Symantec To Separate Into Two Companies

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Symantec To Separate Into Two Companies

Posted by samzenpus on Friday October 10, 2014 @12:07AM from the split-up dept.

wiredmikey writes Symantec announced plans on Thursday to split into two separate, publicly traded companies – one focused on security, the other focused on information management. The company's security business generated $4.2 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2014 while its information management business meanwhile hit revenues of $2.5 billion. "As the security and storage industries continue to change at an accelerating pace, Symantec's security and IM businesses each face unique market opportunities and challenges," Symantec CEO Michael A. Brown, who officially took over as CEO last month, said in a statement. Garrett Bekker, senior analyst with 451 Research, called the decision "long overdue." "The company had become too big to manage, and they were having trouble keeping up with the pace of innovation in many areas of security," he told SecurityWeek. "The synergies between storage and security never really emerged, in part because in many firms, particularly large enterprises, they are managed by different internal teams."

86 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

HP, Symantec...getting closer and closer... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-10-10 00:12 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm still waiting for one company to split into Micro and Soft.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
1. Re:HP, Symantec...getting closer and closer... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  Funny, since MS is neither micro nor soft anymore.
2. Re:HP, Symantec...getting closer and closer... by Halo5 · 2014-10-10 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think they should separate into zero companies.
  
  --
  665: The mark on the forehead of Satan's slightly less evil brother, Stan.
3. Re:HP, Symantec...getting closer and closer... by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-10-10 04:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm waiting for Comcast to split into Hades and Gehenna.
4. Re:HP, Symantec...getting closer and closer... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  rather Com-munists and Cast-ro
5. Re:HP, Symantec...getting closer and closer... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  Or Scylla and Charybdis...
Do people even use antivirus anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:13 · Score: 0

By use, I mean purchase, because most casuals I know just use the free subscription that comes with their computer, and once it expires, they just ignore all the warnings that its out of date and just go on with their lives. Or even worse, download a free one that's malware in disguise (lol, had to clean up one of those for a family member last year. Damn was that thing nasty, hiding traces of itself all over the OS).
And I haven't used Windows at home in years, but doesn't Windows Defender (or whatever its called now) basically provide a free anitvirus for Windows 7 and 8? If so, are products from Symantec and McAfee even relevant for home users anymore?
1. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  I would say it would depend on the specifics of that home user(s), but generally yes in my opinion the average casual with win7> with winDef and winFW enabled and at least some level of awareness\use of safe computer use\internet use habits (always the most important piece of the equation) is pretty well covered.
2. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by gl4ss · 2014-10-10 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  are they relevant? well, they are as in the way that getting rid of them is relevant. they're like malware...
  or rather, having malware is less of a slowdown than symanshit scanning every file you access(and despite that failing on the nasty kind of targeted malware)
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
3. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by chuckugly · 2014-10-10 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  By use, I mean purchase ....
  Summary says $4,200,000,000 last year, so I guess that's an answer for you.
4. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-10-10 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's a lot of Windows users unthinkingly renewing the subscription to the first-year-free Norton Slug that came with their computer.
5. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by chuckugly · 2014-10-10 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Research says typical customers stick around longer than that, but believe whatever makes you happy.
6. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-10-10 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure they do, from force of habit, which is why I keep encountering sluggish Windows systems that spring back to life as soon as I exorcise Norton Antivirus and put in Microsoft Security Essentials or Avast.
7. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by chuckugly · 2014-10-10 06:25 · Score: 2
  
