You are ultra wrong, if google goes bankrupt, the internet ends, the largest number of servers belong to google. These companies do not break, it's like you tell me that the human race is going to be exterminated without any reason. Returning to the subject, the GIANTS companies, never break, simply change their name, and others acquire them.If google or amazon would fall, the internet is not over, not at all. And if so, than it should tell you that there is something realy big wrong there, because the internet belongs to the people, not some company that milks the **** out of it like always on everything in this capitalist world. Anyway, u can think what you want. But its a simple fact that every company can fall, no matter how big the company is. Have a good day.
The U.S does not control 90% of the internet, that is entirely false.If google or Amazon fall, the internet is over, and that will not happen, the same happens with a giant Symantec, what if it can happen is to buy another company and change the name, that is more realistic, than say that a company is going to die because the CEO resigns. Do not forget that the US controls 90% of the internet. If you tell me that a company dies because the CEO is worth it, Amd would not exist.
with what you tell me you give me the reason, Symantec is very big to die, that kind of companies do not die by the resignation of a CEO.The U.S does not control 90% of the internet, that is entirely false.
A company can die once a CEO resigns because the replacement CEO can make mistakes which the original CEO did not make. Furthermore, the replacement CEO might not have years of experience with working with the company as the previous CEO and this can cause valuable employees to resign and move elsewhere, causing drastic problems for a company. I know it might not seem obvious, but getting a good replacement for some really valuable employees can be devastatingly difficult and time is money.
A company can die without a CEO resigning as well.
There is no "a company dies when the CEO resigns" or a "company doesn't die when the CEO resigns" because it's a case-by-case basis and depends on numerous factors.
You might have a CEO who cares about the company and their customers and then you might have a CEO who's only interested in using the customers and then selling the company off to any moron willing to buy it or kill the company after milking the customers off.
It might not be obvious, but Symantec have many important patents... and this makes everything harder for their competitors who have to pay Symantec to bypass those patents (and thus use certain designs for features in their products), pay more money to have something non-infringing built in-house, or do something else to still appeal without having certain things that Symantec have.
Whether Symantec have issues with their products, they get an awful lot of money from the patents.
Symantec is unlikely to die anytime soon.with what you tell me you give me the reason, Symantec is very big to die, that kind of companies do not die by the resignation of a CEO.
Symantec is one of the best av companies in the market, the probability of it dying is very low, regardless of who the owner is.Symantec is unlikely to die anytime soon.
The unlikeliness of Symantec's death has nothing to do with the fact that they own great products but because of the influence they have on the enterprise market and their competitors due to existing patents which won't need renewing any-time soon (and can be renewed as long as their products still exist, actively using the patented concepts).
1. It can be an even more costly for large enterprises using Symantec to migrate to another vendor because they chose Symantec for a reason initially and may have made adjustments to keep it suitable. Time is money and so is employee training, so most enterprises won't want to spend the additional money re-training employees to learn a different provider or making reasonable adjustments to use a different provider.
2. Competitors of Symantec who violate Symantec's patents (and there's bound to be many) will continue paying Symantec a lot of money (likely on a per-product-sale basis, monthly, annually or every-now-and-then fees) to bypass the infringement and prevent themselves from being sued. Furthermore, competitors who refuse to do this have to change infringing components which may make their products unsuitable for many existing Symantec consumers or just not add the same features, also not good for existing Symantec consumers.
However, the patenting part isn't all fun and games because Symantec may be infringing numerous patents of a certain vendor as well. This is what you might call "patent monopoly" where neither can sue one another for an infringement without causing mutual destruction of both companies - this is why you rarely see AOL, Apple, Baidu, DuckDuckGo, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Twitter and IBM suing one another, even though there's bound to be many infringements against one another from all of them on a large scale. Therefore, there are situations where a vendor can get away with it without paying Symantec a dime.
If Symantec is sold to Broadcom and Broadcom do things which people really dislike then sales will go down for new customers and existing customers might start to migrate, but it won't be a quick process. It would happen over a duration span of several years, so Symantec would continue making money for a long time, even if Broadcom take ownership and ruin them.
It isn't just about the owner, it's about the share-holders on the board. They can do a vote and force the CEO to do certain things if the CEO's stance loses the vote otherwise be voted out as CEO and replaced.Symantec is one of the best av companies in the market, the probability of it dying is very low, regardless of who the owner is.
That's not why the company is going to die. Symantec will not die, period, stop scaring customersIt isn't just about the owner, it's about the share-holders on the board. They can do a vote and force the CEO to do certain things if the CEO's stance loses the vote otherwise be voted out as CEO and replaced.
The board can force changes which can help squeeze profits from consumers - irritating them - and the CEO will have to accept it.
He didn't buy it from Peter Norton. He bought it from Seattle Computer Products. He'd initially tried to buy CP/M from Gary Kildall, who founded Digital Research. A guy named Tim Paterson, who worked for SCP, stole the code from Gary Kildall's CP/M, and wrote the knockoff that Gates bought for $50,000 to license it to IBM.Do any of you remember way back when Peter Norton wrote the operating system Bill Gates bought for 40 grand?
Definitely Beav. That dude needs to stop scaring customers..That's not why the company is going to die. Symantec will not die, period, stop scaring customers
Good anecdote. Thanks.He didn't buy it from Peter Norton. He bought it from Seattle Computer Products. He'd initially tried to buy CP/M from Gary Kildall, who founded Digital Research. A guy named Tim Paterson, who worked for SCP, stole the code from Gary Kildall's CP/M, and wrote the knockoff that Gates bought for $50,000 to license it to IBM.
When Kildall found out that this was a knockoff of his software (apparently the debugger still had the name Digital Research, he sued IBM, who offered to pay him something like $150,000 to write the firmware for the BIOS, and then sell the computer without the operating system. Consumers could then choose between CP/M and DOS.
Kildall just knew IBM would never get this scheme off the ground, so he agreed to write the firmware, and take the 150 grand and run. On launch day, he went to see the IBM PC in stores. There was the computer, there was CP/M for $240, and there was DOS for $40. DOS was a blowout sale, and it was game over for Digital Research.
Tom Rolander is my source: The rest of the story: How Bill Gates beat Gary Kildall in OS war, Part 1 | Connected Social MediaGood anecdote. Thanks.