Symantec is on track to make Veritas an operational company by October, a few months ahead of the original plan to split by the December.
Symantec CEO Michael Brown added details about the spinoff Thursday on the company’s earnings call. He talked about upcoming product releases and the reason for returning to the Veritas name.
Brown said revenue from products in the Veritas fold increased five percent year-over-year to $668 million last quarter (overall Symantec revenue declined four percent). NetBackup enterprise backup revenue increased 15 percent, led by NetBackup Appliance revenue growth of 22 percent.
Backup Exec hasn’t received much of a bump since the BE 2014 release last June. Executives did not give details of BE revenue, except to say NetBackup growth offset BE weakness.
Brown also emphasized that Veritas would invest heavily in NetBackup with frequent releases, while making no claims about the BE SMB product.
Brown said Veritas will launch hybrid cloud products over the next year called the Information Map and IT Resiliency Platform.
He said the Information Map will use NetBackup’s catalog and Symantec’s new Information Fabric that maps, classifies and manages data. The goal is to create a global view of all of an organization’s information.
The IT Resiliency Platform, expected over this summer, is application recovery software for business continuity.
Brown said the sales organizations of Symantec and Veritas will operate indecently beginning in May.
When asked why the information company took the name Veritas – the backup and storage software company Symantec acquired 10 years – Brown said the name still resonated in the industry. He pointed out products such as Storage Foundation and Cluster Server kept the Veritas brand for years after the acquisition.
“Veritas remains a powerful brand that still has tremendous equity with our customers, partners and employees,” Brown said.
There was one other reason.
“We also took a look at other names that we could use,” Brown said. “Of course, that would have cost us a lot more to be able to invest in launching another name. … That made it a very simple choice relevant to the additional costs that we would have incurred by trying to launch a new name in the marketplace.”