not as evil as the malware it's keeping off my PC.

36

Do be careful bilofsky.  We have already had one user who did the same thing only to find that the software had been used and was registered to someone else’s account. 

37

Ah, well.  It sounded too good to be true.

 

Thanks.

38
delphinium wrote:
Do be careful bilofsky.  We have already had one user who did the same thing only to find that the software had been used and was registered to someone else's account. 

I paid with PayPal so I was insured. If it had been bogus, I would have been re-imbursed by PayPal. (Plus, knowing the seller helps.) I have been using eBay for years and I haven't had any problems whatsoever with all the new checks eBay has in place for sellers now. But then, I know what to avoid. :smileywink:

bilofsky, if you can't find it for what I paid for it, let me know and I will get you ion touch with the guy I got it from.
39

CalvinOU812 wrote:

I've been a loyal Norton user since the early 90's. Until now, I personally hadn't had any major problems with Norton. That had enabled me to convince a lot of people over the years to switch to Norton; even disgruntled users. (I always emphasized the importance of disabling Norton before installing any new trusted software and the importance of definitions updates.)
 
Before, when the Norton subscription expired, only the definitions stopped updating. Everything else kept working. This gave me some leeway to update Norton. I could update it when it was convenient to me: before or a little while after it expired.

Now, instead of just the definition updates ending after the subscription expires, all of the Norton protection shuts down. At first I thought they just made it appear that way to scare people to purchase the renewal faster. But after looking at it and from what I've read about it, the protection does end.
 
It appears that Symantec wants everyone to purchase their renewal or even set up their auto-renewal. I purchase the latest version of Norton every year. This is why I don't purchase their renewal. Now, since Norton shuts down after the subscription expires, I have to purchase and receive the new version, plus I have to schedule time to uninstall the old Norton and install the new Norton before the subscription expires. This means I will no longer get my full year's subscription. This may sound petty of me, but I use computers for my business. This also means if I forget to purchase and install the new version on one of my computers before the subscription expires, just once, I could catch a virus (or something) and loose valuable irreplaceable information. That's too risky for me. 

 

Bilofsky wrote: 

I thought I was buying a piece of software.  Turns out - according to mijcar - I was really turning the configuration of my computer over to Symantec, who will take the software back when they deem it necessary for my own good (and/or to make money).  Again, no other software does this. And any responsibility Symantec may feel for an underprotected computer could be discharged less drastically by, for example, more explicit warning screens.

Me personally, I don't need a nanny in my computer.  I need an antivirus, anti-malware program.  Those who are hired by clients to be their computer's nanny may find it advantageous to have Symantec backing them up.  I don't disrespect people in that situation for having a view opposite to mine.  But that view places expediency above what for me is a basic question of ethics.

 

I think that any program that turns itself completely off after a year is wrong. 

Calvin & Bilofsky, I agree. I'm a long time Norton user. Last month when I received renewal reminders, the reminders did not say the product would stop functioning when my subscription expired. Symantec changed the meaning of the annual subscription from what it had been in prior years and did not inform me.

 

Some comments in this thread about 'this is the way the software industry is going' sound similar to the excuse that "Our product isn't any worse than most of our competition".

 

I hope Symantec listens to these concerns.

40

That is very thoughtful of you Boofo.  I also use Ebay, but I would not be comfortable buying software from an unknown buyer.