SSL - Geotrust undermining Comodo?
Towards the end of last year, I remember reading through many threads and researching between Comodo's Instant SSL and Geotrust's QuickSSL. I posted my own thread here which became very lively on this issue (see http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...threadid=69692), and came to the conclusion that Instant SSL was better as it had higher browser compatiblity. QuickSSL did not support Opera browers, at least 5+ (although I hear it now supports the latest version). Comodo also have better verification and warranty - although it does take longer to be verified.
While doing my research FreeSSL was made available, and I believe at the time it was claimed to be similar to Instant SSL
. At the end of my research I came to the conclusion Comodo's Instant SSL was better than GeoTrust's QuickSSL. Some time after ChainedSSL was released - being chained to the same root as Instant SSL (Baltimore). It was then (and is now) claimed that ChainedSSL contains the same browser compatibility as Instant SSL.The thing I don't get, is if QuickSSL (which is GeoTrust's more expensive SSL option) did not have as much browser support as Comodo's Instant SSL, then how can ChainedSSL which is their cheaper option have the same browser support? Wouldn't this make ChainedSSL better than Geotrust's more expensive option - QuickSSL? I would be interested just to hear the difference between GeoTrust's ChainedSSL and QuickSSL.
It seems to me that GeoTrust have sneakily played some cards to try and undermine Comodo's Instant SSL competing against their QuickSSL. It was once a war between Geotrust's QuickSSL and Comodo's Instant SSL. The only difference was that QuickSSL was more expensive (not including Rackshack), and as I mentioned contained less browser support.
Likely aware of this, GeoTrust then released FreeSSL, adding confusion to the SSL scene. If I remember correctly, they claimed it was just as good as Instant SSL, although they did not add specifics. To give some credit though, in the thread I linked to above the GeoTrust CEO admitted FreeSSL did not have as much ubiquity as Instant SSL - although he said he would still choose them over Instant SSL.
Some time after, ChainedSSL got released and actually claimed the same browser compatibility as Instant SSL - that the two are identical. The only difference being that ChainSSL is cheaper (now currently free until May).
Now by GeoTrust claiming their less expensive certificates were the same as Comodo's Instant SSL - this would lead unaware people to think that because GeoTrust's less expensive options are comparible to Comodo's Instant SSL, that QuickSSL which is GeoTrust's more expensive option must be better than Instant SSL. By introducing lesser certificates in this way, it seems to me GeoTrust was simply trying to undermine Comodo's Instant SSL from rivaling against their QuickSSL.
GeoTrust have claimed that their ChainedSSL is the same as Instant SSL, and they are now offering it for free. In doing so, it seems to me they are trying to say Comodo's Instant SSL isn't worth anything. This gives the impression that QuickSSL, which is GeoTrust's more expensive option, must be better than Comodo's Instant SSL. GeoTrust have therefore effectively undermined competition against QuickSSL from Comodo's Instant SSL, by intentionally misleading the public through their SSL games.
So... I'm interested to hear whether others think my words contain some truth. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed this very smart marketing tactic GeoTrust seem to be pulling. Anyone?
.: K :.
