"Upgrade to paid version" nag screens

[lakrsrool]

I am just ONE person, but it is my distinct impression that there are many others who might feel similarly and the fact that I have had such negative responses from most who I have been in contact with would suggest this as well.  I would add that from my own personal standpoint as much as I like Avast the ads are clearly annoying and as a very long time user and supporter of Avast I have to admit that I may consider MS Essentials myself at some point in the future as well.

I'm still trying to figure out what those of you who spend all this time complaining about a few pop up requests to purchase the paid version use as a basis
for selecting your anti virus protection ?
For me it's the protection that the program offers that's important and every thing else takes second place.
There are ways to get around the pop ups if they are such an annoyance to you. I simply close the window and go on from there.
NO BIG DEAL 

Thanks for the reply Bob, since you replied to me, I'm happy to clarify.  First of all let me say it's actually easier handled than what you suggested. I just reduced the display time to 5 seconds (instead of the default 20) and I don't really notice the add much at all anymore.   

And of course your point is a good one obviously, that said, if you had read my post in it's entirety you would know where the problem is for the most part. I'll post again what this is:

.... I have no doubt these people are fully aware of their option to choose the paid version if they so desired. To be honest, for me it is embarrassing to hear from some of these family, friends and acquaintances regarding the increased advertising.  I would add that there are those like my wife, sister etc. etc. who are not "tech savy" that turned to me for advise just wanting something FREE who are now confused by the adds wondering if in fact they are not protected enough.  From now on I have elected to warn people about the advertising when I mention Avast as an alternative and I can honestly say that I have personally found that some people dismiss my recommendation once I have warned people of this new practice.

You see how it can be confusing to people who are more novice when it comes to computers?   

To be fair, it's become not just a "few" ads now but instead EVERY TIME THERE IS A VIRUS SIGNATURE UPDATE!!!

I would add to that IF I were to recommend or install Avast for my acquaintances, friends and family in the future I will either reduce the display time myself on installation or recommend this be done by those who install the application themselves.

Beyond that point, I have always been a HUGE SUPPORTER of Avast as one can see based on my ENTIRE POST.  And I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR OPINION THAT "PERFORMANCE" SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER EVERYTHING ELSE. But that said, ads can be an issue IF IN FACT THERE ARE CHOICES AVAILABLE where "performance" differences ARE NEGLIGIBLE, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?

Bob, you might notice if you read my ENTIRE post I spoke in terms of what I feel is "best" for Avast in regards to "market share".

I think the point of MANY on this board are that they are BIG SUPPORTERS of Avast and ARE REALLY ONLY INTERESTED IN AVAST HOLDING ONTO AND IMPROVING THEIR "MARKET SHARE".  And these people feel (like myself) that "MARKET SHARE" COULD BE IMPACTED BY THE MUCH MORE FREQUENT ADS.  So it is an altruistic POV that many are expressing here on this board regarding Avast.

It seems to me that the MORE the users for Avast the GREATER the opportunity to garner "paid" users as contrasted to LESS users for Avast.  But that's just me. 

Maybe I and others are wrong about this, but it is clear that regardless of whether it is warranted or not the ads are causing some level of consternation for some users for various reasons, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?  And if this IS the case then "market share" COULD very well be impacted, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?

TO THE POINT, there ARE CHOICES available as far as FREE Antivirus protection: let me post the results of a comparison of the four most prominent FREE Antivirus programs available (see links below):

Final Verdict

While there are some noteworthy aspects - such as Microsoft Security Essential's low false positive count or avast!'s lowest computer impact or Avira's best detection and removal performance - there is no one "winner" between Microsoft Security Essentials, Avira Free, avast! Free, and AVG Free. To try to determine which one is the "best" is like trying to split hairs; it is hard to do and it hurts. In real-life situations, all four programs will provide users with excellent protection.

Now, what program you should use comes down to your specific needs and desires. Want the most features? avast! Free is the way to go. Are you looking for the best detection rates and don't care about anything else? Avira Free is for you. Want a simple anti-malware program that provides great protection without nagging ads? Microsoft Security Essentials beckons you. Worried about network security? Microsoft Security Essentials' "Network Inspection System" may serve you well. Are you a social network addict? Go with AVG Free for it has "Social Network Protection". Hate false positives? Avoid AVG and consider Microsoft Security Essentials. Dislike slow scan times? Don't get Microsoft Security Essentials. Surf the web a lot, besides your frequent websites? avast! Free's "Web Shield" provides better specialized protection in that area than the other three programs. Download lots of software? avast! Free's "Auto Sandbox" may be your next best friend.

