OMG !!!..I was absolutely kidding…but did a Google: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/08/idUS69353+08-Jul-2009+MW20090708
Wow…that explains a lot. 
…or as you said…may be nothing. :-
Of course I’m a born conspiracy theorist. 8)
Well he has been the avast! CEO for five years, so this policy didn’t happen when he arrived.
Perhaps not immediately after his arrival.
That doesn’t preclude the possibility of his influence in the current direction apparently being taken. It’s unlikely that it would be happening - aggressive marketing and up-selling - if he didn’t approve. It’s a strategy for company growth and profitability which would appear to be consistent with his past activities and successes at Symantec. As they say: “If the Foo s…s, wear it.” But as I commented in another thread, this is probably
part of his mandate from the Board of Directors which hired him.
Rejzor Come on dont be blind…Its not just evo-gen they later developed FilerepMalware.
And now FileString,FilrepMetagen and many more are seen to be working in the wild…agreed that deepscreen hadnt been so useful but since end of feb they are implementing and improving safemachine2 technology.
Deepscreen has improved since january…I am just curious to see how deepscreen performs when avast labs come back to their normal reaction times and recover the lost detection rate.
Still I would not compare avast to panda…Both are completely different…I guess panda updates in the cloud most of the time which is unlike avast.
I am very sure about sf detections I am seeing them in deepscreen since last month.I had like a bunch of them from my last 10 tests.
As Vlk said earlier,it is a one time failure and obviously they will make sure it will never happen again.
The reason why the scores fell soo low because it was not just the cloud but also the Virus database that got caught and suffered a set back as it was mentioned by setjko.I am sure this is happening with the VRDB for the first time.Enough said I am curious to see how avast does in upcoming months and then we can all have our opinions.
Well,zerotox I do believe even during setbacks avast labs would have tried to keep up with real threat landscape out there which no test has ever shown.
Tests are mostly useless these days,they are just for geeks like us to make fog opinions on AV’s.I dont think the average Joe even knows about Testing organizations.So what they use? well,they use their own experience to make comclusions on a AV program.And everyone is bound to find 1 AV and the other bad.
On the program Bug and bloat side,I would agree.They need to seriously get rid of all that crap.
Tests are mostly useless these days,they are just for geeks like us to make fog opinions on AV's.or teenagers.....evrytime they see a new AV on top in a test, they reinstall...... and run full scan 10 times a day with evry free tool found on the net
I’m not blind, i see perfectly well. Especially considering how long i’m following avast!. I think it’s 10 years this year.
You don’t have to follow for 10 years to see the trend.
Just read the Forum and look at the “type” (and severity) of issues…just read other Forums and compare…I do.
Then look at the results of A/V tests…of course there is always excuses, wonder what they would say if they were #1 ?
I’m betting all of a sudden the tests are valid, etc.
The bottom line is Avast has been head-and shoulders above the rest in usability and protection but as V8 and especially now V9 has come into play, as you said,…you’d have to be blind to not see the degrading in quality, the increase of absolutely useless bloat-ware (yes, you can easily get free packages that are much better than what Avast is “pushing”). I don’t be-grudge them for wanting/needing to make money but IHMO they are going down the wrong road.
Anyway, YES…I’m still with Avast because I’m not so easy to give-up…but they need to get rid of the marketing guys who are telling them the direction they are going is way of the future. 
Then , please, explain why it is you have posted comment , and links to test results , again, and again, and again , month after month ?
Who is always first to post these useless test results ?
Time for my two pennorth the only test is the one you do in your personal use of the computer, no infections good, infections bad
Ohhhh…you are bringing logic and sanity to the discussion ?..that is just not right.
If you are going to be rational then how can we complain about the “what if” and “why not” and “how come”.
Essexboy, that is not playing fair.
OK…I’ll bat the ball across the net…here goes.
In your “self use test” scenario…if you don’t do any “bad” stuff on your PC then you don’t need A/V at all…so in this logic no A/V is just as good as Avast, and I rate Avast much higher than that.
Seriously, I think A/V (malware protection, etc.) is like an insurance policy…you know you need it but not ever sure how much you need or how good it is until lightning strikes. Thus, it is a balance of how much cost versus reward (protection) you need. I think the point of all the above is that these tests “are” relevant in that this is how…for better or worse…things are compared.
Rejzor,not commenting on your experience with Avast! No offense to you.You have better experience with Avast than me.RESPECT!!
Yes product quality is decreasing because of the unwanted bloat and it needs to be fixed.Come on Avast,steer the money into protection areas not in marketing. :-[
As I mentioned on Wilders Forums I no longer use or recommend avast anymore.I moved all clients to different solutions.I just hope avast to get back on track soon.
Hi True Indian,
Always had a feeling you hadn’t installed avast! yourself. ;D
Your av is just part of any security set-up.
avast! kept me free of malware during the last couple of years.
Whenever you see what scanning I do in the virus and worms,
I came closer to malicious site code as anyone could without actually trying to go there.
So if there is anyone who could say something about avast protection status 8)
Well I know a bit about what it does and does not flag.
I am very pleased with the added security from avast shields.
I liked the added security from using avast"s software updater.
I definitely do not like GrimeFighter from what I have seen and experienced from other users recently.
For dropbox I cannot say anything conclusive.
The avast backend trouble could not be avoided, but hopefully is only a one-time incident.
But there is more about securing your PC than just installing a resident av solution.
There is additional non-resident tools like I have installed SAS, MBAM and MalwareBytes anti-exploit.
I am not particularly keen on avast! Web Rep.
DrWeb’s url-checking extension combined with BitDefender’s TrafficLight give a far better overall protection.
Again said the avast shield’s detect a lot of issues all other av solution let pass by unnoticed
(script detection issues, avast has some keen avast team developers there).
What is still an unnoticed threat and this is so for all av solutions,
is that cybercrime sites and IPs aren’t being blocked under all circumstances,
see what goes on here: http://cybercrime-tracker.net/
(do not click any results there, you have been warned!).
Recently I have analyzed a lot of SE redirections,
clearly meant to curve the bends for fraudulous clicks,
but again largely going under the av detection radar (see killmalware SE redirect flags).
I also frown about solutions hyped like the White Hat Aviator browser,
which is mainly a hyped Google Chrome clone with some added extensions and standard search engine.
Users that know what do do have a decent adblocker solution with added malware blocking,
a decent script blocker like NoScript or ScriptSafe and Request Policy extension installed
and feel more secure against malscripts and third party crap.
In these respects bad test results are just a hick-up once in a while.
But still we should keep the av-solutions pulse to establish it is going the right direction.
polonus
Most of the “teenagers” I know don’t use / know how to use an antivirus, much less know how to use a Desktop PC.
~!Donovan
It’s hard to attribute the low scores to a one-time failure, presumably of relatively short duration, given the time span during which avast! 2014 has scored poorly:
Windows 8, Nov-Dec/2013
http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=134923
Windows 7, Jan-Mar/2014
http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=140613
These tests appear to span at least 3-4 months and use avast! 2014.
They show a marked decline in performance scores from earlier tests using prior versions.