back to article Symantec's guzzled the Azure Kool-Aid, tells all its customers: Drink up!

Security software supplier Symantec is moving 105 Norton data centre applications to Microsoft's Azure cloud. The apps include reputation scoring, security telemetry and advanced threat protection. It will bring its e-commerce system to Azure, which it plans to use for some internal IT services including containers, machine …

  1. johnnyblaze

    Sorry, but who the f*ck would be stupid enough to use Symantec products anyway. They are just awful, with terrible support as well. Now it's all going to run on Nadella's cloud too. What a combination!

  2. Mark 110


    "Symantec beaming a significant proportion of its IT to the cloud means that it will no longer need the servers and storage running those apps."

    They still need the servers and storage don't they? They just want someone else to buy them and run them whilst they pay that someone else for doing it. I appreciate your point about cloud adoption probably reducing the diversity of the technology landscape. That's got knock on effects around innovation.

    But saying apps running in the cloud don't need servers, storage and network is a bit silly.

    1. Mark 110

      Re: ??

      Thumbs down for what? That surely wasn't controversial was it. It wasn't like I said "Linux on the desktop - never gonna happen". Blah!! Off out to watch Liverpool beat Maribor 2-3 after a couple of dreadful defensive errors leave us 0-2 down at half time.

    2. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: ??

      Downvoted for not reading this paragraph from the article:

      There will be concomitant increases in server and storage sales to cloud providers, but as they tend to buy components with which to build their own systems, mainstream suppliers will probably not benefit.

      1. Mark 110

        Re: ??

        And I actually acknowledged that in my post when I said "I appreciate your point about cloud adoption probably reducing the diversity of the technology landscape". I didn't articulate it great but . . . regardless of who is buying the servers to host the stuff someone still does.

        I agree that the last thing we want is the only people making hardware being Google, Microsoft and Amazon. Which I pointed to in the quote above. Who is it not reading properly?

        Hmmpf. Time for bed.

  3. Shameless Oracle Flack

    Another one bites the dust...

    Time for the on-premise brigade of infrastructure do-it-yourselfer's to admit defeat, you don't add business value or innovate anymore. It's time to embrace public cloud, it will solve 80% of your workload problems and get you an ally to help on the security front, I tell you how in this blog post:

    1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

      Re: Another one bites the dust...

      Ok, let's deal with the bullet points:-

      >Too large an attack surface and too much territory to defend

      I cannot think of a bigger "attack surface" than the cloud.

      >Lack of realistic training and regular, intense, high-performance testing of defenses

      One of the reasons why there are so many cloud oopsies is because people are not trained in how to handle cloud security. One of the so-called advantages of the cloud is that you can shed a lot of technical staff. These are the people best placed to advise people on how cloud security works.

      >Compartmentalized leadership that doesn't see the big picture or lead from the front

      If you remove technical people from your boardroom mix then you may still have leadership, but you don't have the wheels with which to propel the vehicle forward. You still need the garage with the guy wielding the spanner.

      >No allies, thereby trying to do everything yourself against a more powerful enemy who can cheaply automate their attacks

      I wouldn't regard any cloud provider as an "ally". Because they are trying to maximise their economic returns, this means that low volume communications are frowned upon as they adversely affect the bottom line, so don't expect personalised attention. What I suspect will happen here is that a new breed of consultants will spring up, getting you to pay them for dealing with the administrative headaches you are having, such as liaising with the cloud company because you can't log in to your account, which techies of my generation will gladly dispense with as not being their core competency.

      >Too little weapon's system automation relative to the enemy's ability to automate

      If you want to be a sheep, be a sheep. What is your USP (Unique Selling Point)? "My" USP is that I passionately believe in On-Premises still, and those companies that are sceptical about The Cloud should come and have a chat with "me", at their premises, naturally. (Inverted commas because I am speaking for all of my peers here - a lot of them to be found on ElReg, if I'm not mistaken). Your USP? It is probably along the lines of wishing to stand out from The Cloud... oh, sorry, I meant The Crowd.

      1. leftside

        Re: Another one bites the dust...

        I doubt you'll have many companies talk to you soon. Might want to consider a different business.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Another one bites the dust...

          My business is based on "word of mouth." Potential contracts come to my door, rather than the usual selling that others engage in. The reason being my peculiar skill-set from professional qualifications and degree fields. If you need my services, it's weird; a really weird situation. I like weird.

  4. colinb


    Yeah right, bet they are not paying sticker prices.

    No doubt they would have played AWS/GCS off against Azure and cut a deal.

    1. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Cheaper?

      They also didn't pay sticker prices on their existing servers and probably played Dell and HPE off against each other.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Wrong diagnosis

    I don't think Symantec have shifted their thinking towards public cloud. They have come to realise their own attempt at has failed.

    They saw themselves as a potential player in the service provider space, including from the tin upwards.


    They finally realised that ain't gonna happen!

    Not sure it's the tectonic shift this article suggests.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019