AppDetective

The "beginning of the end" for Citrix XenApp based desktops, prayers for layers, and can VMware "judo flip" Citrix Flexcast?

appdetective — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:12:00 GMT

This blog post is from AppDetective. He originally sent it to us two weeks ago, but since it's taken us a while to post, he also submitted a few new paragraphs at the end. --Brian

There's been lots of news and good discussion last week on layers and user virtualization, both topics that I've previously discussed here and here. I've been reading the various posts and blogs and it got me thinking about what this means for RDS and XenApp in the context of desktop virtualization?

The RingCube acquisition is the first nail in the coffin for XenApp published desktops. It's clear to me as I look at the world through my lens that "desktop in the data center" is the lead message for everything Citrix does. (Ignoring the online and networking business). But when it comes to desktop, the current message is all about desktop as opposed to "apps" and "access" as it's been in the past.

XenClient is still a toy and will not have broad application any time soon. This desktop-led message has been a great marketing exercise for both Citrix and VMware, who are both selling a promise of a better desktop. However, who's really deployed anything? As we know, in this industry (outside of some who have gone 1-1 VDI and brute forced deployments) most people step back to XenApp based desktops and a mixed physical environment. Nobody can claim that mainstream adoption is happening.

How has Citrix reacted to this? Their first step was to sell XenApp trade-up licenses which has worked very well. But listening to the analyst calls every quarter it became clear that the questions started to get harder about what represents XenDesktop sales vs. cannibalization of the core XenApp business etc.

In reaction to this, Citrix provided some more fluffy information on VDI breakdown vs. broader Flexcast (the mix of all the Citrix desktop offerings) sales under the desktop umbrella. This gives the impression of growth, growth, growth of the desktop business. Cannibalization of the standalone XenApp business can be explained away due to growth in the desktop business, which includes XenApp, and this makes sense.

This has been a great story to date. Customers are being given great deals on trading up XenApp licenses and opportunities created for resellers to go back into customers who may be sitting on expired licenses. XenApp has been the killer feature in the broader XenDesktop suite that is letting Citrix beat VMware with their "VDI only" message. This strategy has certainly sold lots of licenses, but money is also made by renewing maintenance and to do that customers must start to implement.

You can only trade up so much before people see through the smoke and mirrors and realize they have lots of licenses that are not deployed and therefore will not renew maintenance contracts. This is also why I suspect Citrix is starting to talk a lot about desktop transformation at Synergy and seems to be continuing the thread at Synergy Barcelona, as evidenced by the online agenda. As people start to implement they will also start to realize all the limitations of XenApp as less flexible versus a 1-1 PC.

So, a more flexible desktop must be created. Can you do that with XenApp? Sure, but not with layers today or anytime soon. This means the only option to make a better XenApp is "user virtualization".

But instead Citrix seems to have chosen to focus on VDI and to acquire a simple layer technology in RingCube. By "simple," I explicitly mean less capable than Unidesk. I believe this represents a fundamental shift in strategy. Flexcast is too complex in reality for many. I find it ironic that Citrix CEO Mark Templeton said in his Synergy keynote that "complexity is optional" and in reality Flexcast is just a bag of unconnected technologies that exemplify complexity.

That may be changing, however. The acquisition of Kaviza for low end VDI-only solutions will certainly appeal to many, and could even become a better 1-1 model for large enterprise in the future. Citrix has XenClient, Kaviza, and enterprise XenDesktop and XenApp. RingCube, from what I understand, could work across all of those models, except XenApp due to the multi user nature of RDS. Having a simple layer that goes across these different architectures could help unlock a lot more adoption and simplify the consumption of these different models. However there will be much resistance to get to this supposedly simpler world with XenApp published desktops still an easy choice for the vast majority.

So how can Citrix fix this?

You can start with a layer to abstract applications and personalization. Both Harry Labana and Ron Oglesby are right when they talk about departmental installed apps and personalization in a layer respectively. That layering, if it doesn’t work on XenApp, will start to get traction and resources redirected to the VDI only model. Assuming it works and keeps improving, why bother back-porting it to XenApp to slow down progress? Why not just go faster and make it better so it's very close to XenApp in terms of price/performance? That doesn’t mean kill XenApp--just refocus XenApp to become an application-only story or even better perhaps evolve XenApp to deliver new application types as a future cloud app delivery platform as Microsoft continues to make RDS better. (I guess this is why Citrix invested in Gizmox and also created their startup accelerator fund to explore new opportunities.)

After thinking about this for while, I started to factor in the latest organizational changes at Citrix that I've heard from various people which suggest that big changes are taking place. I saw an organizational chart of the new California-centered Citrix and it is worrying. The fired previous GM of XenDesktop has been replaced by some HP dude with a storage background, and the leadership for the whole desktop and cloud space is all in Califorina under, amazingly, the previous guy who ran the desktop business (who let's just say in IMO has done little to move things for those of us trying to deal with the realities of desktop implementation.)

The only good news in the new organization is that there will be a new CTO role reporting directly to Templeton. That will hopefully make things better over time, however, I see no impact for some time. Couple that with my views on XenDeskop product management, and that nobody who understands XenApp or the desktop in charge, and it's worrying. At the very least the organization is now in place that does not care about XenApp and all the pieces are in place to go full force ahead with enabling VDI.

But will this strategy work?

I believe it will certainly reduce the need for XenApp published desktops. Kaviza or XenDesktop enterprise with a single layer would be a good fit for a simple organization, so it's not all bad news if we get some focused effort. However the RingCube layering technology has holes that Ron Obelgsy certainly is keen to point out. But, using Ron's guidance we would end up with multiple layers, even per app! I'm not convinced it's going to reduce OpEx complexity, solve application compatibility, be simple to deal with storage in the datacenter, or scale. I also think it will confuse many people who use System Center and/or App-V, and it expects customers to trust that their vendors will support their applications in a layer.

