Two Avast Internet Security Licences For One Computer

[blowtorch73]

Avast have offered to merge the 2 licences. Earlier this week, they did exactly the same for me. Just how many inexperienced Avast users are being offered the same solution i.e., merged licences, after inadvertantly

 purchasing a product from Avast which they did not need, but did not know they did not need, because a popup convinced them otherwise.
 
I do agree that if "She wants to use a computer, so she has to learn about it. Avast can't be blamed for that". I do not agree however, that she has to learn the hard way by paying for products she does not need. By

 having the ready-made solution of merging licences, it seems to me that Avast are well aware of the problem of computer illiterate individuals face. If they are, what steps are they taking to stop the unwary falling for

 the popup warning. A friend has just suggested that extremely simplified instructions on how to install and use Avast appear to be the only answer.

While I do appreciate the input of the Avast loyalists, I would far rather that someone from the company with knowledge of the 'Merging Licence Solution', made a positive contribution to the thread.

[DavidR]

If the second license was purchased in error (for whatever reason), if it genuinely isn't required or can't be used, why not try to get a refund, you normally have 30 days to do that.

EDIT: As far as merging a license goes I would have thought that was fairly reasonable to assume both licenses would be merged into one for the combined total of licenses purchased. The expiry day would probably be the issue, but since they are fairly close together, hopefully they would be for the longest date.

[blowtorch73]

If the second license was purchased in error (for whatever reason), if it genuinely isn't required or can't be used, why not try to get a refund, you normally have 30 days to do that. ....................it was apparently purchased in August and is the one that is being used.

 The expiry day would probably be the issue, but since they are fairly close together, hopefully they would be for the longest date. .........the second purchase was made 3 weeks after the first David, so it is really not worth the effort

It's water under the bridge now David, but how many thousands are being caught in the same trap, day after day after day, simply because they lack expertise. Clearly the obvious advice for beginners is to steer clear of the paid-for versions of security packages until they attain a fair degree of computer literacy. If they dont, it can cost them dearly.

[moroni]

Hi blowtorch73!

I am not sure if I could tell you something different from what DavidR has told you.

When you purchase a subscription, you get a confirmation email that includes the license file and the instructions how to install it. If your wife didn't install the license file, the application is unable to know if there is an active subscription that hasn't been installed, and prompts asking to purchase a subscription.

Unfortunately we can not take responsibility if our users won't read the confirmation email and won't follow the instructions to complete the installation of the license, but at the moment we are working on making the installation of the license a smoother process.

And at last but not least, I don't believe we are taking advantage of our less tech-savvy users, as the duplicate purchases are either refunded (if asked within 30 days from the date of purchase), or combined, so the user won't lose the paid time.
If you purchased three times a subscription for 1 year, we will combine it into a license for three years. As the user won't buy a new subscription again in three years, how is that taking advantage of them?

Greetings!

[blowtorch73]

Hi blowtorch73!

When you purchase a subscription, you get a confirmation email that includes the license file and the instructions how to install it. If your wife didn't install the license file, the application is unable to know if there is an active subscription that hasn't been installed, and prompts asking to purchase a subscription. ......................but Avast must realise that there are people out there who just dont understand the instructions.. A simple message like" Thank you for purchasing Internet security. Click on this ***** to instantly activate your Internet Security protection" would be enough.

Unfortunately we can not take responsibility if our users won't read the confirmation email and won't follow the instructions to complete the installation of the license, but at the moment we are working on making the installation of the license a smoother process. ............and until you complete that smoother process, Avast will continue to benefit moneywise at the expence of the inexperienced.

And at last but not least, I don't believe we are taking advantage of our less tech-savvy users, as the duplicate purchases are either refunded (if asked within 30 days from the date of purchase)  (they can only get a refund if they are aware of the situ within 30 days - my wife was not!)

............or combined, so the user won't lose the paid time. If you purchased three times a subscription for 1 year, we will combine it into a license for three years. As the user won't buy a new subscription again in three years, how is that taking advantage of them?. 

1. Because they are keeping money that was inadvertanly paid to them, and

2...............if the Avast agent had explained this in detail like you have, then we would have gone for the merger and this thread would not have been raised. Other may not want to and should be refunded.

At the end of the day, if Avast are aware of the fact that there are duplicate purchases being made which are not required and adding to Avast coffers in the process, , then the sooner they get their house in order the better.

