The free distribution of anti-virus software to home users is not useful for our companies to subsidize as the author Robert Vamosi proposed in his article "Antivirus Software Must Be Free. The reason is, in nowadays there are several efficient options to network security as well as the predicament of user prudence and neglect in regards to this matter of using free anti-virus security. Providing this service is not cost effective for our organization and can undoubtedly be aided by our finance department as this is in effect a finance question in regards to the matter of which would cost more; the subsidizing of free distribution of anti-virus software to home users or the cost of similarly efficient option solutions to network security. The report will tackle the flaws of Robert Vamosi's argument for corporate client funded distribution of free anti-virus software, the link between our company's network and home users, and other issues that involve the network security of our firm.
3wPlayer
English: Rising AntiVirus
Kaspersky Anti-VirusFlaws in Robert Vamosi's Argument:Vamosi's call for the free versions of best-selling anti-virus software is often contradictory and does not cling to any type of a business benefit for anyone implicated other than the consumer who will acquire the remuneration of a free anti-virus software program, if they decide to.
In the commencement of his article he is quoted saying "I'd like to see one of you offer a free version of your best-selling antivirus product for desktop PCs. You'll still make your profits, and your user base will certainly increase". This declaration does not make sense. I would like to find out how a company that supplies its product for free of charge will be able to function in a competent and lucrative way, making money. It is also obvious that the organization's user foundation will...