VRSN » Topics » Competition

This excerpt taken from the VRSN 10-K filed Mar 3, 2009.

Competition

 

We compete in the naming services, SSL certificate services, identity and authentication services, enterprise security services, communications services, and messaging and mobile media services markets. We compete with numerous companies in each of these services categories. The overall number of our competitors may increase and the identity and composition of competitors may change over time.

 

Competition in Naming Services:    We face competition in the domain name registry space from other gTLD and ccTLD registries that are competing for the business of entities and individuals that are seeking to establish a Web presence, including registries offering services related to the .info, .org, .mobi, .biz, .pro, .aero, .museum and .coop gTLDs and registries offering services related to ccTLDs. ICANN currently has registry agreements with 14 registries for the operation of 16 gTLDs. In addition, there are over 240 ccTLD registries.

 

We also face competition from service providers that offer outsourced domain name registration, resolutions and other DNS services to organizations that require a reliable and scalable infrastructure. Among the competitors are UltraDNS, NeuLevel and Afilias.

 

In addition, to the extent end-users navigate using search engines as opposed to direct navigation, we may face competition from search engine operators such as Google and Yahoo!.

 

Additional competition to our business may arise from the upcoming introduction of new Internationalized Domain Name TLDs (“IDN TLDs”) and new gTLDs by ICANN. These new domain extensions could become available by the third quarter of 2009 in the form of translations or transliterated versions of the .com and .net TLDs and by the last quarter of 2009 in the form of new gTLDs. We do not yet know the impact, if any, these new domain extensions may have on our business, but the increase of name availability in the marketplace could introduce new choices for end-users as well as create end-user confusion around brand preference, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. While we may apply for one or more of these new domain extensions, there is no certainty that we will ultimately be successful and even if we are successful in obtaining one or more of these new domain extensions, there is no guarantee that such extensions will be any more successful than the domain name extensions obtained by our competitors.

 

Competition in SSL Certificate Services and IAS:    Our SSL Certificate Services and IAS are targeted at the rapidly evolving market for Internet security services, including network security, authentication and validation, which enable secure e-commerce and communications over wireline and wireless IP networks. The market for SSL Certificate Services and IAS is intensely competitive, subject to rapid change and significantly affected by new product and service introductions and other market activities of industry participants.

 

Principal competitors generally fall within one of the following categories: (1) companies such as RSA Security Inc. (“RSA”), a security division of EMC Corporation, and Entrust Technologies, which offer software applications and related digital certificate products that customers operate themselves; (2) companies such as Digital Signature Trust Company (a subsidiary of Identrus) that primarily offer digital certificate and certification

 

12


Table of Contents

 

authority-related services; (3) companies focused on providing a bundled offering of products and services; and (4) companies offering competing SSL certificate and other security services, including domain name registrars. We also experience competition from a number of smaller companies, and we believe that our primary long-term competitors may not yet have entered the market. Furthermore, AOL and Microsoft have introduced software products that enable the issuance and management of digital certificates, and we believe that other companies could introduce similar products.

 

In addition, browser companies that embed our interface technologies or otherwise feature them as a provider of digital certificate products and services in their Web browsers or on their websites could also promote products and services of our competitors or charge us substantial fees for promotions in the future.

 

Competition in Managed Security Services:    Security services and product firms, telecommunications companies, and consulting companies or professional services groups of other companies with Internet expertise are current or potential competitors to our managed security services. These companies include large systems integrators and consulting firms such as Accenture and IBM Global Services, security product companies such as Symantec, and telecommunications providers such as Verizon Business and BT Counterpane.

 

Competition in Communications Services:    The market for communications services is extremely competitive and subject to significant pricing pressure. Competition in this area arises from two primary sources. Incumbent carriers provide competing in-house services in their respective regions. In addition, we face direct competition from national, unregulated companies, including Syniverse Technologies, Telcordia, NeuStar and other carriers such as Southern New England Telephone Diversified Group, a unit of AT&T. Furthermore, customers are increasingly likely to deploy internally developed communications technologies and services which may reduce the demand for technologies and services from third party providers, such as VeriSign, and further increase competitive pricing pressures.

