Questionable Policies

Norton Security | Norton Internet Security
1

 

I appreciate Tim Lopez' explanation of how and why 18.5.0.125 was staged through LiveUpdate.   However I wonder if Symantec is aware of, or cares about, this being yet another decision that makes life very difficult in some scenarios.

 

We are suppliers of Norton software to a number of supported clients.  One implication of this is that people such as me become (unpaid) extensions of Symantec's support staff.  Most of our clients call us, not Norton Support, if they have a problem.

 

One of several measures that we take in order to best fulfil that role is to ensure that OUR computers are running the same software as our clients.  But that initiative was sabotaged by the "selective" update rollout.  Until stumbling across the explanation, we wasted considerable time trying to work out why recent calls from some clients revealed that they now had a different NAV version than ours.  Then for close to two weeks we had to suspend proper support to those clients that had received the update, until our turn to be graced with it came around.

 

I imagine that this form of staging can cause similar problems at sites with in-house administrators or support staff.

 

What made this harder to accept was the rationale that we were given.  Apparently Symantec wanted limited installs until user experience had been assessed.  ("Once we have confirmed the effectiveness of the patch...")  Huh?  Isn't this the same as saying that they are turning a number of users into beta testers without their consent?  We would argue that if they do not have confidence in a new release, they should first arrange testing amongst willing participants - and not force upon random paying customers a version that may not be ready for prime time.

 

It would also be easier to accept if this wasn't yet another in a series of questionable decisions that can cause significant grief in some situations.

 

For example, the earlier enforced rollout to 2010 users of the 2011 upgrade.  We had client sites up in arms about this, one asking that we replace all Norton software with something else.  There were several problems.  Firstly, another example of forcing something upon a customer rather than providing an option.  (Yes, the 2011 version now has a new setting to disable the "Automatic Download of New Version", but 2010 users had no such option.)  Secondly, at least one very disgruntled customer wanted to know why Symantec had the temerity to force TWELVE identical very large downloads onto their 12 computers, when just one copy would have been sufficient - particularly on their costly and limited bandwidth Internet connection.  Thirdly, the subsequent popups inviting the user to install the already-downloaded upgrade sabotaged installations where administrators were attempting to maintain controlled user environments.

 

By the way, I have heard and read the justifications.  I accept that some users may not have otherwise been aware of the free recommended upgrade.  I do not accept that this justifies forcing the download first (or worse, multiple unnecessary downloads to sites with multi-license products), and only then asking the user to install it.  IMHO, the suggestion that it was better to let the user know that half the job had been done, and that only a short install remained, just did not wash.

 

This last issue may now be just historical.  One hopes that it was a one-time mistake now corrected by that new "Automatic Download" setting.  But other similar issues continue that also interfere with customer attempts to maintain controlled user environments.

 

Example: NAV 2011 has a different setting to enable or disable "Special Offer Notifications".  According to product Help, "If you do not want Norton AntiVirus to alert you with [special offers on the latest Norton products, add-ons, and other useful information], you can turn off this option".  However, turning it off does nothing to prevent popups inviting NAV users to download and install "Safe Web Lite".

 

In response to a client's complaint about unwanted offers to their users, I asked a Norton Support representative if there was a bug with the "Special Offer Notifications" setting.  His only reply was that Safe Web Lite was considered to be an exception, not a special offer or add-on in the sense intended by the setting.  So we now need interpretation experts to define "Special Offers", and a separate new setting to cover "exceptions" to offers that are not offers?

 

We began using, supplying and supporting Norton software twenty years ago (Norton AntiVirus 1.0).  A few years ago we had to abandon it as it had gradually become too obese and intrusive.  (The "bloatware" days.)  We returned to the fold when the 2009 versions reversed the trend.  But now we're witnessing an increase in unnecessary intrusiveness, and a company attitude that again threatens user loyalty.

 

Anyone listening?

 

2

Hi ManFromOz,

 

Welcome to the Norton Community.

 

Let me start by saying that I am not a Symantec employee but I wanted to give my take on some of the points you have raised.

