Are these some sort of fairytales? Where do you think the combined revenue of 7 BN comes from? From the sky? Also, Kaspersky is far from being forgotten, Russia by itself is massive and so are other Russia-supporting countries that have no problem with Kaspersky. All together these 3 generate 10 billion revenue. Not sure how this is “stuff from stories”.
A little off-topic because I wasn't there.
Sorry, but what nonsense? Do you have any reading comprehension skills? I clearly wrote "in my country." And it's banned in other countries as well. But that doesn't mean it's banned worldwide and can now close down the business. The brand is too strong and has a good product to defend itself with.
I won't explain simple things. You clearly don't understand this. The sales figures achieved by large companies mean nothing in terms of product quality.
I don't mean to offend you, but you clearly don't understand why these large corporations are so powerful. You see the numbers, their results, but you don't see where it comes from.
I'll skip over what I wrote – a large company with resources, people, processing capacity, know-how, etc., built the current version of Norton on the engine of a smaller competitor, Avast, which they acquired. They have such resources, and they can't build their own engine?
Symantec (I'll focus on it as an example so as not to mention every AV brand) or whatever they're called now, isn't just about AV. It's a large corporation with many solutions on the market. A corporation is a large company that needs to be managed. And often in such a large corporation, collaboration between multiple departments, even with resources, cash, etc., doesn't always work.
Remember, the USA has half the population of all of Europe. That's a large market in itself. And what do Americans choose? Mainly their own products, perhaps even forced ones. Americans are known for their patriotism.
When Kaspersky was banned, the US pressured governments and institutions in many countries, including mine, to buy their solutions instead of Kaspersky. I'm sure it was similar in other US-allied countries.
Many brands sell today because they've built their brand over years – through marketing. McDonald's and Coca-Cola also earn billions, but the quality of their products is poor. People buy because everyone knows it and "millions of flies can't be wrong."
People, in most cases, don't know anything about a given industry's products, and the average person who goes to a store to buy AV systems buys what they know—Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky, etc. People who don't know anything about a given industry choose not the quality of the product, but the brand, because they recognize the brand. Because a well-known brand is immediately associated with quality. And I'm not surprised at all. A physics professor, for example, doesn't need to know anything about AV systems, because there's no one on earth who knows everything.
In F1, we have Ferrari. A huge company, with many successes throughout history, great achievements. They are large and self-sufficient. They have their own engines, build their own cars, and even have their own wind tunnel.
So what? Where are they now? They've been mismanaging and failing to achieve success for years (the last one was in 2007). And then a team like Red Bull came along, even without its own engine. But smaller, with a creative mindset, a good management team (a much smaller corporation like Ferrari), and under Vettel, they won everything. No patents, no extensive know-how, etc.
You can even see this in real life. Now streaming is all the rage. Netflix has built a brand. So what if every competitor is producing better-quality content these days? Netflix continues to grow because it built a brand, is the only one making money off of it (the rest are struggling), and because it's making money, it spends huge amounts of money on marketing. Practically speaking, if it weren't for the wealthier Apple (which makes money from hardware, not streaming), Netflix would win almost every auction. Because it can afford it.
In 2023, I read that they spend more on advertising than HBO does on producing its shows. And when someone thinks about streaming, they choose Netflix first, despite the fact that its quality is currently a shadow of what it was a few years ago (protesters will probably come calling soon, but that's the way it is – it's the most overrated). Netflix is popping up these days, it's all over the place, and people choose it because "millions of flies can't be wrong."
Also, big can do more, and often the choice is primarily price. Such large corporations, which make a fortune, often use dumping prices because they can afford it, thus excluding competition from their target customer base. And I'm referring to large contracts with large companies.
A few years ago, Samsung faced a lawsuit because in some Asian country (I don't remember which one) it paid people to write negative reviews about HTC phones. There, it captured the market, made billions, and paid peanuts – probably around 500 or 700 million. Today, HTC probably doesn't even exist anymore. Samsung calculated its losses on a potential lawsuit, but it could afford it, because a large company can do more.
Brand and brand again. Norton has built a name for itself worldwide over the years. It hasn't had any major setbacks. Their products aren't the best, but they're far from weak. Their products don't have to be the best, and I don't think they will be. Their products simply sell themselves, thanks to their established brand.
I could write a long story here. I could provide many examples, but why bother? If you ever step outside your bubble, maybe you'll understand.
Thank you for the exchange of views.
End of off-topic.
Core Message:
Key Points:
