... results in the marketplace, but the future of what we will deliver as the networked world continues to evolve.
Traditionally, Symantec has been a consumer-focused company. That has changed with the acquisition of Veritas. Was that in anticipation of more competition on the consumer side of your business?
Not per se. It was all about our desire that dates back to my arrival at Symantec seven years ago to remix our books of business, having it mirror the market. In the world of software, two-thirds to three-quarters of all spending is done by large corporate and government buyers and the remainder is done by consumers and small businesses.
If you are disproportionately weighed to one segment of the market versus the other, you have the opportunity to do very well or very poorly. If you were more evenly distributed, you have an opportunity to handle the ups and downs much better.
Becoming an enterprise-focused company hasn't been easy. Last week, you acknowledged that there is some trouble with customer support for a former Veritas product. Are these just teething problems?
That issue is specific to a brand-new product, one Veritas acquired just before our acquisition of Veritas. It was a small company that built a market-leading product for email archiving. Once we put it into the larger Veritas and Symantec sales force, sales took off. Sales grew faster than our ability to scale up and train up our support organisation. We have had a few issues in some markets. Those will be addressed.
That has nothing to do with bringing Symantec and Veritas together. It is unique and specific to one product area that has had phenomenal success in the marketplace. I'd love to have that problem a few times more, quite frankly.
So you would say that becoming more of an enterprise-focused company hasn't been hard for you?
You don't take a company like Symantec through such a significant transformation without there being some challenges or pains. Seven years ago, we were a $632m, consumer-focused company. Today we're a $5bn, fourth-largest software company in the world, with a very diverse product set with leadership capabilities in all of the segments that we play in. I think that has been a pretty remarkable transformation for this company.
At the Gartner event on Wednesday, Symantec customers were asked if they see synergies between Symantec and Veritas. There was only one. Did that shock you or worry you?
I was quite surprised. Since we closed the transaction in July of 2005, I have spent a considerable amount of time on the road with customers, talking about the Symantec-Veritas merger. While it certainly caught people by surprise in late 2004 and early 2005, as time has gone on, customers have started to say, "Gee I can see the relevance of bringing these things together."
So such a muted response surprised me. We have to execute to be vindicated. I am not concerned about that. I think the strategic intent of our company is spot on with where the markets are going. It may take some people time to catch up with our thinking, but that's OK; we're patient.
Where do you see prices for security products headed?
It is clear that as markets mature, prices weaken. And clearly certain segments of the security market, not all, are starting to mature. We talked two or three quarters ago about weakness in price in our core antivirus business. Interestingly, it would appear that during the most recent quarter, prices there have stabilised.
Now, as Microsoft enters the market, it will be interesting to see what the price dynamics become. Microsoft has a formidable franchise in Windows, and they have a formidable marketing capability. I am sure that they will use both of those in an effective way. As long as they are fair, we believe they can compete and win.
You have talked about playing fair before and that you won't go "whine" to the regulators or sue Microsoft. Is there a certain line that Microsoft should not cross that might change your mind?
We haven't done some magic, game-theory approach that says if Microsoft does this, we're going to do that. We're worried about running our business in the best way we know how to. Obviously we have one eye on the market and another eye on all of the competitors in the market, and Microsoft is one of them.
I'd rather compete with Microsoft's products than with Microsoft's PR. All we have been doing for the last two or three years is competing with their communications machine. Once they get a product in the market, we'll see just how good they are and we are.
Where do you see Symantec and yourself five years from now?
I could envision Symantec being twice the size, a software company that is $10bn in scale, 30,000 employees around the world, 8,000 people in engineering, a large percentage of that staff globally distributed, a sales and marketing engine, and a powerful brand that is recognised as one of the true leaders in the tech industry.
As far as I am concerned, I love what I am doing. I am having a wonderful time. We've got a great team of young executives that work with me, and hopefully we will all still be here together five years from now.
And your flagship products then will be?
I don't think you will see us stray too far from the core roots of protection — protecting the infrastructure, protecting the information, and increasingly protecting the interactions individuals and enterprises have as they operate in the digital world.





Talkback
Right. Best advise given before and given again. Symantec and others are well advised to drop support for Microsoft platforms now and let Microsoft alone worry about the after effects of that and concentrate on Microsoft alternatives from now on. To bring back to memory, several years ago plenty of people warned various third-party vendors that by dropping up front support for anything then a Microsoft platform would make them vulnerable of being set aside a few years down the road. Today it seems that that is starting to become a reality. And, as has been predicted back then, the third-party vendors involved ignore the facts right in front of them once again. They've been used to kill former competitors and now the same faith awaits them. Gee, that no-one thought of that before. Sigh.
Good luck to them but I doubt if it'll make a difference. Following the leader blindly only will leave you with the left over scraps to survive on until the leader finds a new young dog naieve enough to do blindly what he's been told. Thank you for your services while they served us. Now be a good boy and turn over and die. We no longer have any use for you.
The ignorant dog however thinks that he knows best. OK, he made the mistake of using his strength while he should have been using his brains back then. But now the old but still naieve dog thinks that the best action to take is to use its brains rather then it strenght. Sigh and sigh once more. Completely wrong back then and completely wrong now. They've got it all reversed. Time to roll over and die and get it over with. Well deserved I should add. For being such an ignorant fool back then. And being a fool now.
If the MS version doesn't kick me out of a full screen online game just to ask me if I want to run updates, then I'll use it.
Sure I could turn off auto update, or have it download (potentially bad updates) without asking, but neither of those appeal to me.
Having it kick me out of fullscreen (especially memory hogging apps that takek forever to swap out of) just to ask about an update really bugs me. Sit popped up in the back ground and wait for my game to end ffs.
P2P this is true if using Symantech's trash can patch like I did. The Home base machine I have came equipt with 3mo. and an extention of ten months for the asking online price(?) I think it was twenty dollars cheaper than the electronics store I buy my candy from. I almost got arrested by some black lady when trying to return a movie for store credit. Now the only thing I could possibly walk out with would be a multi-user pack of Windows XP Professional or this Norton Enterprise Virus Protection.