  Interesting theory, however Norton in particular is always near the top when it comes to having minimal impact on system performance in actual head to head testing. Again, believe as your anecdotes dictate.
8. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-10-10 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  An anecdote is a tale someone else relates to you. I'm relating experiences.
9. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by chuckugly · 2014-10-10 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  "a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person"
10. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by HornWumpus · 2014-10-10 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  What do I take from that?
  Never again trust whoever did those benchmarks! They likely benchmarked the corporate, network version and used unclear English to make people think it was the awful thing they have.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
11. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by chuckugly · 2014-10-10 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  They are very clear which version (consumer version) and the language and benchmarks are very clear. In the past I also had complaints about the performance of Norton AV, maybe 7-10 years ago it WAS very slow. Those issues were real and those complaints and concerns were addressed, to the point where the current versions are in fact among the highest performers in the market. I say good for them.
12. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by HornWumpus · 2014-10-12 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  I will never know. Some stink just won't wash out.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
13. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by chuckugly · 2014-10-12 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's true that the damage to their reputation from that era has been difficult to overcome, but people who are rational about it are slowing coming back and seeing things as they are; for them the stink washed out. Some customers it's really better to let someone else have anyway.
14. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by HornWumpus · 2014-10-13 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Why would it be 'rational' to go back to a company that has already demonstrated complete disregard for the user? Especially when there are superior free alternatives that have been good and trustworthy for decades? Their business model remains; include their crap on new machines, get suckers to pay for it. If it's slightly less crappy, who cares?
  Seriously. Do you work for them? I can think of no other reason for your position.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
15. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by chuckugly · 2014-10-13 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Why would it be 'rational' to go back to a company that has already demonstrated complete disregard for the user?
  Since when is "responding to customer concerns with an effective fix" complete disregard for customers? It seems exactly the opposite. The product has tested well for protection and top or near top for performance for the better part of a decade now; holding onto some past injury for what (in tech) is essentially a century is not rational.
16. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by HornWumpus · 2014-10-13 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  I was willing to accept your assertion that it's good now. But 'it's been good for ten years'. Bullshit on you!
  How long does it take to 'forgive' a company that distributes almost ransomeware software that requires an OS pave-over to get rid of? Impossible to set in years. 100% management turnover is a prerequisite. Vendors can ether be trusted or they can't, those can't.
  Remember the dual with the third party uninstallers? Norton and McAfee both kept finding new places to hide, kind of like a virus.
  Especially when there are better free alternatives that have a decades long record of trustworthiness. No benchmark will make up the 'track record of trust' difference.
  Face facts, (Norton/Whatever they renamed McAfee to) make their money from people too stupid to remove the crapware that comes preinstalled on their discount PC. When software companies have to pay vendors to put their crap on new PCs, that's a sure mark of quality.
  Not trusting and paying known bastards is rational. Not going to put any Sony factory made disks into any PC anytime soon. Even with the best antivirus and autorun disabled. Once someone is known to 'go there' you can never trust them again. A tiger cannot change it's stripes. Never give scorpions rides.
  Do you work for them?
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
17. Re:Do people even use antivirus anymore? by chuckugly · 2014-10-13 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  I was willing to accept your assertion that it's good now. But 'it's been good for ten years'. Bullshit on you!
  "The better part of a decade" would be anything more than 5 years. I'm sticking to facts here, I'm sorry if they don't line up with your preconceived notions.
The return of.. by Dynamoo · 2014-10-10 00:16 · Score: 2

..Peter Norton Computing?

--
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
1. Re:The return of.. by ikarys · 2014-10-10 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  time for Peter North Computing to make a splash.
2. Re:The return of.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 01:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Because software like Norton Antivirus have sullied it, Peter Norton has changed his name to something less offensive. He's now known as Peter Hitler.
3. Re:The return of.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  I'm hearing rumors that APK Industries is planning to buy the anti-virus unit, in part because of synergies with APK's Hosts files solution, and also so that at least one anti-virus outfit out there will avoid marking the APK background daemon program as malware.
4. Re:The return of.. by unixisc · 2014-10-10 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Veritas?
5. Re:The return of.. by unixisc · 2014-10-10 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I heard that APK would be taking over what used to be Veritas. So that they can seamlessly integrate the VxFS with their Hosts files solutions, and bring the best of both to their customer - HP/UX, which IIRC, is the only user of that file system. As a result, on the Itanic, their Hosts files solutions can flourish
Strange split by lolococo · 2014-10-10 00:27 · Score: 1