[moroni]

At the end of the day, if Avast are aware of the fact that there are duplicate purchases being made which are not required and adding to Avast coffers in the process, , then the sooner they get their house in order the better.

But we have no way to know if a user really wants the 2, 3 or 10 subscriptions or if they have purchased it by mistake, if the user does not complain and let us know that it was a mistake.

Currently, one of our store has a system to avoid duplicate orders, but we have also received complains from people who genuinely wanted to purchase 2 or 3 different subscriptions and they couldn't do so, because this system detects it as duplicate and avoid new purchases.

1. Because they are keeping money that was inadvertanly paid to them

If we wouldn't offer any solution, as merging the licenses, I would agree with you that we are just keeping the money, but we are compensating that mistake by putting all the paid subscription together, so the user won't need to pay again in e.g. 2, 3, 5 years.

[blowtorch73]

As I said in a reply to David R, it's water under the bridge now for us, but I do pity those inexperienced users who fail to reach that bridge, before Avast finally smoothes out the installation of the installation of the licence.

[mchain]

hi blowtorch73,

Hopefully, this situation is now resolved for you, as avast! combined the two separate licenses for a greater time frame of more than 1 year.  I think that is a fair resolution given what happened to you and your wife.  IMO, it is fair to say that a misunderstanding happened (see below, second paragraph).

There is documentation posted by avast! for everyone to read explaining what a trial period is (free to try for 30 days and that expiry of the free trial license will occur at the end of 30 days) and how to avoid that issue by buying a license good for 1 year before the 30 days is up.  avast! also does tell a paid customer that an email will be sent to their registered address with the newly purchased license and that activation is required for it to take effect.  One does not have to wait 30 days to activate it; it can be activated immediately on receipt.

Here is what I think happened:  She basically saw that the trial period of her a/v was due to expire at the end of the 30-day trial period and then purchased a second license because the toaster pop-up notification told her to.  For whatever reason, she did not think to activate the license she already had to remove that 30-day toaster pop-up notification at that time.  This caused her to buy another license she did not need.  I think what she may have missed the first time was that for the first paid for license she had, that it must be activated and inserted into the avast! program to become fully licensed, and then full activation would then override the trial license, effectively ending the 30-day free full-use limitation.  She apparently did not know that.  Hence the licensing mess that ensued.

I think that the misunderstanding has to do with what 30-day trial license is, and why it is limited to only a 30-day period.  With a 30-day trial license, one gets to try out a program without actually buying it and, in most reputable trial licenses, one gets the full featured program and not one that is limited in functionality and use until that trial license expires.  If it is not satisfactory or does not meet your needs, a simple uninstall/removal of the program is all one needs to do before the end of the 30-day period.  One is free to try another a/v under the same terms and conditions.  I think this is fair.

Unscrupulous software vendors often use the opposite tactic:  A supposedly free download and install of their program will result in warnings (think rogue antivirus programs at worst) and claim your system is badly infected, and demand you pay immediately to repair and fix your issues.  Worse still, you cannot fix anything until you pay up now because it will not become fully functional until you do.  And then pester you with numerous pop-ups for payment if you don't.  Otherwise known as scareware and/or registry cleaners.  [EDIT:]  Never saw a thirty-day trial full-use license come with this sort of program.

I'm sorry too.  Misunderstandings happen.   

[blowtorch73]

hi blowtorch73,

Hopefully, this situation is now resolved for you, as avast! combined the two separate licenses for a greater time frame of more than 1 year.  .........they have for me but not for my wife as yet.

There is documentation posted by avast! for everyone to read explaining what a trial period is (free to try for 30 days and that expiry of the free trial license will occur at the end of 30 days) and how to avoid that issue by buying a license good for 1 year before the 30 days is up.  avast! also does tell a paid customer that an email will be sent to their registered address with the newly purchased license and that activation is required for it to take effect.  One does not have to wait 30 days to activate it; it can be activated immediately on receipt. ............I bought the computer, her first, for my wife's birthday and when the security package that came with it was coming to and end, suggested that she should go for the paid for Avast that I had been using for a few years. She did and paid for by visa there and then. Now if there was info provided by Avast about a free trial period, she would totally ignore that since she had already purchased and paid for Avast I.S. Consequently, if the pop-ups stated to appear about the free trial coming to an end, she would continue to ignore them, in the knowledge that hers was not the 'trial' version but the bought one.


