Will VMware still exist in five years?

VMware needs to be aggressive and go after Microsoft. I think it's BS that Microsoft is allowed to push everyone around as it stiffles competition and slows down progress in the software industry. Brian, I believe that Vmware will cease to exist or will become insignificant if they do not aggressively go after Microsoft. They have a great 2-year lead over any other Virtualization vendor and they should use it NOW. VMware should come up with a bold strategy to take a big piece out of Microsoft's OS segment ownership - it is possible - by acquiring or developing on their own some new technology that allows them to wrestle the OS control from Microsoft. I don;t know what it is but there must be something they can do.

If they "just" some up with a better version of ESX - gthats not going to do it. Like Brian said, hypervisor will be a commodity and a year from now ESX just cannot be all that much  better than HyperV. Vmware needs a BOLD AGGRESSIVE MOVE. 

There are companies that Microsoft is scared of - i.e. Google. Vmware can be that too, if their smart and cunning. We don't need another Citrix who sheepishly follows Microsoft's lead. 

VMWare needs to put some effort in marketing ....until now they have been the only good solution but in the future there is competition...even at same level techically.

This is something MS does well...marketing I mean...for some reason they know how to push out products and make it sound like they are the first to do this :)

We need players like VMWare for sure...with good products and things that suits the customers.

Note this comments come from the northern part of Europe called Finland...maybe the marketing is better elsewhere!?!?!?

Patrick 

Even though I haven't had a lot of opportunity to work with ESX (our one server just chugs along),  but I've been reading as much as I can. I think VMware is overpriced, particularly Virtual Center, something has to happen there that's better for SMBs. Nevertheless, VMware's presence and 'first mover' advantage makes a big difference if one is in a situation where one doesn't have a lot of choices of consultants etc. I think VMware will have a role for a long time in that it can run on 'old' x86 hardware, and most of the new virtualization products can't do this, they require 64-bit processors, VT, etc. SMBs with a smaller amount of servers don't have so many management concerns as do bigger companies with more servers.

I think most of these companies have to stop the PR/marketing sniping at each other, too. 

the current trend is to place the hypervisor into the hardware chipset. This is what Intenl and AMD are dreaming about and this is what I've understod from Xen (SimonC) vision of hypervision... Another reason to not place a futur into the software hypervisor...

VMWare have to move one step, they know it and they have started to... What will be the futur : they own the market space, they have money (cash) and additional money available (90% of there shares are still private)... 

What about a Cocal-Cola/Pepsi-Cola world ? (or MacDonald/KFC)... aournd 50/50% worldwide, some local advantage for some of the player... 

Brian,

I think you missed Google both as an example of a company that has been successful vs. Microsoft and also as an example of a company that managed to be successful without being first (there were many search companies before Google). To succeed VMware needs to emulate much of Google's behavior:

1. As you stated currently VMware = virtualization in much the same way that Google = web search. VMware must do all it can to cultivate its brand
2. They need to innovate, innovate, innovate. Never sit still to rest on their laurels. Otherwise you become a sitting duck for Microsoft. And then you become a dead duck
3. If they can't innovate quickly enough then they should buy. VMware should be doing more M&A - they certainly have the cash for it. Don't worry about integration - re-branding should be good enough to begin with (Thinstall is a good example of this)
4. VMware needs to become more of a platform to developers. They are on the right track with stuff like VMsafe but they need to be much more aggressive about it. Developing directly on top of the VMware platforms should be easy and cheap. They should hold developer conferences like Microsoft currently do (this is more of an Adobe strategy than Google)
5. Exploit Microsoft weaknesses, e.g. Microsoft does not have a coherent VDI strategy
6. Don't be afraid to take risks

Well, enough tips for VMware ;-)

Next week ask the same question about Citrix. Why use Citrix if I can have more or less the same from Microsoft?

I think the discussion is not about the hypervisor - that's only a small part of the code (and btw. it's still a long way to virtualize everything in hardware - CPU, RAM, NIC, disk). It's the framework around it, the services, the management tools. See Citrix.