I was expecting them to split into 2 mutually beneficial companies: one that produces virii, one that "protects" from them.
1. Re:Strange split by BringsApples · 2014-10-10 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  one that produces virii, one that "protects" from them.
  I thought that they worked hard to create a virus that slipped through their $competitors, but would get caught by $their_own. Isn't that why things work the way they do in the antivirus field? Why else would one antivirus package already detect a virus that all the others don't yet?
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
2. Re:Strange split by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  So one company makes the scanning software and the other produces software to remove the aforementioned virus? Sounds good to me.
3. Re:Strange split by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  The one that removes malware will sell a product to remove Norton AV.
  </shots fired>
Proposed Names? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:33 · Score: 0

Crappy Software Inc. & Insecurity Computer Services
Splitting security and IM? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:42 · Score: 0

Completely splitting security from information management? Sounds appropriate. Symantec's IM has no security, and their security is totally unmanageable.
Synergies never emerge by BenJeremy · 2014-10-10 00:51 · Score: 1

HP is a great example... one division responsible for a tool such as Fortify wants full price (or more) for another's use of the tool, though they'd both benefit. Every company I've worked for typically has one group trying to overcharge another, or even outright backstabbing, which is a real shame, because it only hurts the overall company's bottom line.
That's what you get when you put greedy MBAs in charge, worse when they don't reign in the behavior of their underlings, who are simply emulating their bosses.
1. Re:Synergies never emerge by Rich0 · 2014-10-10 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  When the money transfers cause people to avoid utilization or purchase another product, it can be a real harm to the company (unless it is more than offset by some benefit from using the competing product - though that should REALLY motivate you to fix something).
  On the other hand, as long as it doesn't affect decision-making these sorts of things can have legitimate accounting purposes. At my workplace we realized it would be a lot simpler from an accounting/legal standpoint if we just charged our suppliers fair-value for any materials they need from us, and just have them lump that back into the price they sell the resulting goods back to us at. Legally it documents all the value-adds for tax and customs purposes, and can also make costs more apparent within the company. Of course, we realize all this but we don't actually do it, which means that we have to jump through all kinds of hoops with various governments who want to make sure that taxes and such get paid on real values and not made-up ones.
2. Re:Synergies never emerge by hendrips · 2014-10-10 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Never is an awfully strong word. Just off the top of my head, Apple/Siri, Micron/Elpida, and Lenovo/IBM Thinkpad have all been extremely successful mergers with obvious synergies. But most successful mergers are boring and don't make the news much, whereas we've been hearing about HP's ongoing woes for at least three solid years.
But... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:52 · Score: 0

Will they both put out shit products that are worse than any virus?
This is about stock price, the rest is bullshit by gelfling · 2014-10-10 01:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Two smaller companies don't have to grow revenues as much to meet the EPS thresholds that institutional investors demand. They ONLY other option was to become IBM and that's to simply run around BUYING other companies.
1. Re:This is about stock price, the rest is bullshit by SwashbucklingCowboy · 2014-10-10 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  "They ONLY other option was to become IBM and that's to simply run around BUYING other companies."
  That was Symantec for most of the last ten years.
2. Re:This is about stock price, the rest is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  They could just buy back their stock if they were so worried about EPS.
3. Re:This is about stock price, the rest is bullshit by sexconker · 2014-10-10 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  They could just buy back their stock if they were so worried about EPS.
  Why the fuck would they do that? They know it's overvalued. They want to sell that shit off before the ship sinks.
While you're at it Symantec... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 01:06 · Score: 0

... could you also fix those products you broke after you bought them?
You know, like Backup Exec and PGP?
Well.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 01:07 · Score: 1

It's just a matter of semantics
Splitting = couldn't find a buyer by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 01:20 · Score: 0

Splitting usually means they tried to sell off an unprofitable part of the company but couldn't find a buyer, so they split it off and cut it loose.
A former co-worker of mine works there by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 01:28 · Score: 0