This is way too much for the average customer to chew off and represents too much disruption to adopt especially when the Windows 7 migration deadline in 2014 is fast approaching. Even for the complex enterprise its a huge bet to make. I only need a few apps not to work in layers, or to not tolerate layer conflicts to totally break my model. It's a bit like application virtualization, which for most will be in addition to electronic systems distribution (ESD)--not a replacement--since App-V does not work for all apps.

Layers will make this problem even worse if you create too many of them. So with respect to layers, I do think Citrix did the smarter thing by taking the simpler, less risky approach. The other thing I don't like about the layers solutions is that they don't solve user management use cases. Sure, they can offer some personalization and profiles, but that's not the full story that is sometimes implied and more often confused based on my various readings. Sure you can customize a desktop with a layer and put things in there, but it has nothing to do with management of the user layer. They are as, Brian articulated really well last week, two very different spaces. Both are needed to truly build the layer cake. Its a lot more than profiles, stupid! :-)

So if too many layers is confusing, VDI only (i.e. no XenApp) will not be ready for the masses before the Windows 7 migration window runs out. Why is Citrix betting on a technology that does not strengthen their Flexcast message? I've been scratching my head over this one. I have two theories. The first one is that RingCube was a fire sale, although that’s impossible for me to be certain of since Citrix did not disclose the price they paid. I have heard through the rumor mill that it was around $50M-$60M, so that’s pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things.

Let's face it, what was RingCube going to do? They have been de-emphasizing their virtual workspace client hypervisor alternative for a while. I doubt Citrix will continue with that to avoid confusion of the XenClient message, but perhaps this is exactly what they will offer in addition to an app/personalization layer to compete against Type 2 solutions while claiming that XenClient (insert marketing term to describe RingCube based desktop) now runs on any desktop that can run a Type 2. This would also ease the transition to Type 1 since the management model would be the same. I would love to see Citrix do this. My second theory is as I suggested above. A shift in strategy with a new organization focused on VDI only that will evolve XenApp back to apps over the coming years. In other words Citrix wants you to deploy VDI only for your desktops in the datacenter.

Where does that leave us? A solution that is not really going to help us much in time to complete our Windows 7 migration. It's VDI only, does not deal with multiple layers, and lacks a management model to deal with all the complexity. So what is the value? The more I think about it, I think departmental installed apps is exactly what it is targeted for. A simple solution designed to help more people migrate to the VDI only model and a way to deal with groups of apps. This will leave those who bought into the Flexcast message and on XenApp based desktops hanging.

The message, I predict, will be very simple. If you are an SMB player and don't understand RDS/XenApp and just want VDI for the sake of it (or just want to implement VDI without having to change your management model), use Kaviza. If you want to start down the path of a simpler management model, use the RingCube layer to start to group departmental apps so you can manage the base image separately and have the option of some personalization within your existing distributed management paradigm. If you really want to implement Flexcast with XenApp and offer user based management then trust us long term, use UPM for now (of course they won't explain that it's profiles only) or go speak to our eco system partners. This I guess also achieves the goal of keeping their eco system alive, which is less risky than trying to say Citrix can do it all.

What do the remaining layering vendors do?

This presents an interesting dilemma for the remaining layers vendors. Unidesk in particular are in trouble, IMO. They represent changing everything to their way...storage, management, apps etc. They don't really play nice with anybody. A brave strategy. I am not trying to attack Unidesk or Ron, it's just my opinion. They are good, smart people, and I like what they are attempting to do. However, VMware may conclude that if RingCube got bought cheap, Unidesk has nowhere to go, so they’d be a good technology to pick up with smart people and a better counter-feature tick box in XenDesktop comparisons. They have the option to strip Unidesk down to make it simpler like RingCube if they need to compete on simplicity.

There is also a play here to try to scale Unidesk. RingCube won't be able to scale as well as Unidesk because they don't have all the storage smarts that Unidesk does (although if Citrix does tricks in XenServer to counter this it would be no surprise). VMware could also try to solve all the application compatibility problems, integrate ThinApp, and try to go head to head with Systems Center. Would VMware really want to do this? I'm not sure they would because this would mean keeping customers in a Windows world (and clearly that is not what they are trying to do).

Another option is go pick up somebody like Moka 5, who would be really cheap from what I hear. This would not be for the Type 2 client ypervisor solution, although they could use that to disrupt XenClient and complement VMware Workstation with a better management model. It would be more for the layering technology that Moka 5 has. It would also be a blow to Quest, who I guess have been picking away at the View market with their improving solution and Jon Rolls leading their partnership with Moka 5. Wanova may be another one, but they’re a pure management play that has nothing to do with the hypervisor. I believe Wanova suffers from many of the same problems as Unidesk in that it’s their way or the highway (AKA too much to bite off for the average customer).

After thinking about this for sometime, I came to the conclusion that a better layer solution is not going to mean much for VMware. I then turned my attention to considering what would happen If instead VMware decided to take out somebody like an AppSense. Plenty of large XenDesktop customers use AppSense for VDI. VMware is never going to get into an account trying to win the protocol battle, so why not change the desktop conversation more to what the core of their business sells and is trying to achieve.

VMware is becoming a management and security company as far as I am concerned. Imagine if VMware could claim they are the best management layer for Citrix Flexcast :-) That could really hurt the price value of XenDesktop and legitimize VMware in the desktop stack in the accounts that are leading the move to VDI.

What's even better is that AppSense already has a layers technology that they haven't brought to market. That could become a competitor to RingCube, assuming it is any good. VMware could own the user management stack which is used today in many large accounts and move into layers, instead of the other way round, which would give them something to differentiate them from Citrix. Management of the user could also lead to models that move beyond Windows use cases, and with policies could really complement project Horizon.