 

First, the option "Automatic Download of New Version" in Misc. Settings applies only to new product years such as going from 2010 to 2011, etc. It does not apply to inline updates to the same product year, such as NIS 2011 going from version 18.1 to 18.5. The latter is controlled by the Live Update option in Computer Settings.

 

I would like to mention that Symantec does heavy testing of all major updates and new product year versions. New product year versions have both an Alpha and public BETA stage which goes on for several months.

 

Major inline updates are also tested heavily but Symantec recognizes that given the wide variety of computer software and hardware combinations out there, sometimes users will encounter an issue that was not caught during their testing. So they opted for a phased roll-out approach initially so that in case a serious problem is encountered they can stop the roll-out before the release reaches the global user base. In my opinion there is not time for a formal BETA stage for the inline updates or Symantec would never get to release inline updates because it would be spending vast amounts of time in BETA.

 

I do agree with you that users should have more control over when to accept an update, therefore I would recommend that you take a look at the thread below and if you agree, then lend your voice of support to the suggestion. Symantec does listen to user feedback.

 

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Product-Ideas/NIS-Allow-customers-the-option-not-to-auto-patch/idi-p/291888

 

Edit: I would also like to comment on the point you raised about downloading updates to individual computers vs a more centralized approach where the update is downloaded once and then distrubuted across to multiple computers. As Delphinium mentioned NIS and other consumer products is not really designed around a business or corporate environment. Each NIS installation is treated independantly and this process works best for the consumer version of Norton products. There is a way one can download definition updates and save to a USB flash drive, etc in order to use it to update multiple computers. This process does not however handle the program updates.

 

The above are just my personal opinions.

 

Best wishes.

Allen

3

 

I appreciate Tim Lopez' explanation of how and why 18.5.0.125 was staged through LiveUpdate.   However I wonder if Symantec is aware of, or cares about, this being yet another decision that makes life very difficult in some scenarios.

 

We are suppliers of Norton software to a number of supported clients.  One implication of this is that people such as me become (unpaid) extensions of Symantec's support staff.  Most of our clients call us, not Norton Support, if they have a problem.

 

One of several measures that we take in order to best fulfil that role is to ensure that OUR computers are running the same software as our clients.  But that initiative was sabotaged by the "selective" update rollout.  Until stumbling across the explanation, we wasted considerable time trying to work out why recent calls from some clients revealed that they now had a different NAV version than ours.  Then for close to two weeks we had to suspend proper support to those clients that had received the update, until our turn to be graced with it came around.

 

I imagine that this form of staging can cause similar problems at sites with in-house administrators or support staff.

 

What made this harder to accept was the rationale that we were given.  Apparently Symantec wanted limited installs until user experience had been assessed.  ("Once we have confirmed the effectiveness of the patch...")  Huh?  Isn't this the same as saying that they are turning a number of users into beta testers without their consent?  We would argue that if they do not have confidence in a new release, they should first arrange testing amongst willing participants - and not force upon random paying customers a version that may not be ready for prime time.

 

It would also be easier to accept if this wasn't yet another in a series of questionable decisions that can cause significant grief in some situations.

 

For example, the earlier enforced rollout to 2010 users of the 2011 upgrade.  We had client sites up in arms about this, one asking that we replace all Norton software with something else.  There were several problems.  Firstly, another example of forcing something upon a customer rather than providing an option.  (Yes, the 2011 version now has a new setting to disable the "Automatic Download of New Version", but 2010 users had no such option.)  Secondly, at least one very disgruntled customer wanted to know why Symantec had the temerity to force TWELVE identical very large downloads onto their 12 computers, when just one copy would have been sufficient - particularly on their costly and limited bandwidth Internet connection.  Thirdly, the subsequent popups inviting the user to install the already-downloaded upgrade sabotaged installations where administrators were attempting to maintain controlled user environments.

 

By the way, I have heard and read the justifications.  I accept that some users may not have otherwise been aware of the free recommended upgrade.  I do not accept that this justifies forcing the download first (or worse, multiple unnecessary downloads to sites with multi-license products), and only then asking the user to install it.  IMHO, the suggestion that it was better to let the user know that half the job had been done, and that only a short install remained, just did not wash.

 

This last issue may now be just historical.  One hopes that it was a one-time mistake now corrected by that new "Automatic Download" setting.  But other similar issues continue that also interfere with customer attempts to maintain controlled user environments.

 

Example: NAV 2011 has a different setting to enable or disable "Special Offer Notifications".  According to product Help, "If you do not want Norton AntiVirus to alert you with [special offers on the latest Norton products, add-ons, and other useful information], you can turn off this option".  However, turning it off does nothing to prevent popups inviting NAV users to download and install "Safe Web Lite".

 

In response to a client's complaint about unwanted offers to their users, I asked a Norton Support representative if there was a bug with the "Special Offer Notifications" setting.  His only reply was that Safe Web Lite was considered to be an exception, not a special offer or add-on in the sense intended by the setting.  So we now need interpretation experts to define "Special Offers", and a separate new setting to cover "exceptions" to offers that are not offers?

 

We began using, supplying and supporting Norton software twenty years ago (Norton AntiVirus 1.0).  A few years ago we had to abandon it as it had gradually become too obese and intrusive.  (The "bloatware" days.)  We returned to the fold when the 2009 versions reversed the trend.  But now we're witnessing an increase in unnecessary intrusiveness, and a company attitude that again threatens user loyalty.

 

Anyone listening?

 

4

Thank you delphinium.

 

I am aware of the corporate products, and/or those better suited for multi-user administrated environments.  Where possible, practical and relevant, we encourage clients towards those.  However "the customer is always right", and in some instances we cannot force the issue.

 

We also support some quite small businesses still running multiple users on a peer-to-peer network without a conventional server.  These users get caught in the middle, as they are not home users, but can't yet justify corporate-like installations.  That should not deprive them of the ability to attempt to control their computing environment.

 

I tend to play devil's advocate.  I did suggest to one client that the shortcomings were in part due to using a "home" product.  I was challenged with several questions.  "Then why does Symantec sell 10-user packs of the software?"  "Are these meant only for 10-computer homes?"  "Are even 10-computer homes not allowed to attempt user control?"  "So it's OK to force 9 redundant large downloads because it's a home?"

 

 

5

Hi ManFromOz,

 

As I mentioned before there is an outstanding suggestion which would allow users to have more control over the timing of when they receive inline program updates which I completely agree with.

 

The over-all design of the consumer version of Norton products treats each installation independantly for purposes of definition and program updates. It would be a complete design change for Symantec to change this to a more centralized method of updating multiple computers. I personally don't believe this type of change is feasible for consumer products. However, you should feel free to suggest this if you wish in the Norton Ideas Forum.

 

For most users this method works fine in multiple computer households because broadband Internet is so common and widespread. But admittedly there are those on dial-up or other slow Internet connections where this method does cause a great deal of pain.

 

Allen

6

Hi ManFromOz,

 

I would just like to affirm what delphinium pointed out.  While there is some merit in many of the things you bring up, it seems that much of your trouble stems from running a consumer grade product in an environment that sometimes calls for a corporate product that would allow more uniform control over all the installations of the program.  While, in your situation, there may be some advantages in using Norton, rather than Symantec Endpoint Protection products, there are going to be some trade-offs in that Norton is just not designed to be administered in some of the ways you would like, and which SEP allows.

7
SendOfJive wrote:

Hi ManFromOz,

 

I would just like to affirm what delphinium pointed out.  While there is some merit in many of the things you bring up, it seems that much of your trouble stems from running a consumer grade product in an environment that sometimes calls for a corporate product that would allow more uniform control over all the installations of the program.  While, in your situation, there may be some advantages in using Norton, rather than Symantec Endpoint Protection products, there are going to be some trade-offs in that Norton is just not designed to be administered in some of the ways you would like, and which SEP allows.

