Why I Trust Symantec Less Now

My Norton Internet Security subscription recently ran out. As in years past, it nagged me repeatedly as the expiration date approached (Only 30 days left, Only 15 days left, etc.). There was, however, a difference from previous years when the subscription actually ran out. Whereas in the past Norton Security would stop updating my virus signatures, etc. and thus stop protecting me from new threats (but continue to operate and protect me against previously known threats), this time the program announced that it was shutting down all of its protection against any threats. Goodbye firewall, goodbye antivirus, goodbye pretty much anything except the opportunity to update the program until I fork over some cash.

In fairness to Symantec, NIS did at least have the decency to turn my Windows firewall back on as it shut itself down so my computer was not left totally defenseless. What possible reason, however, could they have for playing hardball with their customers like this? It's not like someone could be adequately protected very long without updating the program (which I had intended to do anyway). I suppose someone who was going to use their computer for a day more and then go on vacation for a week skate by without updating until they come back, but I really can't see this move providing Symantec with any significant increase in revenue, even in the short term. Maybe some will even decide to turn their computer off, run out and by a competitors product, just to spite them (it was tempting!).

In the long term, I would expect this new policy will not be in Symantec's own best interest. I know I will certainly consider alternatives before buying Symantec's products in the future, and I strongly suspect that I am not the only one.

1/7/2010: I changed the title from "Why I don't Like Symantec" to the more accurate "Why I Trust Symantec Less Now", as that goes more to the heart of the matter.