 

Competition in Commerce Services:    Our wireless billing and payment services are also subject to competition from providers such as Comverse, Amdocs, Convergys Corporation and Boston Communications Group. We are also aware of major Internet service providers, software developers and smaller entrepreneurial companies that are or may in the future be focusing significant resources on developing and marketing products and services that may compete directly with ours. Furthermore, customers are increasingly likely to deploy internally-developed communications technologies and services which may reduce the demand for technologies and services from third-party providers such as VeriSign and further increase competitive pricing pressures.

 

Competition in Content Services:    The market for content services is extremely competitive. Competitors include developers of content and entertainment products and services in a variety of domestic and international markets, such as Infospace, Itouch, Arvato mobile, Monstermob, and Motricity. This business also faces competition from mobile network operators such as Cingular, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel Corporation, T-Mobile, Vodafone, O2, Orange, E-Plus and Telefónica, as well as Internet portal operators such as Yahoo!, AOL, T-Online and Google. Additional competitors are handset manufacturers such as Nokia and software providers such as Microsoft and Apple. As the market for wireless data, including information and entertainment data, matures, new categories of competitors, such as mobile phone companies, broadcasters, music publishers, other content providers or others have begun to develop competing products or services.

 

Competition in Real-Time Publishing Services:    We face competition from various smaller companies providing similar services.

 

This excerpt taken from the VRSN 10-K filed Feb 29, 2008.

Competition

 

We compete in markets with our naming services, security services, commerce services, communication services, content services, and managed security services. We compete with numerous companies in each of these services categories. The overall number of our competitors may increase and the identity and composition of competitors may change over time.

 

Several of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories and significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do and therefore may be able to respond more quickly than we can to new or changing opportunities, technologies, standards and customer requirements. Many of these competitors also have broader and more established distribution channels that may be used to deliver competing products or services directly to customers through bundling or other means. If such competitors were to bundle competing products or services for their customers, the demand for our products and services might be substantially reduced and the ability to distribute our products successfully and the utilization of our services would be substantially diminished.

 

New technologies and the expansion of existing technologies may increase competitive pressure. We cannot assure you that competing technologies developed by others or the emergence of new industry standards will not adversely affect our competitive position or render our security services or technologies noncompetitive or obsolete. In addition, our markets are characterized by announcements of collaborative relationships involving our competitors. The existence or announcement of any such relationships could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain customers. As a result of the foregoing and other factors, we may not be able to compete effectively with current or future competitors, and competitive pressures that we face could materially harm our business. See the section titled “The business environment is highly competitive and, if we do not compete effectively, we may suffer price reductions, reduced gross margins and loss of market share” of Item 1A “Risk Factors” for additional details regarding our competition.

 

This excerpt taken from the VRSN 10-K filed Jul 12, 2007.

Competition

 

We compete in markets with our naming services, security services, commerce services, communication services, content services, and managed security services. We compete with numerous companies in each of these services categories. The overall number of our competitors may increase and the identity and composition of competitors may change over time.

 

Several of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories and significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do and therefore may be able to respond more quickly than we can to new or changing opportunities, technologies, standards and customer requirements. Many of these competitors also have broader and more established distribution channels that may be used to deliver competing products or services directly to customers through bundling or other means. If such competitors were to bundle competing products or services for their customers, the demand for our products and services might be substantially reduced and the ability to distribute our products successfully and the utilization of our services would be substantially diminished.

 

New technologies and the expansion of existing technologies may increase competitive pressure. We cannot assure you that competing technologies developed by others or the emergence of new industry standards will not adversely affect our competitive position or render our security services or technologies noncompetitive or obsolete. In addition, our markets are characterized by announcements of collaborative relationships involving our competitors. The existence or announcement of any such relationships could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain customers. As a result of the foregoing and other factors, we may not be able to compete effectively with current or future competitors, and competitive pressures that we face could materially harm our business. See the section titled “The business environment is highly competitive and, if we do not compete effectively, we may suffer price reductions, reduced gross margins and loss of market share” of Item 1A of the “Risk Factors” for additional details regarding our competition.