IMHO, there is one thing above all that ManFromOz points out that I do feel strongly should be changed and that is giving the user control over the timing of when to apply inline program updates. This is true whether it be a consumer or corporate product. I take the stand that a user's computer is the user's computer. If a user chooses to forego inline program updates they do so at their own risk but they do have that right. Even MS allows that level of control.

 

Many of the other points I don't think are feasible for consumer version of Norton products but this one point above all I do feel strongly about.

 

Best wishes.

Allen

8

Hi AllenM,

 

I agree, but anybody running 12 separate installations of Norton is going to get 12 downloads of any update - that is the nature of consumer products versus enterprise products.  My intent was to point out that some of the issues encountered by ManFromOz and his clients are not really flaws in the way the product can be administered, but are instead designed in for the product's intended use.

9

Thank you for your comments, AllenM.

 

I am aware of the intent of "Automatic Download of New Version", and did not mention it in relation to the problem with the 18.1 to 18.5 inline update.  I referred to it only in relation to the earlier forced upgrade from 2010 to 2011.  (My second mention of that setting referred to "This last issue", being the original 2011 upgrade, not the subsequent 18.5 update.)

 

I accept that there may be problems with beta testing inline updates, but I don't believe that invalidates the problem I presented regarding the staged 18.5 rollout.

 

Thank you for the link to the controlled update suggestion.  I will lend support as soon as I get a chance.

 

I accept your point about multiple downloads.  However, some comments...

 

- While multiple definition downloads do concern me, I had not mentioned this in my post.  I complained about multiple force-fed program downloads in the 2010-to-2011 upgrade exercise.

 

- Regarding the treatment of "consumer" products, please see my reply to Delphinium.

 

-  As for the suggestion about getting a single definitions update for multiple computers, if you are talking about "Intelligent Updater" I appreciate the thought, but it has its own problems.  Firstly, as you pointed out, it is not a good substitute for LiveUpdate because program updates are excluded.  Secondly, we have new and currently unresolved confusion about its relationship to "core" versus "full" updates, or full versus "smart".  Thirdly, I tried to circumvent the attempted multiple force-feeding of the 2011 upgrade by manually installing a downloaded version of NAV 2011 onto several NAV 2010 computers, and then applying the latest Intelligent Updater download (from a USB flash drive).  The result on every computer was the same.  All was well initially, until a subsequent LiveUpdate failed and required a complete re-download of the full definitions - negating our attempts to save on multiple downloads of the same data.  (It also caused several hours of time with both Norton chat and voice support, with no resolution ever found.)

 

Thanks again,

ManFromOz

 

10

 

Wow!  My first post here, and I can't keep up with the number of quick replies.  I'm impressed.

 

Unfortunately I'm writing from the other side of the world to most of you, and the sun has come up on a very long night.  I have to take a break and get some sleep.

 

However there seems to be a swell of justification for Symantec's practices, based on the fact that these are "consumer" products.  Yet no subsequent responders have commented on my reply to Delphinium about the significance of that label, those small businesses that don't yet have full-blown server networks, nor Symantec's "10-user" packs of these consumer products.

 

Thanks folks, I'll rejoin you when I recover coherence.

 

11

Hi ManFromOz,

 

Your points are well taken. I wasn't sure when you were talking about "Automatic Download of New Version" if you were aware that this only applied to product year versions and not inline updates so I just wanted to clarify. Sorry if I sounded redundant. :smileywink:

 

And yes the Intelligent updater does have its drawbacks. If you think about it, the Intelligent updater is kind of an "exception" and not the rule because clearly the "design" is built around the normal process of live update.

 

You said:

I accept that there may be problems with beta testing inline updates, but I don't believe that invalidates the problem I presented regarding the staged 18.5 rollout.

Yes I whole heartedly agree with this. As I mentioned while I don't think some of the changes you proposed are "feasible" for consumer products, this is one point I really do feel strongly about.

 

If you are having to use NAV in lieu of SEP then I would suggest that you upgrade to NAV 2011 so that at least you can control going forward, not having new product year versions downloaded automatically.

 

Another Norton Ideas suggestion you might find useful is here.

 

Best wishes.

