In the first part,
we touched on the aspect of the inertia of consciousness in choosing the type of means of protection against infection by malicious software, often falsely identified by ordinary users as "viruses."
Well, well, you say, we are so inert here, we are not looking for anything new. But there are computer publications, whose journalists have to follow interesting news and write about them. And they do not write. So, new protection technologies are bad?
No, it's not so simple. When someone creates a new, innovative product for the market, where there are no well-established “good practices”, technologies and leaders, they will certainly write about it. But if this is not the case, then no one will write anything. And there are several reasons:
1. Journalists are the same people. Why search for something and write about something new, if it feeds so well? Yes, and in the press tours carry free ...
2. Due to the inertia of consciousness, users do not ask journalists to write articles about new means of protection. So why write about them, if readers are not interested, they will not buy a magazine?
3. All publications exist on advertising revenue. And the antivirus industry generates a significant part of it. If the publication begins to print articles that talk about the unreliability of antiviruses, then the next day, representatives of the PR department of the distributor or the antivirus manufacturer will come to him and say that it is not profitable for them to cooperate with such an edition. And outside the crisis ...
So it turns out a vicious circle - users are not looking for anything new, more effective in preventing infection, because, often, they simply do not know about their existence, and the computer press does not write anything, because there is no order from the reader.
And even if the journalist will undertake to write something about your innovation, the result may be, to put it mildly, inadequate. The reason is simple - professional journalists go to computer journalism, who understand almost nothing about the topic they are writing to, because they are pure humanities, or former IT people who have come out in circulation, lagging behind advanced technological developments and living with past merits. Does the writing brethren have any time to understand your revolutionary product? More words - more money. It is much more profitable to write ten thousand characters of nonsense without understanding the program and get the due fee, rather than spend this time for thorough testing. Of course, not all journalists are like that, but the factor is obvious. Swam - we know.
If you look from the advertising in the media, here too, innovative products seriously lose to antivirus. Firstly, the marketing budget of any traditional manufacturer of protective equipment far exceeds anything that any startup can invest in the channel. Secondly, the traditional means of protection can be promoted in the style of "our specialists have found a terrible virus, no one catches, only our antivirus." Innovative products will not succeed in promoting PR - they often block this “terrible virus” even before the first line of its code was written ...
PS The next part will be released in a week.