He, myself, & 1 other guy built a large info. system for a midsized company in my area in 2000 that still runs "bulletproof & bugfree" to this very day (which ought to tell folks the quality) & only OCCASIONALLY needs things added (other than patches to runtimes it used) like custom specialized reports for management.
The 2 guys I worked with were as GOOD AS THEY COME (that I've ever seen @ least in a career that by THAT point, spanned 1994-2000 professionally).
The specific gent I'm talking about worked for Odyssey Software (& contracted to the company we all worked for designing + programming their multi-campus via Terminal Server to remote factory locations end system that ran EVERYTHING from shopfloor to contact mgt. to inventory to YOU NAME IT), whom Symantec bought out shortly afterwards.
His name's Scott Davis. Probably one of the MOST knowledgeable guys I've ever met in coding in my entire career.
So, the "bottom-line" here is this:
Since they've got guys of HIS caliber working for them in the information mgt. realm? They've got TOP-NOTCH talent.
(Yes, I feel safe in my estimations there after a professional career in that arena from 1994- present day. They'll do well or continue to do so (or should since they have guys like him working for them in that area of the computer sciences, imo)).
APK
P.S.=> I never knew that Symantec was INTO that area actually, however, NOW knowing what I do about that being part of their "repetoire", & Scott's abilities too (+ the MIS field in general, especially the coding end, professionally for decades + the fact that Scott's TRULY SUPER-PROFICIENT in it & he works for them)? I can't help but feel they'll do well in THAT division... apk
1. Re:A former co-worker of mine works there by gmhowell · 2014-10-10 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Shit, I thought this post was serious, until I saw who signed it.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
2. Re:A former co-worker of mine works there by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 14:42 · Score: 0
  
  gmhowell does your 1 line fart contribute to the topic here? No. Get on topic or grow up troll.
Excuse me... by Torp · 2014-10-10 01:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is Symantec doing anything useful?
I think the last useful version of Norton Utilities was 6.0, which was before the Symantec buyout?
Now they're just marketing fear...

--
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
1. Re:Excuse me... by Opportunist · 2014-10-10 01:54 · Score: 2
  
  They're a great selling point for me. A former boss of mine always said "We don't say anything negative about our competitors. We say 'Symantec software comes in really great looking boxes'".
  We need Symantec in the biz. It's usually easy to sell when you compare your product with something from "industry standard Symantec" and you can easily show how you surpass them.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Excuse me... by just_another_sean · 2014-10-10 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they bought Verisign so if you used their SSL services you were switched to Symantec. And it appears that they still have a lot of market share in that area even though I'm sure a lot of existing Verisign customers screamed Nooooooo!! at the top of their lungs when they heard about the buyout and switched to something else as soon as possible*.
  *He says from experience!
  
  --
  Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
3. Re:Excuse me... by PsychoSlashDot · 2014-10-10 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Is Symantec doing anything useful? I think the last useful version of Norton Utilities was 6.0, which was before the Symantec buyout? Now they're just marketing fear...
  Referencing Norton Utilities is like referencing buggy whips. It was a brilliant product in the DOS era, when it was necessary. It was less and less useful as Windows emerged and obsoleted most of its features. Once the OS contained a defrag utility, NU had less purpose to exist, for example. This is why PC Tools is also not around in anything like its original form.
  
  On the other hand, yes, Symantec does plenty of useful things. For instance, their e-mail content control software and hardware, based on Brightmail is excellent. Also, Backup Exec for small/medium businesses and NetBackup for larger businesses. (Yes, BE2012 was kind of annoying as heck but functional and 2014 has returned the functions 2012 removed.) Also, on the security side of things, Symantec Endpoint Protection (think enterprise antivirus) is actually pretty good. It's highly manageable, has good performance, and an excellent set of features. Don't get me wrong... antivirus simply doesn't work these days against malware, but still... for that product segment it's actually a very good product.
  
  Those are just some examples from my SMB experience. I know they do some very high-end products as well. Sure, the consumer market is kind of bleak, but even then Norton Antivirus is decent. Yes, yes I know it was incredibly crap for about four years a decade ago, which is all anyone can talk about to this day, but now is not then.
  
  --
  "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
4. Re:Excuse me... by Torp · 2014-10-10 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Norton Utilities 6.0 *was* DOS :)
  You're saying their "enterprise products" aren't bloated, useless, fearmongering piles of crap?
  Maybe that's why they're splitting, no one who has experienced the consumer products will believe that.
  