Allen

12

 

ManFromOz wrote:

Unfortunately I'm writing from the other side of the world to most of you, and the sun has come up on a very long night.  I have to take a break and get some sleep.

I always wondered where Oz was.  I knew it wasn't in Kansas.  :smileyvery-happy:

 

13
SendOfJive wrote:

 

ManFromOz wrote:

Unfortunately I'm writing from the other side of the world to most of you, and the sun has come up on a very long night.  I have to take a break and get some sleep.

I always wondered where Oz was.  I knew it wasn't in Kansas.  :smileyvery-happy:

 

LOL! :smileytongue:

14

10 licences in a home environment is not as unusual as it used to be.  If you have one computer geek with a laptop running three drives or partitions and three operating systems, you use up three licences on one machine.  Then you have the son in college with a laptop, the daughter in high school with a laptop, the wife with her own machine, and the odd netbook just because they are so handy. That list uses up 7 in nothing flat.  They are still all individually administered and as you say, cause a great deal of wasted time for the poor fellow who has to keep all of it running during the mayhem caused by forced patches and upgrades, but because of the nature of home use, people are getting downloads at different times, and often in different places. 

 

That is the thing that does not belong in a business environment.  It is not practical to put something that is made to be individually maintained on business machines.  Time is money.

 

I work in an office with three machines.  One is an old Win 98, and two are XP Pro, One with NIS and One with TrendMicro.  With that comes different downloads, different update times, different behaviours, and no updates at all for the old billing computer.

 

The machines have to be backed up/and or imaged separately, software has to be installed twice, and NIS is not all that fond of office or business applications.  Big SQL downloads get stuck by Norton Insight while it picks over each file until the thing times out.  I spent four hours last week on that specific issue.

 

By the time you are into 12 machines, you just can't beat the convenience and security of workstations, a server, and a central location from which you can access all the components.

15

Thank you all for the replies and comments.

 

I'd like to try to wind up some aspects of this discussion by making a few points.

 

(1) The staged 18.5 rollout

 

It is encouraging to see support for some user control on update timing, albeit for different reasons than the one I gave. I agree with those other reasons. I was trying to illustrate an additional problem caused by this particular update.

 

(2) Symantec's reasons for that staged rollout

 

I accept that it may be hard or impractical for Symantec to perform full beta testing on every program update. But I still feel that regardless of whether a product is meant for consumers or corporates, if a software publisher lacks confidence in a release it should not make guinea pigs of unknowing and unwilling customers. And as unintentional as I believe it was, I think that Symantec's explanation was a bit of a PR blunder. (Still, I'd rather hear that than a concocted spin version.)

 

(3) Consumer/Home versus Corporate/Business (and the Full 2011 Rollout)

 

Several responses have emphasized the "consumer" nature of these products. To repeat, I am aware and I accept that larger business installations are better served by Symantec's corporate products. And I also accept the comments about the design of the consumer range being both targeted at home users and unlikely to be redesigned. However I have already given reasons why not all non-home customers can be made to use corporate products.

 

Furthermore, even if I accept that this forum is only about "consumer" use, I do not believe that that classification excuses the practices that I raised.

 

Taking as an example that force-fed rollout of the full 2011 version to all 2010 users, are we saying that because the customer may be a consumer or home user, s/he should not have a choice as to if and when the new version is downloaded to their computer? And in Delphinium's example of 7 users in one home, should we accept that the large 2011 rollout to all seven of those computers is justified because of this being a "consumer" installation?

 

One could argue in reverse, suggesting that businesses may be in a better position to afford that multiple downloading. But again, should being a consumer deprive me of the choice of whether or not I want the download, whether it is once, seven or twelve times? And if I do want to upgrade to next year's version, does being a consumer mean that I am not allowed to download the program once, at my choice of time, and then apply that single program download to my other six home computers (or partitions)?

 

Please people, I'm not talking about definition updates here - my complaint about multiple force-fed downloads was about the full 2011 rollout. (2010 users were given the choice to install or not install, but only after the downloading was forced.) My example of it happening 12 times at one site was an illustration of just one of the problems that this lack of user choice can cause.