As you can see above each product has it's pluses and minuses and of course because the differences are negligible OVERALL as far as OVERALL "performance" is concerned, IF "ads" are an issue Avast may in fact LOSE some "market share" on THIS BASIS it would seem.  I FOR ONE WOULD NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN because I STILL remain steadfast in my opinion that Avast is the VERY BEST, albeit by a SMALL MARGIN in some cases overall.  And I would add that the comparison results would ALL BASICALLY AGREE WITH MY "OPINION" (if you bother to read them) that the differences are relatively minor but Avast is virtually at or near the top in all cases.

Here are three links comparing Avast to other FREE Anti-Virus Applications (my comments above came from the third link which offered a very extensive analysis of the FOUR most popular programs):

Free Antivirus Comparison: Avast vs. Microsoft Security Essentials: http://www.brighthub.com/computing/smb-security/articles/63727.aspx

Avast Vs. Microsoft Security Essentials: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/avast-vs-microsoft-security-essentials.html

Microsoft Security Essentials vs Avira vs avast! vs AVG: Best free anti-virus/anti-malware program for Windows [3rd Edition]: http://dottech.org/freeware-reviews/14151/windows-best-free-antivirus-antimalware-program-microsoft-security-essentials-vs-avira-vs-avast-vs-avg/

All three links speak very highly of Avast, but that said, as a SUPPORTER of Avast and one whose opinion is that Avast is in fact the "BEST" overall (albeit by a relatively small margin in some cases) I AM INTERESTED IN AVAST CONTINUING TO HOLD ONTO AND IMPROVE ITS "MARKET SHARE".

Bob, I'm not saying your wrong at all, but that said, wouldn't you agree that the mere fact that we apparently BOTH agree that Avast is the "best" but that considering there are  in fact alternatives that are still relatively comparable as well that it would behoove Avast to avoid turning people away by using ads to the extent that they are used as prevalent as EVERY SIGNATURE UPDATE?  Whether you understand "why" some are annoyed by the ads or not, the fact remains that some ARE and that is what matters in regards to sustaining "market share" for Avast, RIGHT?  The bottom line is the very fact that some are annoyed for whatever reason can be a factor as far as impacting "market share" it would seem to me.

It is important to consider the fact is the MESSAGE FROM AVAST IS SUGGESTING THAT THE USER COULD VERY WELL NOT BE GETTING AS MUCH PROTECTION AS THEY MIGHT NEED!!!! And this CAN BE CONFUSING to some, especially the more novice users.

Bob, BOTTOM LINE: if there ARE some "novice" users who are "confused" by messages that would suggest they COULD BE getting "better" protection than they already currently have with Avast thus this consideration might in fact peak their interest into looking for other FREE alternatives other than Avast, then wouldn't it be "BETTER" to avoid THIS by reducing what might be "confusing" to some users?

..... While your entirely correct, this is something to consider, wouldn't you agree Bob?

[Asyn]

[OT] Wow. This took some time to read.

[DavidR]

I have to say when I see these massive posts, I skip right past, so if many are like me the effort (as good as it may be, I cant tell) is somewhat wasted.

[bob3160]

Bob, BOTTOM LINE: if there ARE some "novice" users who are "confused" by messages that would suggest they COULD BE getting "better" protection than they already currently have with Avast thus this consideration might in fact peak their interest into looking for other FREE alternatives other than Avast, then wouldn't it be "BETTER" to avoid THIS by reducing what might be "confusing" to some users?..... While your entirely correct, this is something to consider, wouldn't you agree Bob?

I actually disagree. What's offered for additional or better protection is an upgrade to the paid version.
If that isn't what you want, why would you be looking for another free AV
If you compare Apples to Apples, there aren't any other choices that offer as much for the cheap price of $0.0
If you're interested in a silent avast!, I've already explained that in the following post:
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=93544.msg796558#msg796558

[lakrsrool]

Bob, BOTTOM LINE: if there ARE some "novice" users who are "confused" by messages that would suggest they COULD BE getting "better" protection than they already currently have with Avast thus this consideration might in fact peak their interest into looking for other FREE alternatives other than Avast, then wouldn't it be "BETTER" to avoid THIS by reducing what might be "confusing" to some users?..... While your entirely correct, this is something to consider, wouldn't you agree Bob?

I actually disagree. What's offered for additional or better protection is an upgrade to the paid version.
If that isn't what you want, why would you be looking for another free AV
If you compare Apples to Apples, there aren't any other choices that offer as much for the cheap price of $0.0
If you're interested in a silent avast!, I've already explained that in the following post:
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=93544.msg796558#msg796558

The interest would be for a FREE AV without the ads first of all.  As to what might be the right "fit" so to speak this has to to do with what I posted:

Now, what program you should use comes down to your specific needs and desires. Want the most features? avast! Free is the way to go. Are you looking for the best detection rates and don't care about anything else? Avira Free is for you. Want a simple anti-malware program that provides great protection without nagging ads? Microsoft Security Essentials beckons you. Worried about network security? Microsoft Security Essentials' "Network Inspection System" may serve you well. Are you a social network addict? Go with AVG Free for it has "Social Network Protection". Hate false positives? Avoid AVG and consider Microsoft Security Essentials. Dislike slow scan times? Don't get Microsoft Security Essentials. Surf the web a lot, besides your frequent websites? avast! Free's "Web Shield" provides better specialized protection in that area than the other three programs. Download lots of software? avast! Free's "Auto Sandbox" may be your next best friend.