All of this could be applied to both physical and virtual environments and could help capture mind share in the enterprise and help the move to non-Windows-based apps. VMware marketing talks about modernizing the desktop, and this could be a way to get there starting with today's desktop. As Brian Madden says, moving from the Big D desktop to the small d desktop.

Thinking about it some more, it would be a disaster for Citrix, who would then have no choice but to take out RES who's technology is not used by anybody at scale that I know. I could go on to express what I think of RES, but I will reluctantly restrain and not go off on a tangent rant :-( .

Objectively, since RES has next to zero presence in the large accounts due to inferior capabilities, the strategy of reacting and taking out RES would not really help Citrix much and they would be left holding the bag with a weak offering in layers and user virtualization. Personally I would like this because I could then use that as leverage to negogiate a cheaper renewal with Citrix, Microsoft and also avoid getting too locked into the Citrix XenDesktop stack. I like how today I VMware for the hypervisor, Citrix for the protocol, and different management tools. Management is a gap for me moving forward, and I am unlikely to write advanced user based management tools myself. I’d rather integrate parts of them instead of deal with the entire thing. Actually, I'd like to see the layers and user virtualization vendors enable APIs that let me write to their technology so I capture what's important to me, as opposed to having to buy into their whole stack (which is a much bigger leap of faith and barrier to adoption since I also worry about becoming locked into them).

In Brian’s post, Doug Dooley from Cisco commented:

"I'm also cheering for VMware to make some similarly aggressive and innovative moves to take us beyond this boring, corporate Wintel homogenous PC-world most of us live in. Let us get to a world where the "P" comes back to the "PC" at work and the "any device" vision of apps, data, and a rich collaborative experience is real for the common person."

I find it interesting that Doug is giving hell to VMware so he can fight a Windows only world, all while Cisco and Citrix are becoming buddies... VMware has a chance to screw up this partnership, a partnership that does not help them. So I think Doug's challenge should be taken seriously by VMware.

If VMware does nothing and still pretends that a delayed RTO profile-only solution (Persona) is even worth a discussion at VMworld then shame on them. Every customer should get off View, give up on VDI or migrate to a competitor if that happens. If VMware chooses a more robust multiple layers solution, is there a future that supports their strategy? Maybe, and its still better than doing nothing. If VMware leap frogs Citrix with user virtualization, it gets access to enterprise accounts in new ways and creates price leverage for customers today while disrupting the Citrix/Cisco relationship (and I am sure many others).

Despite this, I don't think VMware has the will or mindset to do much, so I think they will play it safe. Everybody I talk to says they are arrogant, not just me and my experience. They think they know best when in reality they don't understand the desktop. Fighting the protocol war just shows how weak the end user computing strategy is and they clearly need a new strategy. The question must be asked, has VMware given up on their desktop strategy and are they trying to make a graceful exit?

There are opportunities for them to compete head to head with Citrix in new ways today (which they are trying to do with Horizon) or even to Judo flip Citrix's own message because Citrix is focused on VDI-only moving forward, led by weak leadership who are talking about PC 3 when they can't even get PC 1 right. As customers we need VMware to compete and keep Citrix honest. It would be a huge loss not having a strong competitor to Citrix. We will continue with poor execution, lots of vision, and snail pace innovation from Citrix. So come on VMware, act and do something quickly before it is too late, or tell us now to get out for the customers sake.

Update August 26

So two weeks later do I feel much different? Not much. VMware has let leak View 5 documents and it’s clear that they are still only at the basic profile integration stage. Ok XenClient 2 is out with the annoucement of XenDesktop 5.5 and it’s good to see it progressing from toy to the next stage with better management something Citrix could have done 2-3 years ago if they had the balls to buy Moka 5 instead of snail paced management iterations as we now have to yawn about for several more years. The HDX improvements are welcome and further underlines why I don’t think VMWare can win that argument for a long long time.

What has transpired though is a reaffirmation of my believe that the big eco system vendors are taking the simple is good enough for layers as posted by Ken Bell of Citrix here. It also confirms to me that layers are focused on apps at least to start with. I also saw the Liquidware labs announcement today regarding FlexApp. I also saw the Liquidware Labs FlexApp announcement. As I read this article by Bridget Botelho which is also linked to on the Liquidware Labs home page its apparent that this is her opinion not a formal VMware endorsement that says this is their answer to RingCube. However the approach is once again a simple layer approach as opposed to what Unidesk offer. Watching some of the Tweets flying about, it's clear Ron from Unidesk is keen to point out that layers are not that easy and a lot is involved. Outside of the technical arguments, I believe this is also a battle of minds that is emerging. A simple layer for the right use case or a comprehensive new way to manage the desktop with layers for VDI? The Appsense take on layers via Harry Labana is also interesting and for me two key points stick out-ignoring the RES barb which I enjoyed finally seeing somebody other than me finally standing up to them and exposing them for what they really are :-). Appsense is clearly indicating their intention to have a layers component to their feature set and I think the question about will the apps work is the right one to consider.

This is a key question to consider if you want go down the layers path. Microsoft is silent on the matter. Perhaps because app layers would negate the need for App-V in many cases and reduce it to an isolation or on demand app style use case only. That all depends who you want to bet with. Microsoft who own the operating system or some layers technology that you hope will get enough traction that the vendor eco system will support. I think its pretty clear by now what my position is on layers, a niche technology for some use cases that will take years if ever to mature that is VDI only so only goes so far. Unless I hear a direct endorsement from Microsoft I remain skeptical about its chances as they always want to control the base platform execution environment. Perhaps that's where Citrix is best positioned to influences Microsoft, time will tell. Going back to Liquidware Labs, I am not sure if they can succeed either. They are hiring more Sales people and they claim to do everything, assessment, profiles, layering really? How good can they really be and is this just more marketing from a small vendor that really has no future? Even in the assessment space it's interesting to observer that Lakeside has now formed a partnership with Appsense. So will be interesting to see how Liquidware Labs will try to compete. If all they do is put price pressure on Appsense etc by offering a low end alternative then I am fine with that. VMware is next week, so let's see firstly if I can get published this time and secondly if VMware will make any statement about how to respond to RingCube.

