I'm still trying to work out VMWares strategy here.
So I assume they make most of their cash selling stuff like ESX/vSphere Server (Or whatever it is now called). And they really seem to own the space (true MS shops will user Hyper-V and true OS shops Xen, but VMWare seems to be everywhere).
But what's with the aquisitions?
* Springsource - Java application stack
* Zimbra - Email platform
I understand they want to diversify the product line (esp if MS follow through and focus on Hyper-V), but I still don't really see where they are trying to go. A kind of Semi-Private Cloud/P-a-a-s, with email hosting? Anyone seeing what I'm missing?
As I see it, they're trying to develop themselves as an end-to-end solution for the small and medium markets.
Springsource -> low resource java stack that can be bought as an appliance to take on Websphere on their VM, automatically managed (as opposed to manually setting up a linux box each time.)
Zimbra -> an email solution on top of their VM that allows you to expand as you go with configuration on top of their VM stack.
Also, they have a lot of money burning a hole in their pockets, and virtualization will only take them so far for growth...
>true MS shops will user Hyper-V and true OS shops Xen
That is not entirely true. I'm installing a lot of VMWare systems at "true" MS shops, which choose VM for the same reason as MS (market leader, no one ever got fired... etc.) where hyper-V is still perceived as immature product. In MS shops license cost usually is not the decisive factor, and VMware is perceived as the best technology(aksi the most expensive). It is true a lot of those places run Hyper-V as well, but they don't usually host production systems on it.
My take on it is: MS is quite good at making development tools, Exchange, Sharepoint, systems management software etc. (generaly high level stuff) The further they are kept from the hardware the better. Most people employed by MS shops know that intuitively and they welcome the opportunity to buffer MS software from the hardware even if it costs $10k per CPU license.
I've seen a couple of Hyper-V installations, but I'm pretty sure I haven't seen one running linux clients (despite the code MS put into the kernel). I'm sure they exist - but for now Hyper-V is just a pure-MS play (and still behind VMWare at that).
Don't forget - MS really take a few iterations before their products begin to shine. The X360 (barring H/W issues) is a really nice piece of kit, Office took a few versions but by 5/6 was really pretty good. Windows 3.1 was when Windows started to work (although really you could declare that at a major release later 95). And XP SP2 And Vista SP2 (aka Win7) were when the OS really started to shine. Bottom line - Don't count MS out when they really put their mind to something.
It's hard to see VMWare's strategy on this, but here's my guess:
Maybe they've actually got some finance guys looking at their P/E which is in the 70 range. So they're probably using their premium stock price as a good way to pick up some bargains while their core business revenue is slowing down with the rest of the economy (and with tough competition).
In my mind, it makes me think that they worry about (or are at least are hedging against) their core market being eroded by other players. If they did believe it was VM/VDI for the long haul, then they'd be investing in technologies with far better synergies than the ones they're picking. I mean "cloud" technologies pretty much applies to anything these days, so it'd be a stretch to say these are really "good fit" acquisitions.
I have a feeling this could work out okay for VMWare, though it feels more like a business play than a technology one.
10 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 37.8 ms ] threadSo I assume they make most of their cash selling stuff like ESX/vSphere Server (Or whatever it is now called). And they really seem to own the space (true MS shops will user Hyper-V and true OS shops Xen, but VMWare seems to be everywhere).
But what's with the aquisitions? * Springsource - Java application stack * Zimbra - Email platform
I understand they want to diversify the product line (esp if MS follow through and focus on Hyper-V), but I still don't really see where they are trying to go. A kind of Semi-Private Cloud/P-a-a-s, with email hosting? Anyone seeing what I'm missing?
Springsource -> low resource java stack that can be bought as an appliance to take on Websphere on their VM, automatically managed (as opposed to manually setting up a linux box each time.)
Zimbra -> an email solution on top of their VM that allows you to expand as you go with configuration on top of their VM stack.
Also, they have a lot of money burning a hole in their pockets, and virtualization will only take them so far for growth...
That is not entirely true. I'm installing a lot of VMWare systems at "true" MS shops, which choose VM for the same reason as MS (market leader, no one ever got fired... etc.) where hyper-V is still perceived as immature product. In MS shops license cost usually is not the decisive factor, and VMware is perceived as the best technology(aksi the most expensive). It is true a lot of those places run Hyper-V as well, but they don't usually host production systems on it.
My take on it is: MS is quite good at making development tools, Exchange, Sharepoint, systems management software etc. (generaly high level stuff) The further they are kept from the hardware the better. Most people employed by MS shops know that intuitively and they welcome the opportunity to buffer MS software from the hardware even if it costs $10k per CPU license.
I've seen a couple of Hyper-V installations, but I'm pretty sure I haven't seen one running linux clients (despite the code MS put into the kernel). I'm sure they exist - but for now Hyper-V is just a pure-MS play (and still behind VMWare at that).
Don't forget - MS really take a few iterations before their products begin to shine. The X360 (barring H/W issues) is a really nice piece of kit, Office took a few versions but by 5/6 was really pretty good. Windows 3.1 was when Windows started to work (although really you could declare that at a major release later 95). And XP SP2 And Vista SP2 (aka Win7) were when the OS really started to shine. Bottom line - Don't count MS out when they really put their mind to something.
And SharePoint is hardly good software.
Maybe they've actually got some finance guys looking at their P/E which is in the 70 range. So they're probably using their premium stock price as a good way to pick up some bargains while their core business revenue is slowing down with the rest of the economy (and with tough competition).
In my mind, it makes me think that they worry about (or are at least are hedging against) their core market being eroded by other players. If they did believe it was VM/VDI for the long haul, then they'd be investing in technologies with far better synergies than the ones they're picking. I mean "cloud" technologies pretty much applies to anything these days, so it'd be a stretch to say these are really "good fit" acquisitions.
I have a feeling this could work out okay for VMWare, though it feels more like a business play than a technology one.