I do read and try to understand all the opposing viewpoints and DO agree you should stay on top (timeline is subjective) of latest security. Also, my comments are not meant to be personal in any way and I do have high respect for the folks who spend their time on this Forum and help others........so please take what I've said and saying as good debate.
With that said..................
A user has the decision to disable programs update unless avast! decides to do so.
So what good is my disabling if Avast just overrides ?
avast! has complete control over their program and would have done it for their specific reasons.
Yeah, the "reason" was to force people to new version by program update instead of just stop supporting old version.
The point of this whole argument is the "HOW" it is done....not the need to.
On the other hand, you may be frustrated, though, you'd rather have a more recent release which is able to give you far better protection than the previous versions, rather to be infected.
Once again, you miss the point of peoples argument/issue.....it is the "HOW" it is done....not the need to.
On top of that, many other AV vendors don't support previous versions and stop providing database updates to them + support after a year of the new versions release.
Awesome, you agree with us that this is the better method and that unlike previous post in this thread other A/V companies have figured out that this technically possible. Great...thx for the validation of our point.
The EULA clearly states:
3. Upgrades and Updates
Upgrades and updates of the Software shall be provided to you by AVAST as long as and to the extent
in which AVAST in its exclusive discretion makes such upgrades and updates available to the users of
the free version of the Software.
Cool, I'm an attorney now and just love when people want to debate legal terminology....gets me all tingling inside.
The UELA says "makes...available".....the user acceptance does not infer nor imply the user has given up their rights to control acceptance of these updates.....
that is the "legal" point. Avast people are very smart and I'm sure they have very good lawyers and they stayed away from asking for control of your PC....why ?.......they would open themselves up for liability.
Why do you think they give the Users a Custom install or have check boxes for the Chrome or Dropbox or install push software subsidy of the month ?.......because they know crossing the line of forced (un-authorized) installs opens up liability. Is Avast scared of me suing them ?......of course not.....they are worried that this type intrusion can catch the eye of Microsoft. I'm sure even Google "makes" Avast put the checkbox when they were pushing Chrome. Point is Avast knows that line in the sand very well. I personally think using the EMU for non-emergency updates crosses that line as well....grey area I'd admit since the EMU is only a vehicle for "updates"......guess the question is what you define as "emergency" which @bob1360 posed. Not sure I'm qualified to answer that but I do know pushing a version update for support removal or marketing purposes
is not it.
I'd pose the question: Why are you against avast! being updated to the latest version for the best protection?
Everyone has their reasons on why & when......I won't argue the virtues of V9 or previous or that V10 may even be better.
But yet again, I argue and if you truly read the other posts without emotion you will see that the concern is HOW Avast forces transition. My comments just center around this method has risks to its users and there are less intrusive ways to get the same thing done.