I maintain responding with just another feature is a weak position, what they need to do is take it to the next level and I don't believe they can win with complex layers even if layers is part of their strategy. Looking forward to hearing the news as I take some time off.

Will layers matter in time to change the desktop management landscape?

appdetective — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:01:00 GMT

This post started as a comment on Brian's article titled "MokaFive plans to release 'Layering' as its own product. Nice!" but I think this topic is important enough to warrant a blog post with it's own commentary.

First, I want to say that it is refreshing to see from Brian's post and the ensuing comments that there is a good understanding that Layering and User Virtualization are different focus areas with some overlap. Both are required to enable the layer cake. It's amazing to me based on my interactions and friends' interactions how poorly both VMware and Citrix understand the problem within their product teams (minus a few exceptions). For the most part the product teams that I have interacted with have no clue what's involved in real-world desktop implementations and are led by clueless executives who just pander to customers with generic statements and do nothing.

Case-in-point: we've been talking about the layer cake, stateless desktop, etc. for years, and the leaders in the desktop virtualization have done nothing to enable it except present PowerPoints and marketing statements. I think it's fair to generalize and say that, in effect, neither provides anything in the layering area. Sure they will argue back and say their respective app virtualization solutions are a part of the layer cake. True, but it's really a coward vendor answer avoiding the meat of the problem that needs to be solved. Citrix will then probably go on to argue that they also have that junk lowest common denominator solution that they licensed (or whatever) from Sepago.

VMware is even worse and does nothing for users thanks to RTO. Interesting question here. Is it because RTO sucks or is it because VMware would not agree to a sweet heart deal with Symantec as a condition of the acquisition of RTO? To refresh your memories, Symantec used to distribute RTO as their profile solution. I've heard different theories here, curious if anybody knows the truth. The party line I've heard is that RTO sucks and they found out when they tried it on Windows 7.

I personally smell a rat here. I've never been a fan of RTO, but surely it can't have been that bad? Regardless, it's a huge gap for VMware. Also, I don't see anything in their latest earnings report that show any signs that their desktop revenues are relevant. That means they will not invest in the desktop, which is bad for the industry since it will make Citrix even stronger and slower to innovate than they already are.

As a result, the world will continue to implement desktop virtualization in one of two ways. The first is 1:1 desktops for the VDI model which is expensive and complex. This will however get better over time with greater core density, storage technology, etc... It won't be mainstream for years, though (if not ever). The other alternative is RDS based solutions like XenApp/Quest. These have their own set of limitations as we all know and love :-) If anybody is actually implementing pooled VDI desktops successfully as opposed to RDS I'd love to hear why you do and are willing to spend so much extra money for it.

So where does that leave us? Desktop Virtualization is a niche and will remain that way. The only way to take desktop virtualization mainstream is to enable the layer cake. Microsoft will tell us to make the desktop cheaper with Application virtualization and Systems center, but that is only part of the problem. Application virtualization does not work 100%, is not a standard, and therefore only gets us part of the way there. Systems Center is too big and complex for many people and over priced as a result. That's why I guess MS will use InTune to address simpler use cases.

I'm confident they will screw up both of them because they will approach both from a distributed computing mindset. The whole layering/user virt thing requires a different mindset involving central management and single images. App virtualization is the closet thing MS has, but even that has no pull within MS or developers. What about ecosystem support? How many vendors support or ship their application as an App-V package? Very few. That may change in the future, but the point I am trying to make is that all this has a very long lead time and there is a lot of uncertainly.

The question on my mind is, will layering ever work? We know from history that App-V will never become a platform since it's been around for 10 years and still 100% of apps don't work. The strategy from MS is to make money with it from MDOP and SA in the desktop world as opposed to making it an operating system feature. It may become a migration tool for legacy to Azure, too. With that in mind, what chance does layering have, and does that fit into the MS view of the world? Is System Center ever going to offer layers (since that is Microsoft's only management tool)? I doubt it. Certainly we will see very little of it in Windows 8 based on the leaks I have seen, and who really cares about Windows 9 this decade? By then will layers matter if the world is starting to move beyond Windows (I'll call it "classic" meaning today's model) to cloud something?

It feels to me that the problems will be different. Access to applications, data, settings, etc... (layers as we think about them today) will be relegated to classic Windows only without really addressing the future. So my theory is that layers, while needed, will take years to get right will need to be provided as a FREE feature of View/XenDesktop/vWorkspace etc. Even if that happens, the management requirements will be new and lots of change will happen. Desktop virtualization vendors will have to ask themselves if they now desktop management vendors. I can see VMware saying "Sure, that's part of vSphere. Look how valuable we are." I can see Citrix/Quest saying that the godfather in Redmond will never allow that, and asking themselves "how can we remain Microsoft's favorite pet by SLOWLY adding value on top of System Center only (or shall we go find a new master)?"

The bottom line is that I have very low confidence that layers will matter. By the time they do, the world will need to solve a new set of more compelling problems. That doesn't mean that people like Unidesk, Moka 5, Wanova, and Ringcube won't keep trying anyway. They should still do just fine, too, as there is real value in solving problems for market segments. As for layers changing the way the world does systems management, though, I'm not holding my breath. Our only hope is that the traditional systems management vendors decided to move into the space and give MS a kick in the balls. Until then, my opinion is that layering is just good blogging material (at least for the most part).