Here is what I think happened:  She basically saw that the trial period of her a/v was due to expire. ..................she didn't know that she was in a trial period and therefore what she saw was a warning that her protection could be lost-hence the second purchase.


Unscrupulous software vendors often use the opposite tactic. ...........this I know! I once clicked on a box on this very site to run a 'health check' and got through to a person I assumed was an Avast agent/computer expert. He took over my computer and managed to convince me that it was in very serious disorder and persuaded me to buy a maintainence contract for just over £100.00. It was nonsense of course and after a fight, I got my money back. No they were not software vendors, but the tactics were similar, i.e. they convinced me to buy a product that I did not need but did refund my money.



I'm sorry too.  Misunderstandings happen.   

Thank you for your contribution to this thread which I thought had reached a natural conclusion. However, your reply is very welcome since, in my wife's case at least, it helped her to understand what the problem really was and is. If a user buys, pays for a product any information regarding a trial period would tend to be ignored since this was aimed at those who were just trying out the package in that trial period, and had not, like my wife, went straight to the Avast web site and purchased Internet Security.

[mchain]

I understand now.  Thanks for the clarification; it seems that since it was paid for, it therefore (the full license) was in effect when it wasn't, as the final step, the actual activation of the full license had not been done yet.

Which is why I thought I'd take a little time to explain what a reputable 30-day trial license is, as clearly as I could.

This is off-topic, (but again, not):  It's about cold-calling scams now being perpetrated against Mac owners:  http://blog.malwarebytes.org/intelligence/2013/10/tech-support-scams-coming-to-a-mac-near-you/

Point here is that avast! (and no known other a/v program) can protect one from allowing an unknown person (it's a scam) to actually come into your system, whether it be a Mac or a Windows system.  The video might be worthwhile to watch (it's twenty minutes long) when you've got time.  Reason avast! or anyone else can't protect you from harm is because they're not designed to protect against a scam, and, even so, here, one has agreeably let them come in.

You seem very reasonable.  Hopefully, licensing issues that still remain can be fixed, maybe?

[blowtorch73]

I understand now.  Thanks for the clarification; it  would appear that to the user, in this case your wife, that since it was paid for, it therefore (the full license) was in effect when it wasn't, as the final step, the actual activation of the full license had not been done yet.

Hi mchain, I sincerely hope that you dont object to me altering your quoted text to clarify the matter even further and as far as I can tell, the altered quote now describes exactly what did happen. And if the instruction that the purchased package had to be activated by inserting the licence did not get through to my wife, just how many more purchasers have landed in the same boat? There must be a way in which Avast can prevent this from happening in the first place. Not too dissimmilar situations often present themselves on the computer.
For example, a few days ago I decided to register on a particular site on the web. I entered my e-mail address and the message "That e-mail address has already been registered"appeared. In a similar way, Avast could set up a system whereby the inexperienced user on clicking on the pop-up, could be told that, "You already have an active Internet Security account. Do you wish to change it?" The choice to continue or cancel could be offered at the same time.

In the same vein, if I am half way through composing a new e-mail and then decided not to continue and click on something else, a message appears to the effect that, "You are about to discard this e-mail without sending, do you wish to?" The choice to continue or cancel is offered.

The solution to the problem of the inexperienced buying a second and unnecessary package seems so simple to me that I get the feeling that the powers that be at Avast, just cant see the wood for the trees! But then again it could be that it is me who cant see the trees for the wood.

Edit: A friend who has just read through the thread said  that "if Avast really wanted to do something about this problem, they would figure out a way to do it, necessity is the mother of invention". I second that.

[mchain]

I understand now.  Thanks for the clarification; it  would appear that to the user, in this case your wife, that since it was paid for, it therefore (the full license) was in effect when it wasn't, as the final step, the actual activation of the full license had not been done yet.

Hi mchain, I sincerely hope that you dont object to me altering your quoted text to clarify the matter even further and as far as I can tell, the altered quote now describes exactly what did happen. And if the instruction that the purchased package had to be activated by inserting the licence did not get through to my wife, just how many more purchasers have landed in the same boat? There must be a way in which Avast can prevent this from happening in the first place. Not too dissimmilar situations often present themselves on the computer.
For example, a few days ago I decided to register on a particular site on the web. I entered my e-mail address and the message "That e-mail address has already been registered"appeared. In a similar way, Avast could set up a system whereby the inexperienced user on clicking on the pop-up, could be told that, "You already have an active Internet Security account. Do you wish to change it?" The choice to continue or cancel could be offered at the same time.