 

This excerpt taken from the VRSN 10-K filed Mar 13, 2006.

Competition

 

Competition in Security Services.    Our security services are targeted at the rapidly evolving market for Internet security services, including network security, authentication and validation, which enable secure electronic commerce and communications over wireline and wireless IP networks. The market for security services is intensely competitive, subject to rapid change and significantly affected by new product and service introductions and other market activities of industry participants.

 

Principal competitors generally fall within one of the following categories: (1) companies such as RSA Security and Entrust Technologies, which offer software applications and related digital certificate products that customers operate themselves; (2) companies such as GeoTrust and Digital Signature Trust Company (a subsidiary of Identrus) that primarily offer digital certificate and certification authority, or CA, related services; and (3) companies focused on providing a bundled offering of products and services such as CyberTrust. We also experience competition from a number of smaller companies, and we believe that our primary long-term competitors may not yet have entered the market. Furthermore, Netscape and Microsoft have introduced software products that enable the issuance and management of digital certificates, and we believe that other companies could introduce similar products.

 

10


Table of Contents

 

In addition, browser companies that embed our interface technologies or otherwise feature them as a provider of digital certificate products and services in their Web browsers or on their Web sites could also promote our competitors or charge us substantial fees for promotions in the future.

 

Competition in Managed Security Services.    Consulting companies or professional services groups of other companies with Internet expertise are current or potential competitors to our managed security services. These companies include large systems integrators and consulting firms, such as Accenture, IBM Global Services, Getronics and Lucent NetCare. We also compete with security product companies that offer managed security services in addition to other security services, such as Symantec and ISS, as well as a number of providers such as CyberTrust and Counterpane that offer managed security services exclusively. Telecommunications providers, such as MCI that acquired NetSec, provide managed security services and are competitors. In addition, we compete with some companies that have developed products that automate the management of IP addresses and name maps throughout enterprise-wide intranets, and with companies with internally developed systems integration efforts.

 

Competition in Communications Services.    The market for communications services is extremely competitive and subject to significant pricing pressure. Competition in this area arises from two primary sources. Incumbent carriers provide competing in-house services in their respective regions. In addition, we face direct competition from national, unregulated companies, including Syniverse Technologies, Telcordia, NeuStar and other carriers such as Southern New England Telephone Diversified Group, a unit of AT&T. Furthermore, customers are increasingly likely to deploy internally developed communications technologies and services which may reduce the demand for technologies and services from third party providers, such as VeriSign, and further increase competitive pricing pressures.

 

Competition in Commerce Services.    Our wireless billing and payment services also are subject to competition from providers such as Comverse, Amdocs, Convergys Corporation and Boston Communications Group. We are also aware of major Internet service providers, software developers and smaller entrepreneurial companies that are or may in the future be focusing significant resources on developing and marketing products and services that may compete directly with ours. Furthermore, customers are increasingly likely to deploy internally developed communications technologies and services which may reduce the demand for technologies and services from third party providers such as VeriSign and further increase competitive pricing pressures.

 

Competition in Content Services.    The market for content services is extremely competitive. Competitors include developers of content and entertainment products and services in a variety of domestic and international markets, such as Jamdat Mobile, LaNetro Zed, Infospace, Itouch, Wisdom Entertainment, Arvato mobile, Monstermob, Motricity and Buongiorno/Vitaminic. This business also faces competition from mobile network operators, such as Cingular, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, Vodafone, O2, Orange, E-Plus and Telefónica, as well as Internet portal operators, such as Yahoo!, AOL, T-Online and Google. Our inter-carrier messaging services face competition from Mobile 365, Openwave and Comverse. Additional competitors are handset manufacturers, such as Nokia and software providers such as Microsoft and Apple. As the market for wireless data, including information and entertainment data, matures, new categories of competitors, such as mobile phone companies, broadcasters, music publishers, other content providers or others have begun to develop competing products or services.

 

Competition in Registry Services.    There are several registry service providers for new gTLDs that directly compete with the services we provide for the .com and .net gTLDs, as well as with the ccTLDs offered by us. The gTLDs .biz and .info were launched in 2001, the gTLDs .name, .pro, .aero, .museum and .coop were launched in 2002 and 2003, and the gTLD .mobi was launched in 2005. Domain names registrations and other services within these gTLDs are available through ICANN accredited registrars. In addition, we currently face competition from the over 240 ccTLD registry operators who compete directly for the business of entities and individuals that are seeking to establish a Web presence.

 

 

11


Table of Contents

We also face competition from service providers that offer outsourced domain name registration, resolutions and other DNS services to organizations that require a reliable and scalable infrastructure. Among the competitors are UltraDNS, NeuLevel, Affilias, Register.com and Tucows.com.

 

Competition in Intelligent Supply Chain Services.    There are a number of companies that provide intelligent supply chain services. For point-of-sale data, we face competition from IRI and AC Nielsen, as well as smaller software companies. For consulting services, we face competition from traditional consulting firms.

 

Competition in Real-Time Publisher Services.    We face competition from various smaller companies providing similar services.

 

Competition in Digital Brand Management Services.    We face competition from companies providing services similar to some of our Digital Brand Management Services. In the monitoring services, registration and domain name asset management area of our business, our competition comes primarily from ICANN accredited registrars and various smaller companies providing similar services.

 

Several of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories and significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do and therefore may be able to respond more quickly than we can to new or changing opportunities, technologies, standards and customer requirements. Many of these competitors also have broader and more established distribution channels that may be used to deliver competing products or services directly to customers through bundling or other means. If such competitors were to bundle competing products or services for their customers, the demand for our products and services might be substantially reduced and the ability to distribute our products successfully and the utilization of our services would be substantially diminished.

 

New technologies and the expansion of existing technologies may increase competitive pressure. We cannot assure that competing technologies developed by others or the emergence of new industry standards will not adversely affect our competitive position or render our security services or technologies noncompetitive or obsolete. In addition, our markets are characterized by announcements of collaborative relationships involving our competitors. The existence or announcement of any such relationships could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain customers. As a result of the foregoing and other factors, we may not be able to compete effectively with current or future competitors, and competitive pressures that we face could materially harm our business.

 

This excerpt taken from the VRSN 10-K filed Mar 16, 2005.

Competition

 

Competition in Security Services.    Our security services are targeted at the rapidly evolving market for Internet security services, including network security, authentication, validation and secure payment services, which enable secure electronic commerce and communications over wireline and wireless IP networks. The market for security services is intensely competitive, subject to rapid change and significantly affected by new product and service introductions and other market activities of industry participants.

 

Principal competitors generally fall within one of the following categories: (1) companies such as RSA Security and Entrust Technologies, which offer software applications and related digital certificate products that customers operate themselves; (2) companies such as Geo Trust and Digital Signature Trust Company (a subsidiary of Identrus) that primarily offer digital certificate and certification authority, or CA, related services; and (3) companies focused on providing a bundled offering of products and services such as BeTrusted. We also experience competition from a number of smaller companies, and we believe that our primary long-term competitors may not yet have entered the market. Furthermore, Netscape and Microsoft have introduced software products that enable the issuance and management of digital certificates, and we believe that other companies could introduce similar products.

 

In addition, browser companies that embed our interface technologies or otherwise feature them as a provider of digital certificate products and services in their Web browsers or on their Web sites could also promote our competitors or charge us substantial fees for promotions in the future.

 

We face competition in our payment services business from companies such as CyberSource, Authorize.Net (a division of Lightbridge) and First Data Corporation, among others.

 

Competition in Managed Security Services.    Consulting companies or professional services groups of other companies with Internet expertise are current or potential competitors to our managed security services. These companies include large systems integrators and consulting firms, such as Accenture, formerly Andersen Consulting, IBM Global Services and Lucent NetCare. We also compete with security product companies that offer managed security services in addition to other security services, such as Symantec and ISS, as well as a number of providers such as Ubizen and RedSiren that offer managed security services exclusively. Telecommunications providers, such as MCI which recently acquired NetSec, a provider of managed security services, are also potential competitors. In addition, we compete with some companies that have developed products that automate the management of IP addresses and name maps throughout enterprise-wide intranets, and with companies with internally developed systems integration efforts.

 

10


Table of Contents

Competition in Communications Services.    The market for communications services is extremely competitive and subject to significant pricing pressure. Competition in this area arises from two primary sources. Incumbent carriers provide competing services in their regions. In addition, we face direct competition on a nationwide basis from unregulated companies, including Syniverse Technologies and other carriers such as Southern New England Telephone Diversified Group, a unit of SBC Communications. Our wireless billing and payment services also are subject to competition from providers such as Boston Communications Group, Amdocs, and Convergys Corporation. We are also aware of major Internet service providers, software developers and smaller entrepreneurial companies that are or may in the future be focusing significant resources on developing and marketing products and services that may compete directly with ours. Furthermore, customers are increasingly likely to deploy internally developed communications technologies and services which may reduce the demand for technologies and services from third party providers such as VeriSign and further increase competitive pricing pressures.

 

Competition in Mobile Content Services.    The market for mobile content services is extremely competitive. Competitors include developers of content and entertainment products and services in a variety of domestic and international markets, such as Infospace, Itouch, Wisdom Entertainment, Arvato mobile, Monstermob and Buongiorno/Vitaminic. This business also faces competition from mobile network operators such as Cingular, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, Vodafone, O2, Orange, E-Plus and Telefónica, as well as Internet portal operators such as Yahoo!, AOL, T-Online and Google. Additional competitors are handset manufacturers such as Nokia and software providers such as Microsoft. As the market for wireless entertainment and information products matures, mobile phone companies, broadcasters, music publishers, other content providers or others may begin to develop competing products or services.

 

Competition in Registry Services.    There are several registry service providers for new gTLDs that directly compete with the services we provide for the .com and .net gTLDs, as well as with the ccTLDs offered by us. The gTLDs .biz and .info were launched in 2001 and the gTLDs .name, .pro, .aero, .museum and .coop were launched in 2002 and 2003. Domain names registrations and other services within these gTLDs are available through ICANN accredited registrars. In addition, we currently face competition from the over 240 ccTLD registry operators who compete directly for the business of entities and individuals that are seeking to establish a Web presence.

 

We also face competition from service providers that offer outsourced domain name registration, resolutions and other DNS services to organizations that require a reliable and scalable infrastructure. Among the competitors are UltraDNS, NeuLevel, Affilias, Register.com and Tucows.com.

 

Competition in Digital Brand Management Services.    We face competition from companies providing services similar to some of our Digital Brand Management Services. In the monitoring services, registration and domain name asset management area of our business, our competition comes primarily from ICANN accredited registrars and various smaller companies providing similar services.

 

Several of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories and significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do and therefore may be able to respond more quickly than we can to new or changing opportunities, technologies, standards and customer requirements. Many of these competitors also have broader and more established distribution channels that may be used to deliver competing products or services directly to customers through bundling or other means. If such competitors were to bundle competing products or services for their customers, the demand for our products and services might be substantially reduced and the ability to distribute our products successfully and the utilization of our services would be substantially diminished. New technologies and the expansion of existing technologies may increase the competitive pressure.

 

New technologies and the expansion of existing technologies may increase competitive pressure. We cannot assure that competing technologies developed by others or the emergence of new industry standards will not

 

11


Table of Contents

adversely affect our competitive position or render our security services or technologies noncompetitive or obsolete. In addition, our markets are characterized by announcements of collaborative relationships involving our competitors. The existence or announcement of any such relationships could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain customers. As a result of the foregoing and other factors, we may not be able to compete effectively with current or future competitors, and competitive pressures that we face could materially harm our business.

 

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki