I used to use Norton but like many others moved to Microsoft Security Essentials. I was bewildered when I saw Symantec pan the product. You should have used it to nail all your opposition.
There are a few IT gods that stroll around their mountain and occasionally throw thunderbolts down at you mortals. Intel, Microsoft, Google. And they like to issue edicts to you. MSE was an example of one of their favourites. Adapt or die. They provide a product similar to yours for free, backed with their name. A name the user already trusts as they are using windows. To the novice, what is going to seem most compatible and work best with Microsoft Windows? Microsoft Security Essentials or Symantec Norton 360?
You and your cohorts shouldn't have dismissed or rubbished it. It made you all look frightened and unprofessional. You should all have told the world to install it. And then made your products compatible with it.
Why? Because with anti-virus it pays not to be part of the crowd. If every computer has MSE on it, if you write viruses you would have to beat MSE first or find something else to do. You should make MSE a victim of its own success. And then hence irrelevant. If all computers have MSE or Microsoft ship Windows with MSE, they are then the target. If you make a product that is both compatible with and stands alone, you make MSE pointless.
Make the first anti-virus suite to work [u]with[/u] someone else's. Software that adds an extra layer of protection and at the same time push MSE until its irrelevant because all viruses are built to beat it anyway. Of course they gave you two choices. Adapt [u]or[/u] die.