One company that I think has the ability to do the kicking is MokaFive. Those who follow my posts know I have been a huge fan of their management and security policy on client hypervisors for a long time. While I still think they have a good product for that use case, I also think NxTop is catching them fast. With regards to layers, I worry that they are moving away from their core focus. They are small company with limited resources. While I understand their strategy of trying to increase revenue with a broader appeal I am skeptical of their chances of success without more support like they received from Quest. I'm not trying to be negative--just pragmatic. I hope they don't lose focus. I would really like to see Moka 5 become a management layer for Type 1. They have solved a lot of the complex enterprise use cases which is why I tweeted that I think here is an opportunity for Quest to add value to XenClient.

I also see the layers camp dividing. Looking at the upcoming Citrix Synergy solutions expo list, it's interesting to note that both Moka 5 and Unidesk are missing from the list. Clearly Moka 5 is now in the Quest camp, and from all the various marketing I have seen it seems that Unidesk is mostly trying to play in the VMware camp. Ringcube has been included in the Simplify Desktop Transformation with Citrix Ready Partners section in addition to having their own booth. Wanova also has a booth. So will one of these players end up in the Citrix camp? Another unrelated observation is the lack of Quest at the expo, while VMware and Virtual Bridges are there. I wonder what reason those not attending will acknowledge :-) In my opinion, the whole ecosystem is up in the air. Alliances appear to be forming, and with all the uncertainty I outlined above I am not about to mortgage my management strategy on anybody.

So what is one supposed to do? I've been thinking about this lately. I firmly believe we have to move beyond a distributed Windows world to a single image management model at all layers, OS, Apps and User. The OS can be dealt with via desktop virtualization in many cases with a single image. Layering would be useful to patch just the golden image and much less risky in terms of breaking stuff. I can deal with that use case for layering. Apps can, for the most part, be virtualized. The ones that I can't I'd rather bake into the golden image and avoid trying to manage all the layer complexity, not to mention potentially avoiding app compatibility due to layer merging issue.

Even if I got this to work for many apps, I'd just need one app to break the model, have to move it into the base image, and once again have to ask myself whether or not it's all worth it. I'll also repeat my concern about getting support for my apps especially from third parties. I can barely get these folks to talk to about App-V, have spent years getting them to support XenApp, and I don't really want to start a conversation about supporting layers unless there is a compelling value.

That leads me to the user. It seems to me that the more time I spend trying to manage my user environment, the better it is for all my desktops and the better my chance to move to desktop virtualization where and when it makes sense. This also helps me reduce the number of images I need due to personalization needs. The more I understand about my users environment, the greater my chances of moving to future models of Windows. As the world becomes less Windows classic centric, new areas of user virtualization opportunity will open up for my solutions to evolve into. Where will the layers people go? Will they be relevant?

Conclusion?

Lot's to think about, not sure I have reached a firm conclusion. My current view is that we have to have better/new desktop management beyond the current status quo. I see layers as hugely speculative with no major vendor commitment and a limited useful life of the solution. Therefore I plan to spend most of my time thinking about user virtualization and how to best combine it with some aspect of layering that helps manage just the base operating image. I'll also have to just deal with App-V more as Microsoft is pushing in that direction, and get my operational costs down to justify the expense.

I will also stay away from Systems Center for as long as possible, and I'll put more pressure on the desktop vendors to offer some layers golden image update capability in their base product to eliminate Systems Center. Until then, I'll stick to very basic App-V management or instead use ThinApp and run as many apps as I can from a network share. I think if I can do those things I have the highest probability of implementation success. The layer cake is needed, but the question is "where to start?" I think virtualize apps, user virtualization, and a single desktop image is the least risky strategy. If that's the case, will layers as touted by Moka 5, Unidesk, etc... matter beyond a niche?

Why "reverse seamless" is not as cool as Brian thinks it is

appdetective — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:00:00 GMT

There has been a lot of discussion around Reverse Seamless and its value over the years. Recently RES Software announced a standalone version for $15 per user, which Brian wrote about on SearchVirtualDesktop.com calling it "super cool as a stand alone feature for $15 per user." Well I disagree. It's not a super cool feature at $15. It's an extremely expensive feature that carries a security risk.

I was recently discussing the feature with one of my few security friends. He just gave me a puzzled look and asked, "Are you really going to trust all the URL redirection, launching random apps, and potential remote interaction with your data center from a small third party sitting on top of yet another third party protocol?" He went on to educate me that I would have a very hard time passing an internal security review. He would require a lot of evidence that RES has a supported secure solution with whichever protocol they sit on top of. He went further and talked about existing vendor clients that have security holes despite the expensive efforts that are put into things like penetration testing. So adding something that is quite invasive on top represents a lot of trust that one has to place in two external parties interacting in the right way.

Nothing like a security guy to kill progress :-)

I argued, "Yeah that's all fine, but risk is assumed with any third party that we have on top or under a Microsoft operating system such as VMware ESX and Citrix XenDesktop/XenApp. This is even riskier with the smaller vendors." He agreed that this true and these are assumed risks and we have to patch those, ugh! He still felt that messing around with remote interaction and arbitrary application launches represented a greater risk, and when it came to security patches for things like Citrix Receiver he remained concerned about how well the various companies would cooperate. He felt it would be less risky if they were just trying to make existing features that are secure from the core vendor better. The example he cited was people doing things to RDP that leverage the core protocol.

I'd never really thought about it form this angle before, but I guess he has a point even though I could argue whatever and go for a risk exemption if the business need is greater. I would not however be willing to do that due to the $15 price. I see this as another virtual channel in the protocol stack. Imagine if I had to pay $15 for every virtual channel inside HDX or RDP! Also, I'd probably only want to use this for a subset of my population at certain times and have great difficulty in predicting who and when. This like many other software purchases likely ends up in buying more licenses than needed.

