Symantec Launches Anti-Spyware Beta

daria42 writes "Symantec has launched the beta test version of its anti-spyware application, which will be sold from June as part of Norton Internet Security 2005. The company's Norman Kohlberger said the main aim of the new combined product was to make PC security as easy as possible for the end user. 'The computer is not a toy anymore. It has turned into a toaster and microwave -- it has become an integral part of the home environment,' he said. 'We have to reduce the complexity. People do not want privacy software, firewall, antivirus, spyware, adware and blended threats. The average individual is saying I don't want this anymore. Just fix it. What we are doing is reducing the complexity.'"

Comments

Challenge

[mfh]

Here is what I want to know: Why is Symantec forking their projects into Spyware on one side, virus protection on the other, firewall on the other, subscription on the other? Why don't they have these services in one package?

I'll tell you why. They want to make more money off of this. Each and every service that Symantec provides is a de facto necessity to windows users, whether they get the services from Symantec or from some other company.

My challege to a startup out there: Create a complete Windows package that protects users, AND charge very little money for it.

Too late to the game

[PenguinBoyDave]

With all of the Spyware utilities out there, I am surprised that Symmantec would waste their time with this one. They ought to worry about what they are going to do with three backup products now that they own Veritas.

Re:Too late to the game

[michael path]

There still needs to be a major player in the spyware market. Microsoft's Antispyware is the closest we have, but it's hardly more than the Giant product they rebranded.

Names like "Lavasoft" and "Spybot" don't inspire corporate confidence, even if the products are very, very good at what they do.

Symantec makes sense, but I don't like their products. My experience is they create more problems than they solve.

LOL

[Quasar1999]

What we are doing is reducing the complexity.

And what the rest of the industry is doing, is fixing the problem instead. I just love marketing BS... Consumer says fix it, company says we've reduced the complexity, customer still sitting waiting for fix.

Effectiveness?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Just how effective is anti-spyware software made by anti-virus companies, anyway? It seems to me that 'malware' (spyware, adware, etc.) is much more sophisticated than their viral counterparts, especially when they enlist user interaction as part of their process. After all, all a user need do is click on a link, open an attachment, look an an email or a webpage, etc., and they have implicitly given their permission for this malware to do its thing. The only way for software to protect you against such things is to either warn you that what you are doing may be dangerous (most users just click past that anyway) or flat-out stop the user from doing certain things, which reduces utility. It seems to me that any attempt to tackle the malware problem from a viral viewpoint is doomed to fail. Our company recently installed the McAfee anti-spyware add-on to our corporate anti-virus solution. My recommendation: don't waste your money...it's worthless.

I'm sorry, the computer is *NOT* a Toaster!

[ShinSugoi]

It just isn't. Computers are complex things, and it is both logical and more importantly, reasonable to expect people to do a minor amount of work to maintain them, the same way you do a automobile. Surely, any motorist knows how to check his tire pressure, oil, and can replace a flat when necessary. A car is an investment, and people who do not treat one as such do so to their detriment. A computer is no different.

Similarly, anyone using a computer should be able to understand and implement basic security practices and do minor OS and hardware maintenance and repairs. The fundamental problem is that people are just too damn lazy to learn how to do these simple things, and Symantec is capitalizing on that.

Tradeoff

[British]

What would you rather have your Windows box devote most of its resources doing?

1. spyware/malware/adaware
2. Excessive amount of utilities from various vendors to prevent spyware/malware/adaware.

Oh that's how it works! The anti-spyware TSRs take up so much memory there's no room left for teh evil sofwtare to get a foot in!

Re:Missing the point

[WD_40]

They also need to use their brain. A cow-irker of mine was baffled when I said that I don't run any antivirus or antispyware products on my home PC, and I don't have problems with said threats.

They said, "How do you keep from getting infected?"
To which I replied, "I don't use IE, I don't go places I shouldn't and I don't run suspicious programs."

Protection programs are all well and good, but users need to also learn proper usage techniques.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion