Hi,
the points you mention are not so much unfinished development but more or less concept. Ports need to be configured, if you notice any problems with them. Scans which are being repeated, when they missed the scan due to downtime, are on the wishlist for many system admins. E.g. what happens if the PC is never switched on at that time? Do you never want to scan it? I admit that many configuration options need to be still added to the console and there may be some bugs (like the point I mentioned), but please also note that this product has not been on the market for a very long time, like competitors solutions. It is a completely new product, which needs to be improved over the next months. And I am sure the devs are doing whatever they can to improve open points as well as fix bugs.
By the way...that's not only an issue with AVAST, but also with other companies, which release their newest development. Even with companies, which seem to be a lot bigger than AVAST Software. Just bring a bit patience. Watching the last two years development of 5.x and 6.x of the standalone product I believe that the same good development will also apply to the SBC.
First, please don't take offence at my rely to your comment here. It is in no way intended as an assault on you in any way.
I agree about what happens regarding some rules/behaviour might not be what a company needs or expects and agree that these are not faults/bugs. What happens if a pc is never switched on is often tricky in a corporate world, so we have a policy that users are supposed to abide with- leaving pc switched on some days, etc.. This seems to work 99% of the time- particularly for windows updates.
I don't agree with most of your other points as follows:
1. in defence of the 'state of development' that exists with avast today (SP1 or at golden release). Sure it is a new product, and it has been in development for quite a long time and although a complete redesign of ADNM it has similar goals to ADNM so the team is not completely starting from scratch with goals and ideas. To use the 'new car' analogy, customers expect the next model to be better than the old model- not just 'different' - but better!
2. A paying customer wants to purchase a solution that is good value for money, works reasonably well and doesn't end up costing the company a lot of money in unnecessary admin tasks which are as a result of 'bad design' or 'unfinished design'.
I'm not referring to deployment or normal configuration tasks here, I'm talking about the fiddling around, figuring out why it is broken not working as advertised, then implementing fixes/workarounds because they are either features missing in the UI, or missing completely or just plain broken.
If we accept your argument about having patience waiting for fixes/service packs then who should pay for the 'patience' the customer or the reseller?
3. Arguing that other companies even big ones do the same thing, is not really a justification to a purchaser looking to buy a new improved and better model- unless they are taken in just by 'looks' alone.
Take the analogy of a 'new car' with similar 'caveats' in your defence. Should the customer just accept that the new model is 'buggy, missing basic controls, works well in most circumstances but does have a lot of problems' based on the proposition that it is a 'new design?"
I don't think so. What we have here is a 'concept car'. Great to look at but unable to be registered and legally driven on any public road until it meets a fundamental standard. The corporate world has similar minimum standards for software- particularly an AV solution.
Avast is is essentially a 'safety feature' for a corporate network. We are not asking for 100% perfect- solution - nothing is, but how do you convince the buyer that they should buy 'THIS CAR'?
