Talk:AnyDesk

Improving this article
Disclaimer: I work at AnyDesk (developer). How can we improve the article about our software? I think it's very neutral and none of the mentioned issues are justified anymore, but I have no idea what we can do about it. I previously added as many external sources as possible, removed things that bothered me and banned our marketing department from having a say in this. Can someone have another look or give us some tips? N0mfg (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Is it true that the AnyDesk developers used to work on TeamViewer?
 * The Spanish version of this page list the following page as source AnyDesk: Ehemalige TeamViewer-Mitarbeiter starten alternative Remote-Desktop-Software (Archived on Wayback Machine on 2021-01-23)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturotena (talk • contribs) 03:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone has already linked our policies on conflict of interest editing on your user talk page - you should read them, particularly the parts about how you shouldn't be editing this article yourself. Instead, you should be proposing changes on this talk page and leaving it up to independent editors to implement them (or not). - MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying! Yeah I know there is a COI, but all I wan't is fair representation. I'll stick to trivial edits from now on and won't touch anything that was, in my opinion, written by some of our competitor's undisclosed payed editors who fly under everyone's radar. N0mfg (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Is the warning at the top of the article from August 2018 still needed? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Why is the AnyDesk.exe file signed and copyrighted by "Philandro Software GmbH" and not by AnyDesk Software GmbH? Thanks, אנבה (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Misleading lede?
A sizable section of the article deals with the use of AnyDesk in scams, yet it is missing from the lede. Wouldn't a sentence to the effect reflecting this in the lede be in order? Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Now in lede. David notMD (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight
Too much of the article's text is focused on scams and abuses, other remote desktop applications are also used in scams, I've checked other remote desktop articles on Wikipedia, but this is the only one where such a sizeable part of the article is focused on it. Uwsi (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Given the plethora of sources available, the weighting is fine. If there are other articles about software that the press keeps citing for use in scams, those other articles should get additions as well. But just because other articles are missing something doesn't mean cuts should be made on this article. - MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)