  --
  I apologize for the lack of a signature.
5. Re:Excuse me... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  No, Symantec bought the PKI business unit from Verisign, which also included Thawte and GeoTrust.
6. Re:Excuse me... by PsychoSlashDot · 2014-10-11 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Norton Utilities 6.0 *was* DOS :)
  Do you remember by any chance one of the utilities called NDOS? It was a command.com shell replacement that was massively more powerful. Things like tab filename completion, arrow up/down command history, and a tonne of variables. Technically NDOS was a licensed version of a JPSoft product called 4DOS. Well, 4DOS ended up having an OS/2 version, 4OS2. Then they compiled a native WinNT version, 4NT. That has eventually changed product names to TCC. Which I still use on all the machines I have responsibility for. So... yeah, I get it how influential NU was.
  
  You're saying their "enterprise products" aren't bloated, useless, fearmongering piles of crap?
  Exactly. Don't get me wrong... there have been mis-steps, and like all software each version is a little bigger and slower than the previous, but there is a massive difference in the culture for the enterprise products relative to the consumer products. I can't stand the Norton Internet Security product, which purports to keep you safe from a myriad of different threats but really is a cluster of crap. Not slow crap anymore, but just crap. On the Enterprise side, there are things like Symantec Mail Gateway, which is an appliance/VM image mail management product based on Brightmail, which has a very, very high spam detection rate. Based on a honeypot definition-based system plus heuristics, its detection rate is very high and its false-positive rate is effectively zero. I've got a lot of customers running this and what gets through is rare and sporadic. We're talking customers with anywhere up to 650 users and anywhere as low as 10. It's not perfect, or else there'd be no such thing as spam, but for these customers it's very close, with most weeks seeing 0 bleedthrough. It's got reasonably system requirements, is flexible and configurable, and just works. That's what their enterprise products are mostly like.
  
  Maybe that's why they're splitting, no one who has experienced the consumer products will believe that.
  Yeah, I get that. And indeed, those missteps I've mentioned means that even in the enterprise world many admins don't like their products. But then, you've got the whole Windows vs Unix wars, and admins can't agree on best scripting languages, and, and, and. Coke & Pepsi both exist because half of people "don't like" one of them.
  
  The problem is that the split - as it sounds - isn't consumer vs enterprise. It's security vs information system. Meaning my customers that have antivirus, antispam, and backup products from Symantec will have to be customers of both divisions. Antivirus and antispam (retail and enterprise) being one company, and backup being the other. Yay.
  
  --
  "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
Veritas rewind by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 01:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Call the information management side "Veritas" and apologize to the long time NetBackup customers for the Symantec years. They are lucky that some of us didn't jump ship after NBU was absorbed. Support, community and quality all took a hit.
1. Re:Veritas rewind by DigiShaman · 2014-10-10 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Symantec Backup Exec is SHIT! Use ArcServe or Veeam. Done!
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
split into Micro and Soft. by wiredog · 2014-10-10 01:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

That would have been an excellent idea about 10-15 years ago. Lots of people thought that splitting it into MS Applications (Word, Excel, etc.) and MS OS (Windows, etc.) would have been a great thing all the way around.

--

Best Slashdot Co
Here's hoping this starts a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 01:44 · Score: 0

It would be great to see RSA unshackled from EMC.
1. Re:Here's hoping this starts a trend by Opportunist · 2014-10-10 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  *gasp* What's your next expectation, separation of industry and politics?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Is "general manager" the same as CEO? by haruchai · 2014-10-10 01:46 · Score: 1

John Gannon is supposed to be the new "general manager" of the Info Mgmt business - if he's not the CEO and Brown is still going to be in charge, what's the fucking point?