You'll notice that what AV application might draw interest can depend upon what happens to be what is important to any one person.

One gets the ads because one does not have the "paid version" thus I'm assuming in some cases there lacks an interest for a "paid version".... The "apples to apples" is the interest in a FREE version in any case but perhaps without the ads which is my point as far as some might look elsewhere for an application that does not have the ads along with a feeling that perhaps they are not getting as much protection that they might need.

From a "marketing standpoint", my point is why raise all of these questions by bombarding the point that more is available for a price every time a Virus Signature update is done which in turn may serve to peak the interest for some to check out other options who already use Avast presently that would not have otherwise had any interest to look elsewhere in the first place.

Of course there are possible resolutions to handle the ads as you've pointed out (because it's using a YouTube video instead of text which is too cumbersome for my dial-up I'll simply trust you've got a good answer to the issue and perhaps check it out later when I have the time to wait for 30+ minutes to download the video) but the progenitor to cause someone to consider other options has already been put in place as a result of the ads who might otherwise have had no inclination to look elsewhere in the first place absent the issue of ads which speaks to my point regarding an impact on "market share".

[George Yves]

The interest would be for a FREE AV without the ads first of all.

It's a wrong approach. An antivirus may be free of ads only if you have already payed for something else to its developers. In case of Microsoft Security Essentials users have already payed for MS Windows itself and of course they see no ads there. The problem is not in ads by themselves but in the manner they are demonstrated and in their frequency.

[bob3160]

The interest would be for a FREE AV without the ads first of all.

And I guess all the employees of Avast should apply for welfare in order to feed their families
A free lunch only works in politics every where else, you need cash.
Those using the free version of avast! certainly help by making the overall product better for everyone
but, research, development, etc require capital.
As long as the ads offer something useful and only appear infrequently, (as they do right now) I certainly see
no problem with promoting the other parts of the product line. In the long run, it benefits everyone.

[true indian]

I didnt get this today..so probably its removed by avast! team 

just got the normal toaster pop up

[lakrsrool]

The interest would be for a FREE AV without the ads first of all.

And I guess all the employees of Avast should apply for welfare in order to feed their families
A free lunch only works in politics every where else, you need cash.
Those using the free version of avast! certainly help by making the overall product better for everyone
but, research, development, etc require capital.
As long as the ads offer something useful and only appear infrequently, (as they do right now) I certainly see
no problem with promoting the other parts of the product line. In the long run, it benefits everyone.

First I would have to say that your characterization that the ads "only appear infrequently" is debatable in as much as I've already pointed out they appear every time an update to the signature data base is done which is typically a number of times a day. Secondly since you've expressed the view that the ads are a "benefit to everyone" it would appear that your either ignoring my points or totally disagree with them but in as much as you've spoken in terms of "revenue" and how it is needed to improve the Avast product I would have to conclude that you've perhaps not understood my POV since I totally agree that "revenue" is important (if you read nothing else, please contemplate my "bottom line" conclusion which addresses all of your concerns in total).

What is most important here is I do not deny "revenue" is critical and my point is that there is more than one way to look at the dynamics of generating "revenue". On that point, here is a part of what I posted:

Bob, you might notice if you read my ENTIRE post I spoke in terms of what I feel is "best" for Avast in regards to "market share".

I think the point of MANY on this board are that they are BIG SUPPORTERS of Avast and ARE REALLY ONLY INTERESTED IN AVAST HOLDING ONTO AND IMPROVING THEIR "MARKET SHARE".  And these people feel (like myself) that "MARKET SHARE" COULD BE IMPACTED BY THE MUCH MORE FREQUENT ADS.  So it is an altruistic POV that many are expressing here on this board regarding Avast.

Can you understand that it's a matter of "market share" attrition as a result of an irritant versus an anticipated potential increase in paid subscribers as a result of ads?

You may very well come down on the side that any potential loss in "market share" (which includes FREE subscribers) is not as important as a potential increase in "paid subscribers".  You may also contend that the overall change will result in more "paid subscribers" regardless of the overall loss in "market share".  That's fine, but I question this conclusion.

And of course I've already pointed out why "market share" is important but I'll post it again since it seems your not getting the point I've been trying to get across.

It is really more than just an issue of "one little popup", it's really a matter of "marketing" so to speak.  And I can assure you that Avast grows by "word of mouth" more than probably any other means.  What I'm talking about is what amounts to a long time "advocacy" for Avast that my suffer over time due to the increased ads....