Brian, how much money do you have to bet on this? VMware is a good company - how did they managed to piss you off? Do you have briforum sponsors?

VMware's lack of marketing is pretty baffling. I wish they would let people know what they've got. The word from a lot of IT writers seems to be that virtualization is a commodity -- but people deploying VMware realize this is not the case. Take a few examples:

Xen can't provide anything near the stability or consolidation ratio's that VMware can.

Microsoft can't even do VMotion. 

No one else provides the ability to let your data center do its own resource management like VMware's DRS stuff. 

No one else has the rich set of API's to build on, between the virtual center and CIM API's they offer,  building scripts to allow your to customize your deployment is a breeze.

Being able to buy mature integrated solutions for backup, disaster recovery, and workflow management makes rolling out a complete solution much easier.

VMware does have a better platform than the competition today, but for some reason they don't seem to be educating anyone outside of fortune 1000 IT organizations -- they should let the rest of the world know  this stuff. Perhaps in 3 years Citrix or Microsoft will have a solution that provides comperable value to what VMware offers today -- that doesn't help me when I need to roll out a new deployment next month.

I don't think VMware has a lot to fear, as long as they continue to innovate, and lead the market. It goes without saying that they will lose market share (that's inevitable when you have been the only show in town and then face competition), but if the market keeps growing the way it has been, a smaller piece of a much bigger pie will still result in major growth for them.

As silly as it sounds, Microsoft entering the market could even help VMware, as Microsoft's marketing dollars will raise general awareness around virtualization technology and grow the market. As awareness grows and people start looking at what products are around, most will see that VMware have the better feature-set and more stable, mature offering - not to mention a better consolidation ratio than any of their competitors at the moment. (despite what MS and Citrix have been saying lately, VMware's memory page sharing mechanism is a compelling feature - That's why both MS and Citrix have similar features on their product roadmaps.)

If anyone needs to worry it should be Citrix. Their Presentation Server product has stagnated and their desperate need to jump on the VMware's coat tails has seen them spend a ridiculous amount of money on a sub-par product that is nowhere near enterprise-ready. With the new incarnation of Terminal Services from Microsoft attacking their Presentation Server (sorry - XenApp.....) market and VMware killing them in the virtualiztion space, I can't see many people flocking to the doors of Citrix.

The "system" will not allow it...too much money to made....Oil companies...Detriot.....etc..controlling how and what we buy and drive

 Why is the software/OS business like it is today? M$...good and bad..they made it easy to use and consume...but their business model, software stack is a dinosaur waiting for the comet...just happens M$ can shoot down the comet and any other THING/COMPANY that gets in their way....

dedicated to A Clarke..... still waiting for RAMA...

I'm not a teckie like the rest of you guys but I have worked in the IT industry for long enough to know that there are vendors that play a good game and vendors that talk a good game.

Vmware is in the former camp, Citrix the latter. Vmware's products work, they do what they say they are going to do. Presentation Server is riddled with niggly problems and its years old (that's not my view, that's the view of Brian's mate that's gone to work for Provision Networks). Why on God's green earth would anyone trust their mission critical servers to Citrix's hypervisor when it can't get its core product right?

In addition, Brian tells us how wonderful Citrix XenDesktop is going to be. How does he know, its not even released yet. Citrix Workflow, not released yet. Sure its all going to be wonderful, when it finally gets on the market. WANscaler was going to be the next big thing. But it doesn't accelerate ICA traffic. No, but it will do in its next release. The future's always rosy with Citrix but for now you have to make do with products which don't quite work how you hoped they might.

So, do I recommend a tried and tested technology which doesn't need vast amounts of marketing because its works and word-of-mouth is the best marketing tool or do I go for a solution that needs technology from two vendors with a reputation for overhype (Microsoft and Citrix) and still doesn't get close just because the "strategy" i.e. vapourware sounds better. My customers need something to do the job today not some hazy wishy,washy marketing spiel.

Never mind Microsoft winning this battle in 5 years, at the rate Vmware is being adopted, its going to be over in two.