In the same vein, if I am half way through composing a new e-mail and then decided not to continue and click on something else, a message appears to the effect that, "You are about to discard this e-mail without sending, do you wish to?" The choice to continue or cancel is offered.

The solution to the problem of the inexperienced buying a second and unnecessary package seems so simple to me that I get the feeling that the powers that be at Avast, just cant see the wood for the trees! But then again it could be that it is me who cant see the trees for the wood.

There's a reason I've included the entire post above.  I appreciate clarity and l don't mind corrections.  I was not there when all this happened.

As for the expectation (and this is exactly what this is) that avast! should have in place a notification system that notifies an avast! user that they've already got a license in hand and shouldn't buy another they don't need is missing the point of the 30-day trial license.  No full formal contract, as with the paid activated version, between the user of the trial product and avast! is yet in place at the start of the trial, and simply buying a license to go to the full paid version does not change the fact that the program is still in trial mode until that license is activated.  It is not until one fully activates the program that avast! knows that the program is no longer in trial usage; until that happens most a/v vendors would assume the program is still running on a 30-day basis, and as far as anyone knows, the actual full license one bought does not exist until it is activated.

I've got a 3 system license, but as far as avast! knows, only two systems are actively using it.

So, a little trouble here understanding why this expectation is in place.

Benefits of a trial 30-day license:

• No need to buy the product.  You get full use, without restrictions, to all features of the program until the trial license expires.
• You can, at will, remove the program or product, without harm, anytime you wish.
• The only limited contract between you and avast! is based on the expectation of proper operation whilst you are running it under the trial license.

So, the trial license is limited in that it is good only for 30 days, after which one must either buy a license or remove it from their system.  These are the terms of a reputable trial license.  The reason removal is required is because it takes money to create and maintain the software and giving or allowing free usage would defeat the purpose of offering an extended version of avast! free in protective capabilities.

Using a trial license does not imply that an user will continue to use their product after 30 days.  Nor should they have to, if they do not wish to.  On that basis alone, avast! will sell an user a license assuming they know how to activate the full term license when they get it, but cannot know if that license is activated until it the program reports to them that such was done.  It's kind of a chicken and egg question:  Which should come first?  Well, avast! has it set up so that once the full version license is in place, the avast! program reports that fact, and then they know the trial user has moved to the full version freely and willingly and not before. 

Added to that, avast! will not work or protect after the 30-day trial period is over, the assumption being that the user has moved on to other a/v vendors for protection even if the user bought a license from them and never activated it.  So that limited contract never was changed to the full version and avast! never reported a change in licensing status.  How would avast! know about the first full license sold if it was never activated?

Why wasn't avast! free considered as an option? 

[blowtorch73]

Hi again. My wife was not, and never has been until I raised this thread, aware that she was having a trial period. And for that matter, until now, neither was I when I made my initial purchase. And I ask the question again, how many thousands of computer beginners fall into the same trap? We can discuss this till the cows come home, but it wont alter the fact that a simple pop-up stating that "You already have an active security package in place, do you want to change it" would have stopped my wife in her tracks and neither the problem nor this thread would have existed. The sad thing is that some of the people who should be reading this thread, cant because until they gain more experience of computing, they would not know that forums such as this exist.

In the next couple of days my wife's licences will be merged and she will have cover for the next 2,3 or 4 years depending on what decision Avast make. Nevertheles, I will continue to visit the thread to see what others have to say on the matter.

[mchain]

Like the honesty here.  Some of us old coots (including me) sometimes assume that others know some of the things they've learned a long time ago (as in ancient history) as far as computers go and the legal stuff that comes along with it and we can be very wrong in these assumptions at times. 

Sincerely glad to have helped out here and good to hear avast! is doing the right thing for you both.  At least now you know what a trial period is as far as software use goes...

So, I'm out for now.  Peace.

[blowtorch73]

From one 77 year old coot to another older/younger coot, thank you for your patience, tolerance, understanding and enlightenment in this thread.