Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 89360" data-source="post: 913973">Let&#039;s put it simply, companies normally reinvest certain percentage of annual profit in R&amp;D. Broadcom sees Symantec as nothing more than a cash generator, so the resources they reinvest are kept to the absolute minimum. Even if they did have the biggest market share, this still wouldn&#039;t make any difference, as the money is just spread across various banks and not utilised for an effective core operation. Broadcom and NortonLifeLock have gone so low now, they don&#039;t even publish threat writeups and security reports. All security intelligence that Symantec once used to publish is now wiped away.There might be many reasons why Norton gets fantastic reports, but they are just speculations of mine. It might be that labs collect only executables, where Norton shines, due to a technology it released back in June 2008. Newer, more sophisticated threats require technologies in which Symantec didn&#039;t invest.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 89360, post: 913973"] Let's put it simply, companies normally reinvest certain percentage of annual profit in R&D. Broadcom sees Symantec as nothing more than a cash generator, so the resources they reinvest are kept to the absolute minimum. Even if they did have the biggest market share, this still wouldn't make any difference, as the money is just spread across various banks and not utilised for an effective core operation. Broadcom and NortonLifeLock have gone so low now, they don't even publish threat writeups and security reports. All security intelligence that Symantec once used to publish is now wiped away. There might be many reasons why Norton gets fantastic reports, but they are just speculations of mine. It might be that labs collect only executables, where Norton shines, due to a technology it released back in June 2008. Newer, more sophisticated threats require technologies in which Symantec didn't invest. [/QUOTE]

Verification