I am a User Workspace evangelist these days.  Where is the reference to the end user in all of this?  Issues related to performance, reduction in the complexity's of management and maintenance within the network technology stack today?  

As to data, there is a twist in my minds eye this morning.  One of the great advantages of the RES Powerfuse (evangeilizing User Workspace Management) environment is consistent auditing, not only for the administrative work associated with console configuration, but also end user visibility.  From a single console, I can review every event log associated with a user, across every instance of an OS within the network, and every application available from this context.  I see global visibility to all events associated with administrative function as well as the user session.

I reference this as EMC is a leader in Information Life Cycle Management.  I have worked at large financial houses here in U.S. who are required to maintain six months of event logs from all servers in production.  These same organizations have similar requirements for a range of data sets maintained within the network, email should be deleted when it is six years and one day old as an example.  There are synergies to be explored beyond the context of OS instance delivery and access to the network.  The ability to integrate EMC technologies, the enormous SAN backend, coupled with the capacitiy to automate data collection and repository via ILCM is intriguing.  There are big paybacks on the regulatory compliance side, and these paybacks fall into the value proposition.

As to the issue of Citrix Virtualization, there is something to be said for the security component of the Hyper-V.  Look here for an elegant 40 minute conversation on the issue (the interviewer is in a tough spot on this one....which is funny), http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=365911

VDI, given the cost I am just not convinced that VDI trumps SBC.  The additional OS, TSCAL, remote access device, and additional labor to manage that remote access device are big hurdles to overcome when stating value.  I am not convinced that VDI overcomes these hurdles.

I have experience utilizing encrypted workstation OS instances for access to large customer environments in the U.S.  The time to deliver a hardware device to consultants working remotely for the organization is an impediment.  It is not uncommon to spin up a VM on the workstation, install the required software, encrypt the drive, and you are onto the network.

As to Thinstall I am not an expert at this point....:-).

Where is the user?  Where is my single management console for all of this business?  How do we reduce the complexities inherent in the implementation engineering side of the house, to pass the repititive tasks off to lower skilled engineers in the enterprise.  These are all customer service questions I still find unanswered from the virtual side of the house. 

RTE

Do you want to dring something ?

Today, you have the choice. 2 large leader have dived the world. Pespi-Cola and Coca-Cola have quite the same size and fight as equal on the market. Locally, one is better than the other for a lot a valuable reason but WW speaking, there are equal.

They offer the same type of drink light/max/black/sparkling/maid... The good thing is that can's have the same size so I can buy a standard fridge. I can also you any glasses on the market and I can easilly change from Pepsi to Coca... 

You can even change for some local specific if you want a root beer, Dr pepper, Orangina, Guiness...

that's what will the market be. 2 strong leader (VMW and MSFT if they both play well), some specifric player (CTXS, WSOFT, ...) but a full layer of interoprability at the fridges and glasses level ;-) 

Once I said that... Let's have a drink... of red wine for sure ! 

Obviously integration is important - in an ideal world everything will be integrated, in particular products from the same vendor. In reality achieving tight integration can be a very difficult and lengthy process, certainly when bringing in products and teams of developers from the outside. You often have functional overlaps, incompatible approaches and architectures, NIH syndrome, etc.

What I'm saying is that such companies should not suspend M&A until all existing products are properly integrated. Instead, if they see a product that can benefit their portfolio they should go for it, even if they know that it will take a long time to integrate it.

As an example, Microsoft has been able to make very good use of SoftGrid without really integrating it. Let's see if VMware is able to do the same with Thinstall.

I think the biggest barrier is getting support from Hardware vendors like HP/IBM/Dell.  VMWare is acting like the 800 lb gorilla in this space and their Linux Source code is becoming more proprietary while XenServer is based on XenSource which completely open source with thousands of Penguins developing new features for it everyday.  If VMWare opened up their source code to the Linux community it would provide them with more leverage with the big Hardware shops to get their Embedded Hypervisor factory installed.  Right now XenSource is considered to be more of an industry standard @ most large Hardware companies.....