Symantec in Search of a New Chief After Firing CEO Steve Bennett

12

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

aaronj2906

Bloat with no product.

I work for fortune-20 company in a medical environment that just dumped Symantec (after several years) for a competitor (and I couldn't be happier). This is in-line with previous experience with the crap-shoot with the Norton name attached.

Having used and supported their products since the mid-1990's, Symantec needs to re-create itself or disappear into the software dustbin of history.

When Peter Norton was involved, the product was/seemed actually good. IMO, then he went away along with quality.

avatar

axiomatic

Symantec,

Dump the bloat. Features are great but if you are doing your job right your products should be almost invisible to the customer to the point that you barely know they are running yet passing all of the current antivirus test patterns at the highest levels.

avatar

Upyourbucket

Hire me Symantec! Set me up with an interview.

avatar

CerealKyll3r

If you look at the statement from Symantec's board they pretty much agree that Steve Benette did everything or almost everything he was hired to do. Even the share holders are bewildered as to why the board terminated Steve. So you have to ask yourself why would a company do that? Well, when you look at Schulman's comments it becomes pretty evident what's up or at least it seems pretty evident to me what's up and that is the board is now looking for someone who can market Symantec to a potential buyer. Sure maybe they just intend to liquidate some product lines which are not profitable enough to fit their 30% non=GAAP profit margin. Yes, of course I could be wrong, but then we come right back to the question at hand which is why do you terminate the one guy who just turned your company around?

avatar

D00dlavy

That's disappointing, given Norton's recommitment to quality / performance while this guy had the helm. They probably wanted an even bigger bean counter. Boys will be boys, corps will be corps.

Given Panda AV, MSSE, Avast!, AVG and Avira, it's probably becoming harder and harder to charge users for an AV product. Given that Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 have taken considerable measures to actually become more secure OSes, perhaps gone are the days where people have to pay to lock their doors.

In many ways, it's painful to see a once prosperous business model shrivel up, but I don't think any consumer, IT specialist, or government agency for that matter will miss paying for virus scanners.

avatar

AFDozerman

I guess the last few years just haven't been nice to tech CEOs named "Steve".

avatar

John Pombrio

I guess Norton is finding out that it is hard to compete with decent free antivirus/malware software and scaring people to buy your software is not the best way to do it.

avatar

Scatter

I'm sure it also doesn't help that Comcast's market share keeps increasing and increasing and that every Comcast subscriber gets a free copy of Norton. Yeah, I'm sure that Comcast pays Symantec for this but I'm also sure that it's nowhere's near what Symantec would get from a retail purchase.

avatar

MrHasselblad

Close, but...

Actually Symantac pays Comcast/NBC for even something as small as the ad space and the endorsement. For every customer that downloads it and/or uses it Comcast gets even more of a fee.

Even if the customer eventually gets rid of Comcast, keeps the computing device, and then later uses Symantac, Comcast still gets money from it.

It works a lot like the rental car industry

avatar

Thiazolium

The reason for his departure has not been revealed as of yet. Shareholders, however, were not happy with the news.

avatar

Bucket_Monster

Malwarebytes is excellent, though it's on demand, not real time scanning. Avast is pretty good, but I'll still take ESET any day of the week over Avast.

avatar

LatiosXT

Malwarebytes does do real-time IP screening if you bought the Pro version. So it'll at least give you a hint that wherever you're going isn't pleasant.