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
1. Re:Is "general manager" the same as CEO? by SwashbucklingCowboy · 2014-10-10 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  He likely will be the CEO once the split is complete.
2. Re:Is "general manager" the same as CEO? by tomhath · 2014-10-10 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  General manager leads day-to-day operations, CEO leads long term strategy. Often it's the same person, but doesn't have to be.
3. Re:Is "general manager" the same as CEO? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-11 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  John Gannon is supposed to be the new "general manager" of the Info Mgmt business - if he's not the CEO and Brown is still going to be in charge, what's the fucking point?
  Perhaps because one company can't officially have two people with the "CEO" title? As the other commenter pointed out, this is a nice way of saying that he will be CEO of the new company but they can't actually say that yet.
What will the new divisions be like? by Opportunist · 2014-10-10 01:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

One that doesn't know how to make antivirus and one that doesn't have a clue about firewalls?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:What will the new divisions be like? by chuckugly · 2014-10-10 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  One that's really profitable and one that's not.
2. Re:What will the new divisions be like? by Opportunist · 2014-10-10 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  I thought that's what HP did, with one company doing the printers and the other one doing the ink?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:What will the new divisions be like? by chuckugly · 2014-10-10 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  The storage business was too myopic to capitalize on cloud storage/'box' stuff and just plods along making profit margins that would be OK for a grocery chain but that are soso at best for the tech industry. Buying into that biz was a stupid idea, finally it's being undone.
Typical corporate due diligence by rnturn · 2014-10-10 01:53 · Score: 1

``The synergies between storage and security never really emerged, in part because in many firms, particularly large enterprises, they are managed by different internal teams.''

How could this have possibly been a surprise to the people responsible for pulling off the merger? How large and thick the blinders must have been for this to not be recognized until after all the money had been spent during the acquisition and the obligatory layoffs of the redundant took place?

--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
1. Re:Typical corporate due diligence by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  How large and thick the blinders must have been for this to not be recognized until after all the money had been spent during the acquisition and the obligatory layoffs of the redundant took place?
  Don't know, how thick is a multimillion dollar golden parachute?
So basically one company... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 02:23 · Score: 0

...responsible for the majority of their revenue... ...and one not so much
Symantec to bloated even for themselves? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 03:40 · Score: 0

Well, the first step to healing is to realize you have a problem, I guess.
Wow by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2014-10-10 05:08 · Score: 1

I'd forgotten they still exist.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
1. Re:Wow by Hadlock · 2014-10-10 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  They own PGP. Which is a major part of the backbone of their security segment.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
2. Re:Wow by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2014-10-10 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  I had forgotten that too. I use GPG.
  
  --
  Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
3. Re:Wow by vandamme · 2014-10-11 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Me too. I run Linux now.
Taking the 'Windows' out of the 'Office' by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 05:46 · Score: 0

Long time trend
They downsized so much that now their profitable again.. can't have that.. we need a reason to double our overhead, increase staff
It will be good for the Stock Holders, we'll tell them we're giving them Twice as much Stock, Twice as much value, without having to do anything profitable
Sounds like a recent "Derivatives" strategy to me.. Paper Castles.. beware of matches
I thought they were already two companies... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 05:58 · Score: 0

The virus generator company and the virus vaccine company?
Haven't they kept each other relevant for for years?
Spin-off? by ZorglubZ · 2014-10-10 06:02 · Score: 1

What, they're spinning off their malware component from their malware-detector? That could actually result in one usable product...
And What About the Products Clearly In Both... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 07:41 · Score: 0

Symantec Enterprise Vault comes to mind.... it has tons of data that is, um, managed... for, um, compliance.
I think this is just dumb. They actually make sense for them to just focus on improving these products. Information is what needs secured, why would you separate out of all of the data to aggregate it into something that now has a greater needs than ever for security... and then say you need to talk with our other half about that?
Security and Info Mgmt by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 09:35 · Score: 0

Because they have nothing whatsoever to do with each other these days, obviously...
tis the season by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 11:13 · Score: 0

This in fashion now. Mark my words it makes no more or less business sense then mergers. It just gives the upper management something to do and make lots of extra cash one way or the other, insiders always find a way. Managers who take bonuses while making worse products and firing staff right before the company tanks will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Those lawyers got to get paid, they happen to be on the same company payroll as the analysts that suggest this nonsense. Burn through another 30 million in consulting fees. I am sure the two new companies after the signing party will be so much more market effeict to make it up.
When I read the title I thought it would split by mark_reh · 2014-10-11 08:45 · Score: 1

into one division that writes the viruses and another that writes the antivirus.