 

That particular issue may well be academic because, as I stated originally, the 2011 software presumably does give users the ability to prevent this from happening again. Hopefully it was a past (though recent) mistake on Symantec's part. But I felt it to be a relevant illustration within the context of a number of similar choice-denying practices that are causing problems.

 

It seems that my choice of that example unintentionally spawned the "consumer versus business" discussion. I've tried here to respond to that, but allow me to take your comments about "intended use" one step further.

 

Unfortunately I cannot right now lay my hands on a 2011 10-user pack, but I do have other multiple-user packs lying around, and would point out the following:

 

The NAV 2009 3-user pack does, I admit, say "Protection for up to 3 PCs per Household". However on the following year's 3-user pack (2010), the words "per Household" were removed from the box. (It just says "3 PCs".)

 

More importantly, I'm staring at a NAV 2010 10-user pack. (The pack purchased by the client in my example, who had two prior installs.) On the box, this product is prominently called a "10 User Office Pack". And everywhere else on the box, the product is referred to as the "Norton AntiVirus 2010 Office Pack". Seems like a strange choice of name for a product only intended for home use.

 

After the above comments, and while appreciative of the intent of all replies, I'm still confused about specifically what changes that I may have proposed are considered by several of you to be not feasible for "consumer" (including "Office Pack"?) products.

 

(4) Special Offer Notifications

 

I'm surprised that among the several responses, nobody has acknowledged my comments about the "Special Offer Notifications" setting. While the desired control that I mentioned may be a "business versus consumer" issue, surely the behavior that I reported isn't also justified by the alleged consumer status of the product?

 

PS - Kansas? Wasn't it near there that I once got fined for loitering on the yellow brick road? I was eating a Vegemite sandwich at the time. No, I'm currently writing from the original Land of Oz ("Oztralia").

 

16

Hi ManFromOz,

 

You and I and most of the other members who discuss Norton products in the forums are not really typical computer users.  Most of my friends who have PCs, for example, do not know a whole lot about security software, nor do they have any interest in learning about it.  They install an antivirus and just figure that's the end of it - some of my friend's would never get a definitions update if I hadn't configured the software for them.  You and I are outnumbered. 

 

Most of these people are glad that Norton looks after them to some degree.  They don't need to keep up on the latest updates and they get the benefits of the latest technology without having to go out and find it themselves.  Those of us who prefer a hands-on approach will always find some of these automated program changes to be somewhat "pushy."  To its credit, Symantec has continued to provide new options such as the ability to disable the automatic download of new versions and notifications about special offers.  These settings came about in part, because of comments from users here in the forums who desired to have more control over the program.  So there has been some accomodation made for us do-it-yourself types, and I expect that some of the suggestions currently being offered by users here will, at some point, find their way into future versions of the product.  Even with your somewhat unique situation, I think some of your suggestions have broader appeal.

 

As to the Special Offer Notifications, the current thinking is that a notice about a new feature that most users might otherwise be unaware of, is not really an announcement of a "special offer."  Letting users know about the free availability of Norton Online Family, a program that many would find beneficial, for instance, is not really the same as announcing say, a time-limited buy-one-get-one-free offer.  It's a bit of a gray area, but I have the option enabled, and I haven't seen a Special Offer yet, so Symantec is definitely not abusing the privilege by deluging me with hype for every product they can think of.

 

 

17


To SendOfJive...

 

You and I may well be outnumbered, but I don't think that that's the point here.

 

I know that you mean well, and I appreciate it.  I also acknowledge that my contributions to this forum (this being my 7th post) pale into insignificance compared to yours (over 3,300).  But please don't assume that my "Newbie" status here means that I don't know about users.
 
I have supplied and supported well over 200 Norton products (and several Symantec "corporate" ones) over the last 20 years.  I interact with numerous users of all shapes and sizes every day of my working life, and have been doing so since IBM introduced the PC in the early 80's.  The user base that I am constantly involved with includes both business installations and home users.  (And small businesses that unfortunately get stuck in the middle between "consumers" and "corporates" - including those that have purchased 10-user Norton "Office Packs", only to find that some Community members seem to believe that the Office Pack should not be used in an office.)  With every respect, if the friends that you refer to outnumber just the Norton home users that I deal with, I am surprised that you have time to spend here.  I am also surprised that you consider mine to be a "unique situation".