I tried playing around with the math to see what RES are thinking. At $15 they would need to sell 67,000 licenses to only make a million dollars. The reality is they will have to discount in many cases to let's say $10 which makes it 100,000 licenses for a million bucks. Would I even pay $10? No way, I look at the spend of the entire desktop software stack and this to me would be worth perhaps $0.15 at best compared to the value and use of the all the other crap I have to run. So what does that do the market opportunity of this standalone feature…..?

It doesn't just stop at security and price. Integration into other advanced protocol features such as Aero, etc. is not something RES will be able to do easily, especially if there's next-to-zero revenue for this feature. These are core features that the protocol vendors will build over time. Hence Reverse Seamless must be a native, integrated, secure feature of the base protocol that continues to evolve. It's a requirement to address many desktop virtualization use cases and hence the price is FREE. There is no standalone sustainable business here.

I am not trying to knock RES for having the foresight for filing a patent in this space and will even congratulate them on their innovation. I do not however understand why they think they can make any money out of this. This is a FREE feature to address a desktop virtualization requirement. If RES was smart, why not get paid by the larger players so they can hurry up and make this technology available to the masses so we can all have the feature to help us with implementation. License the darn thing and stop wasting time with this $15 per user nonsense. Until then as far as I am concerned RES is just playing patent troll and holding our industry back and hence I suggest they are boycotted.

Does user virtualization matter? Goldman's $70m investment in AppSense says it might.

appdetective — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 05:00:00 GMT

As most people know by now, AppSense received a $70m investment from Goldman Sachs. I was surprised as anyone as to why Goldman would make such a substantial investment in the user virtualization space.

We've had Windows mandatory profiles, roaming profiles, and folder redirection for years. But no matter what Microsoft claims, all of us practitioners know these are very limiting. So you'd think everyone would be falling all over themselves to implement a third-party solution such as Appsense, triCerat, Scense, etc. While many people do use these add-ons, I still don't consider them as a requirement in the stack. Why? Read on...

I always assume most people cite "cost" as the reason, but I'm skeptical that's the real reason if you look into it. I think the real reason is that most people are still in highly homogeneous unmanaged environments. Most people still allow dumb things (like admin rights on PCs) and then hope that user-installed apps will be a miracle cure (which it will never be). I'll bet those same people just use local profiles and clear them when they become corrupt. I bet their users don't roam and they work at classic organizations where people are tethered to a single desk. I bet the "rebuild the PC/profile" mindset is the SLA at these organizations... and all that craziness is just the profile part! If you look at other areas, I'll bet things like login scripts, group policy management, application management, etc. are a mess and not very well managed. (And this is made worse over time as more people enter and leave the organization.)

So for all these poorly-managed organizations, the next unfortunate thing they assume is, "I need to bring my management costs down, so I'm going to virtuale all my apps because that's what Microsoft says I need to do and it's what so many people blog about." :-) So they start down this path and realize application virtualization is not perfect (and they freak out when they learn they need MDOP just to get App-V). Others go for ThinApp until they realize there's no management and it's not a silver bullet either. So then they think surely this "user installed apps" thing they've been reading about is the real silver bullet and they start looking at some of the startups in this space (only to find out they don't necessarily scale, perform, avoid application compatibility issues, or work across platforms).

Then, these same people think, "Ok, desktop virtualization must be the answer since the vendors are telling me it's cheaper." Or perhaps they read some other website which has rivetingly informative articles that tell you exactly what the vendors want you to hear. After reading all that crap the desktop teams still don't understand that VMware lied about SBC and still don't have a clue about how VDI is different, and Citrix keeps saying Receiver will support tablets in outer space if you want so that's pretty cool... Then they read Brian Madden's blog and think, "Wow there are smart people here," and they see a debate on SBC vs. VDI and think they're the same thing because some commentators said so and they just go back to their day jobs thinking, "I should keep trusting these people to inform me of basic tenants that I MUST understand. "

Once they finally understand what "hosted desktop virtualization" means, they realize a few things. First, to get the cost savings with VDI, they need to implement a single image model (once they swallow the licensing cost pill). Of course when they try it they realize it doesn't work well today outside of a few silos. They then wake up and say "Ah-ha! Now I understand why SBC is not VDI and can achieve the savings over a PC." Then they sign up with Citrix or Quest (if they don't understand or care that RDP sucks and Microsoft is using RemoteFX to lock you into Hyper-V despite your investing in ESX) and go down that path only to realize that even with SBC there are limitations. (For example, personalization is limited, and they have to manage RDS, desktops, and laptops.) Then they realize it makes sense to probably support multiple models for different users due to the economics of the various models. In their minds this is even more complexity that they have no time or budget to deal with. So what do they do? They just stay exactly as they are, implement some application virtualization, and migrate status quo to Windows 7. Microsoft has accomplished their mission of keeping Windows on the endpoint for another OS refresh while they try to figure out WTF is cloud going to mean beyond a huge advertising campaign that says it's more than virtualization.

Despite all of this, many people will become successful with desktop virtualization. They'll implement SBC in a highly managed form with next to zero personalization and achieve costs savings for many use cases. Others will implement 1-to-1 VDI using exactly the same management processes and tools as today, touting benefits of centralization, agility and flexibility with some cost increases justified by new capabilities such as Windows apps on tablets. Most of these people will end up with a mix of SBC and VDI -- both managed differently -- and two sets of application validation test platforms. Add laptops / client hypervsiors to the mix and there's yet another environment to manage. All this will keep desktop virtualization to only a few percent of all enterprise desktops which is in-line with the various expert reports I've seen.