You see I am contending that just GREATER "MARKET SHARE" alone which will include both free and paid subscribers will impact the number of "paid subscribers" in a more positive manner over time as opposed to what the impact of a shrinking "market share" would be in regards the resultant universe of "paid subscribers".

It's not so simple as to just say that the "ads" are necessary to add "paid subscribers" in order to bring in more revenue to improve the product.  There are many dynamics that can impact "revenue" including "market share" that will of course include "free" subscribers but in turn as a consequence of a greater "market share" the Avast product will grow as a result of the very activity that helps growth the most, that is "word of mouth", and this very process will inherently increase "paid subscribers" as provided by that larger universe of subscribers both free and paid as a result of the greater "market share".

BOTTOM LINE: It amounts to a contrast of a potentially "smaller market share" but greater percentage of "paid subscribers (which you are advocating with the ads) versus a "larger market share" but with a lower percentage of "paid subscribers" (which I am advocating without the ads).  Either way the number of "paid subscribers" will likely be very close to the same but the advantage of the larger "market share" will be greater "market visibility" of the product that will likely have a greater impact on "paid subscribers" in the long term.

[tendar]

Just wanted to provide some feedback about my experience with Avast, having been a user of Avast for the past 2 years or so.
Although a little busy in terms of trying to do many things imo, and a little pushy with the paid software links (newbies I would install it on computers for would get confused thinking they had to download more or they were not protected enough), and sometimes annoying with obvious false positives, I've always liked the speed of Avast and its frequent updating. That and it generally does, save for very recently, well in reviews and analysis. The past month or so however has seen the nag screens go from annoying to super-annoying. I think during a re-registration alone I saw the download chrome screen 3-4 times. It would load on startup and it would do this no matter what.

I am pretty experienced with computers and have used almost all the free AVs. Even compared to the naggiest software, I found Avast to be very annoying and confusing at times. I can't imagine how people who are not experienced with Avast or AVs experience it. Anyway, i was never fond of the links and ads with Avast but this dramatic uptick in nag screens has made me make the decision to uninstall the AV from 4 computers so far, and I will likely do a lot more in the coming weeks. I have a feeling Avast is going to see a lot of this. I think what you need to take from this is while people do want good protection (of course, the best protection is a sensible educated user), and Avast from what I can see generally does provide that, equally and perhaps more important, people want simple, leave it alone, unobtrusive and definitely, especially when it comes to the security of the computer, non-confusing performance. IMO, this is where Avast is lacking, especially moreso lately. I have moved on to MSE, which is something I never thought i would use, and have found it comparable, maybe a little less resource intensive, and completely unobtrusive and invisible, with a very simple interface.

I hope this was in some way helpful.

[Lisandro]

The past month or so however has seen the nag screens go from annoying to super-annoying.

There were some issues and bugs. Some offers should be seen only once and due to these problems were shown at each boot.
Sorry for the inconvenience. You could update to the latest avast! version to correct this problem.
avast! does not intend to be annoying and even less super-annoying.

[Ignotus]

I know this thread has been dead for a couple of weeks now, but I've been meaning to come back and respond with positive feedback and kept forgetting to do it. I always got busy with something else and kept putting it off. I wanted to say that as of the 7.0.1456 update that I received maybe a week or so ago, I no longer see the repeated ad that was accompanying the update toaster. I got the Android ad, which was actually useful, and it has a check box to not show it anymore. After checking that box, now I just get the update toaster and that's all I get. Before the update I was seeing the "you have basic protection, do you need more" or something along those lines every time I received a toaster update popup. I wanted to report that things are back to normal, and I wanted to thank someone for responding to the community's frustration with the ads. I assume someone realized that we were either seeing an inordinate amount of ads and corrected it, or perhaps we made our case that we didn't like it and someone at avast removed the ads. Either way, I appreciate the outcome and that you listen to your free users. Thanks!

[Lisandro]

Ignotus, thanks for the feedback.
The multiply ads seems to be more an issue/bug than really a desired option.

[tgm1024]

In this day and age the only way you will not get advertisement,is to get rid of all electronic devise newspapers magazines,and move to Nanavut and live in an igloo.

That doesn't make your point at all, and it certainly invalidates neither CompCityCrab's nor Compmanio's point.  What on earth does the preponderance of ads in our lives have to do with the ads in here?

Personally, I'm ok with the ads more or less.  I'm willing to put up with seeing them for getting a free product.  But your argument isn't an argument at all.

[HawaiianHope]

Speaking of ads.
Is there a way to get Avast to stop pimping the google installation ?
I already said NOOOO once. now when it upgraded teh program, it is now attempting to install google. if you jsut click "finish" without unticking the "avoid another uninvited product" google box.

i said NO once.  why do i have to keep repeating myself ?