 

My duties don't leave me the time to participate as frequently as I would like in forums like this one, but allow me to mention what brought me here.  During conversations with a senior Norton Support manager (level 3, as far as I could determine), he asked me 2-3 times to please voice my concerns in the Norton Community.  Right or wrong, he seemed to think that some of the issues I have raised in this thread needed voicing here.

 

One of the frustrating but unavoidable features of our industry (and many others) is that the marketing people have as much power as, or more power than, the technical people.  Forums such as this should be one of the few places where we don't have to bow at the marketing altar.  I am a little disappointed at the degree of marketing-oriented responses that my comments seem to have raised.

 

I fully accept, and have no issue with, users that do not want to learn or tinker, and that just want Norton to "look after them".  To elaborate on the example that you raised, I choose to have "Automatic LiveUpdate" turned OFF on my own computers.  (I prefer to retain control over when downloads take place; I also choose to perform Windows Updates manually, for the same reason.)  However, when dealing with other users, I make it a point of ascertaining their knowledge, habits and preferences, and will set their LiveUpdate accordingly.  If I have any doubt about their interest or reliability, I leave them with automatic updates.  (You may be surprised, however, at the number of those users that prefer otherwise.)

 

The point is that if the program did not give me that choice, I would not use it, nor recommend or supply it to other users.  And that's what the bottom line is here: CHOICE.

 

Separately to LiveUpdate, the recent forced 2011 rollout to 2010 users, while now past, was an example of this.  I fully understand Symantec's wishes, whether motivated by technical or marketing reasons, to reach those 2010 users that may not have otherwise known that they could upgrade to the 2011 version for free.  But if Symantec has the technology to force a large download, and then display a pop-up advising users that it has happened and that they may now install it, then they also have the technology to just display a pop-up announcing availability, while giving the user the CHOICE.  (Or better still, since an email address must be provided when activating the product, they could easily reach otherwise ignorant users by encouraging the upgrade in an email, including to the address chosen by a user that registers a multiple-user pack.)

 

There are a number of complaints in these forums from "consumers" that were unhappy about how that 2011 upgrade was force-fed, and it is my belief that this choice-depriving exercise was heavy-handed and unnecessary, REGARDLESS of the type of user involved.  My illustration of the effect this had on a 12-computer site (purchasers of what Symantec calls an "Office Pack") was meant as a further example of what such choice-depriving practices can cause.  My bad, it seems, because several respondents chose to miss my point, and focus on the "consumer versus business" argument.  I did not think that the type of user had any relevance to the point I was trying to make.

 

And yes, 2011 users can now presumably avoid a repetition.  But for all 2010 users, the fix (addition of the "Automatic Download of New Version" setting) came after the problem, not before it.  You don't see any irony in having to receive a large force-fed download in order to be able to prevent force-fed downloads?

 

More importantly, it was difficult for me to interpret that fix as recognition of a mistake and a sign that we are (belatedly?) moving towards allowing choice for the users, when other new signs of choice deprivation have appeared with and after that fix.

 

A couple of years ago NIS and NAV were re-engineered, largely in response to user dissatisfaction.  I can't claim any credit for Symantec's commendable reaction (and even discovered that I couldn't claim to have coined the term "bloatware"), but Symantec's recognition of where the software had been headed was responsible for many users returning to a previously-abandoned product line.  However my rekindled enthusiasm is being affected by disturbing new signs of heading back in the wrong direction.  When considerable user feedback tells me that it's neither my imagination nor a "unique situation", and brand loyalty motivates me to voice the concern, I find it disheartening that the issue gets overshadowed by academic discussions on user types, and justification suggesting that the design of "consumer" products should not include user choice.