Can you believe it? Only a few percentage points of total desktops! Why are we spending so much time talking about this space if it's not relevant to the majority of the desktop community? This is why I was scratching my head at the Goldman Sachs investment. Then it dawned on me after some digging... Appsense is arguing that user virtualization is about all users being managed. That applies to physical desktops as well. They offer more than profiles and can go cross platform. They even seem to be trying to help the App-V team. I tweeted Ruben Spruijt to ask Microsoft about their latest vie. So if you can get your users under management then you can abstract all that complexity away and leverage it across platforms when you see fit. To get the cost benefits of VDI or SBC or any other single image desktop virtualization solution, you must have a managed desktop. So why not start with the user as opposed to the application? Better still, do both at the same time. Just getting to a better managed desktop state will reduce cost. So my guess is Goldman looked at this and said the VDI market by itself is $2B over the next few years. If we invest in something that can appeal far more broadly to desktops then what the heck is that worth? $70M is probably just a drop in the bucket. Imagine if Microsoft made something like this part of MDOP and took away cost concerns despite my assertions above and made any Windows desktops or application cheaper to manage. Wouldn't that be a great goal for them and win for customer? What if VMware picked up Appsense and made it part of VSphere? How powerful would it make them as opposed to messing around with layering startups? What if Citrix added this to their portfolio to make it easier for people to use all their desktop models? What about Cisco UCS having this as part of their base solution to help drive down costs, or even somebody like a BMC adding this to their portfolio? This stuff works now, and layering technologies may never work. This to me must be the logic behind the investment.

I may or may not be right with my assumptions, however whether you love or hate Appsense or any other personalization vendor, to adopt a greater variety of desktop models with a shift to a better managed desktop is a must to get the TCO down for all desktop models. Part of that has to be user management. I'd love to know what the community thinks? (And vendors are free to comment as well.)

A message from AppDetective to Mark Templeton: Can we count on Citrix to be enterprise class?

appdetective — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:51:00 GMT

Before jumping to the conclusion this is one of my standard knee-jerk rants full of bad language and poor grammar, it's not meant to be. Although I don't expect the CEO of Citrix to know anything about my alias or to read this, I do feel this is an important topic of concern and hope at least some people will understand the spirit of what I am trying to say.

Several years ago, Brian Madden asked the question Can Citrix become a thought leader again? How did Citrix respond? Well today Citrix has a vibrant blog with all levels of the organization contributing, the Access message has significantly evolved, and there have been many positive efforts engaging with customers. Additionally Citrix has ramped up their talent with some great additions in all areas who regularly reach out to the community. So for that I say thank you and well done.

So what is the concern?

Desktop virtualization is here. VMware View is not relevant to enterprise customers for desktop virtualization for many reasons that I'm not going to dig into today blog but clearly Citrix knows this. As a result many of us are trying to implement desktop virtualization today using the Citrix stack, even when it's on top of an ESX hypervisor. As that happens, Citix is becoming more strategic to organizations, and that means Citrx has to continue it's evolution and become an enterprise class provider. To do that several areas need to be addressed:

Quality
Product leadership
TCO & other items

Quality

If Citrix releases a product, as a customer I need to be able to trust the quality of what I'm getting. Sadly that has not been the case with XenDesktop. I've sat back and watched under the premise that the product was new and that rapid innovation was occurring, so therefore problems would occur. However we're now at XenDesktop 4.x and still basic quality issues are rampant in the product. The XenApp product is better, granted it's more mature, but even there it needs to be much better. If you don't believe me, go and look at all the XenDesktop client connectivity, a.k.a. "VDA problems" that have plagued the product for so long. It's clear that Citrix does a sub-par job of testing their XenDesktop product. As a result I (and I'm sure many others) have gotten lots of black eyes with from my user base due to Citrix quality. It feels like Citrix expects their customers to be their testers, and ultimately it results in very slow production deployments of the Citrix infrastructure which ultimately means one can't take advantage of new features quickly. (And is it reasonable to charge maintenance for a product I can't deploy until many months of basic bug resolution that should have been caught by Citrix in the first place?) Of course this is just one example. I could also mention the basic lack of information on how the whole Citrix stack integrates between all the various moving parts: which versions work with which, what's been tested, etc.

Frankly I have to question the competence of the product and engineering teams that develop XenDesktop. Of course there are bugs, but the efforts to date have been rather amateur, despite great response from support teams after the fact. If Citrix wants to drive broader adoption of their stack, then this level of quality can't continue. As a contrast, when I get a product form VMware, I have a much higher level of confidence that it will work and I will be able to deploy it into production faster.

Product leadership

While Citrix has done a great job of opening up in the last few years with blogs and community efforts, current XenDesktop product leadership is bringing back a lot of the old Citrix mindset that we didn't like back. (e.g. Very closed and false certitude that their way is best.) That is how Microsoft behaves, but in this critical time in the evolution and growth of Citrix, the Citrix leadership can't afford to be this way as they need to win customer trust. Interactions specifically with the XenDesktop product leadership have mostly resulted in nothing but canned answers and excuses and very little constructive two-way dialogue that results in action. (Although the recent the addition of the delegated administration feature provides a ray of hope.)

The quality discussions have been there from the beginning, but there are fundamental things that are totally ignored which are important to those of us implementing, not some figment of the imagination of some manager who knows nothing about the desktop and fantasizes about mass market needs that may never happen. It is we, the early customers who have put our faith in Citrix, taken big risks in implementation every day, and suffered black eyes due to lack of quality, and yet Citrix product teams tell us again and again that certain things are just not needed, despite the obvious need to those of us who understand the desktop.

A good example is Reverse Seamless which has been talked about for years. Every conversation with the XenDesktop team has resulted in excuses. Why can't Citrix give a clear answer on this? Are they ever going to do it? It's needed by many of us. Sure there's a commercial version of this feature now from RES Software, but this is irrelevant as I'm not going to pay for something that needs to be a native feature of XenDesktop.

Here's another example where there is still no direction from Citrix and just excuses from the XenDesktop team: HDX Connect. In the comments section Shawn Bass highlights key use cases for implementation in the real world: (For the record I haven't asked to or corresponded with Shawn while writing this blog article.)

