Sorry, folks. Any of you expecting a definitive answer to the question I posed yesterday about the significance of Symantec's forecast for security and storage software sales yesterday is going to be disappointed.
The answers I've managed to find to the question-Is it Symantec's fault or the economy's?-are split pretty much even Steven, and in the end, downright confusing. (Then again, that's Wall Street for you.)
Both Bloomberg and Investors Business Daily noted that Symantec competitor McAfee is gaining share, suggesting that Symantec itself is to blame for the expected revenue shortfall in the current quarter, which could amount to 5% less than the company expected earlier.
That would support our own Jay Rajani's view that the company's software isn't all that great. Jay simply thinks the stuff has too many holes in it. Others think whatever gain it provides in security isn't worth the loss of capacity. As I saw a commentator say (more or less) on another tech site, "Their software is so slow you might as well not have a 'puter."
Then again, Pacific Crest analyst Rob Owens told IBD that security software sales in general are down and he attributes that to the recession. Nor does he see many "green shoots" here. As he put it, "I think it's a function of the macro environment," said Owens. "Most infrastructure software companies aren't seeing a lot of growth right now."
And as my colleague John Goff, a former technology editor for CFO Magazine, pointed out to me yesterday, security is one of the first things to go in a recession.
As for McAfee's gains, Owens says it's drawn share mostly from smaller players, not Symantec.
Still, he also observed to IBD, "security has remained a relative priority in terms of IT spending. The big guys are benefiting more. You're seeing vendor consolidation." Huh?
Meanwhile, Standard & Poor's analyst Jim Yin expects enterprise software spending to fall 5% this year, but for Symantec to fare better than most software firms that sell to businesses.
Like, I said up top, the picture here is hardly clear.