 

As for the "Special Offer Notifications", I hear you but remain unconvinced.  In Symantec's own words, the setting relates to "special offers, add-ons, and other useful information".  But you would have me believe that a "new feature" in a separate program is none of these.  We may have to agree to disagree.  As with the 2011 rollout, I have no argument with the benefits of trying to advise users about other programs or services that they may not otherwise be aware of - UNLESS THE USER HAS CONSCIOUSLY OPTED OUT by changing a program setting that leads him or her to believe that this is exactly what s/he has chosen not to see.  (And every user that I have spoken to about this shares my interpretation of the meaning, not yours.)

 

Perhaps another mistake of mine was to illustrate this in terms of "control", as again this got side-tracked into the "consumer product" issue.  But leaving aside my apparently contentious argument that "Office Packs" should allow someone in an office to prevent other users from adding unauthorised programs, I cannot accept that there are "consumer households" with multiple PCs where a head of family or other designated person should not have the right to decide what install invitations are forced upon all his or her household PCs.  And they should not have to refer to a separate manual to try to understand the specific meaning of, and implied but hidden exceptions to, "special offers, add-ons, and other useful information".

 

BTW, I did not claim that Symantec was "abusing the privilege", but perhaps you are using NIS?  The example that I gave, and that I have received user complaints about, is presumably pushed to NAV users, but not to NIS users.

 

All that said, no hard feelings.  To repeat, I do appreciate the intent of your post.

 

18

AllenM wrote:

 

Hi ManFromOz,

 

First, the option "Automatic Download of New Version" in Misc. Settings applies only to new product years such as going from 2010 to 2011, etc. It does not apply to inline updates to the same product year, such as NIS 2011 going from version 18.1 to 18.5. The latter is controlled by the Live Update option in Computer Settings...

Hi AllenM:

 

Could you please expand on your comment about how the LiveUpdate Option controls version updates (e.g., from 18.1. to 18.5)?  I'm still a bit confused about how Automatic Download of New Version works.

 

I have Automatic Download of New Version and Automatic LiveUpdates both disabled (i.e., OFF), but when I ran a manual LiveUpdate a few days ago my NIS 2011 was automatically updated from v. 18.1.0.37 to v. 18.5.0125 without any intervention on my part (please see my post here for more details)..

 

Was NIS 2011 updated to v. 18.5.0.125 without my permission because I have Automatic LiveUpdates disabled?
_________

 

MS Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 (32-bit) * IE 8 * NIS 2011 v. 18.5.0.125 * NU v. 14.5.0.120
HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

19

Hi ManFromOz:

 

I think you are making an error here.  I don't think any of us said that we liked forced updates, or approved of it, or even considered it as anything other than what it is; an intrusion.  We have all complained about it, and we all spend a great deal of time on this forum trying to help users fix issues caused by these upgrades that don't allow people to get set up for it.  We have been trying to explain Symantec's take on why these updates are happening, not justify them.

 

Be that as it may, Symantec is unlikely to change its course on this, nor are they going to put their consumer branch in direct competition with the corporate versions.  All I said about the 10-user packs being unsuitable for office use was because of your very complaints.  Yes, they have advertising, yes there are forced downloads, yes, they are impossible to maintain from a central administration.  This is not going to change.

 

We have to explain the marketing policies, because that is what we are dealing with.  Marketing directs the production, release and behaviour of products far more than in the "good old days" and yes, some of the marketing boys and girls have not a clue.  We do not bow to marketing concerns, but like you, are  forced to bow to the inevitable. 

20

Hi lmacri,

 

The "Automatic download of new version" option applies only to new product year versions such as going from 2011 to 2012. Version updates going from your example of 18.1 to 18.5 are not controlled by this option but rather from the live update option because they are both within the same product year - e.g., 2011.

 

If you have Live Update option disabled then it simply means that live update will not run on its own and hence not upgrade your software. However, when you run live update manually it will pull all updates because you have chosen to run it. This includes both program updates and new definitions.

 

BTW, it is not recommended to have live update disabled. In case you are not aware of it, disabling this will also disable pulse updates so you will not get any defintion updates either.

 

Best wishes.

Allen