"There's another use case that wasn't covered here. That of the IT person who's responsible for supporting/troubleshooting XenDesktop. Today, when there's issues with broker registration, firewall rules, etc. there isn't a way to confirm the basic ICA Client -> ICA Host connectivity is working without incident. This is because the ICA/CGP ports are not opened until after the broker tells the VDA to do so. This makes troubleshooting ICA/CGP connectivity almost impossible. If this was opened up, one could just fire up an ICA client, type in a machine name and boom you're in. Combine this with the use cases of:

Immediate DR ability without having to assign a bunch of machine names to people (I know there's pools, but if the app set doesn't match then this is still a problem)
Being able to have a single user use multiple XenDesktop systems without having to create multiple desktop groups.

And there's probably other use cases I'm not thinking of right now. But the biggest one for me is enabling troubleshooting and firewall traversal."

A key point Shawn makes is about a way to just connect without a broker and no management for troubleshooting purposes. It's an enterprise need. Due to all the quality issues with the broker as well, it's even more important. Please tell us, why have the XenDesktop team completely dodged the issue with HDX Connect? Where is it? What is the direction? Why is it so hard, since we all know you can give it to people given the work done with IBM and Kaviza who can use HDX in their stack.

I'll end this section by simply saying that this kind of ignorance can't continue. The current XenDesktop leadership has done little to gain trust. I have little faith in them driving pragmatic customer needs moving forward. Bring back the more open Citrix who listens. Please have product leaders who "get" the desktop, not the puppets put forward today that ignore customers who are currently implementing by talking about broader market fantasy that may never come true.

TCO & other items

I'm also tired of hearing about VMware Project Horizon delusion and futures that are many years away and a total lack of focus on the real world of the next three years. TCO is still a big issue for broad desktop virtualization. VDI costs more that PCs although it offers other benefits that may make it worth it to drive business needs as in my case. XenApp is the cheapest model, which is good, but I'm also tired of hearing debates of VDI vs. RDS/XenApp. So here are some suggestions:

VDI/XenApp hosted desktops can be made cheaper with better personalization. Brian has a good blog on this. The bottom line is "how to move people beyond persistent desktops?" is a piece of the puzzle that needs to be solved. The current product capabilities are not there, and should be evolved to help both models. Citrix's own CTO Harry Labana articulated the problem quiet well here, so where are the results?
Storage for the VDI model is too expensive. Local cheap commodity storage is the future, and another good Brian blog here. Citrix should take a leadership position here and help guide the market. Ignore all the fools who invest in SAN for the desktop to store stateless system files.
XenApp. It's unclear to the world what the future of XenApp is for the published desktop model, (which is still the lowest cost deployment model for many). XenApp 6 is pretty good, but it's x64 only. What about 32-bit desktops? Will there be innovation in both models?
Citrix should help fix the problems with App-V (there are many), assuming Microsoft will let them. If Microsoft wants to continue to not innovate with App-V I would strongly encourage Citrix to innovate in application virtualization, just as VMware is doing with ThinApp and their IE6 solution (which again many of us need to run locally in our environments).
Integration. If Citrix truly believes that VDI and XenDesktop will be part of the future, then they need to demonstrate that commitment by bringing the products together. Citrix marketing talks about a Flexcast model of multiple desktops which is fine. But the reality is it's several products bundled together to tell a bigger story. That's also fine, but we need to see a simpler infrastructure in the future that brings this stuff together.This will result in a very powerful product. Quest vWorkspace has some of this today, although you will have to configure all their integrated solutions which adds back to the complexity.)
XenClient. Great! It's released! But it's slow, the user experience with multiple VMs needs lots of innovation, and there is a weak management story. As I've written on the comments on this blog many times, MokaFive still has the best enterprise management story for client hypervisor use cases. Then there's that Apple thing also, so having a rich-managed Type 2 solution for Macs to start with would be an awesome addition to the Citrix story. The bottom line here is that Type 1 will be slow to evolve, and offline Apple use cases are a problem today. What can Citrix do to help?

A critical time in the history of Citrix

Desktop virtualization and its evolution are very important for those us already on this path who have invested a lot of skin in the game. There is a huge opportunity ahead for Citrix. VMware is faltering all the way, and doesn't understand the desktop. Citrix has made great progress, has some great assets and some great people that have have positioned them well. But to adopt desktop virtualization, Citrix needs to be a trusted critical part of a customer's enterprise infrastructure. It needs to be enterprise class.

Therefore product leadership that is able to deliver quality products on time, build features that aid real implementation, listen and build trust by not ignoring obvious requests as opposed to arrogant "I know better answers" will be key to ongoing success. Citrix is not Microsoft and therefore can't afford to behave like them. Citrix requires leadership who get it. (Granted there are some who do get it at Citrix.) I've alway enjoyed listening to Mark Templeton whom I think has great vision and comes across very sincerely. I am sure Mark and team will (as usual) paint a compelling vision at Synergy next week which I will follow. However given my experiences over the last few years with XenDesktop, I'm wondering how much I can count on the execution and leadership charted with delivering enterprise class desktop virtualization? No matter how good a vision is painted at Synergy, unless I can trust Citrix to deliver reliably in the enterprise today, that vision will quickly become delusion.

Why Windows Embedded 7 (WES7) should be part of SA, and how to force the issue with Microsoft

appdetective — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:00:00 GMT

Last week there was a blog post and interesting discussion on the use cases for Windows Embedded Standard 7 thin clients (WES7). Outside of the usual "thin client vs. other options," a key issue is the fact that Microsoft wants you to pay for the WES7 privilege. It's important to educate the community that this is complete BS and that we need to do something about it as opposed to rolling over and letting this sleep while the monopoly forces more cost down our throats.

It's a really bad idea to just pay Microsoft for the privilege of using WES7. If you want to do this, you need to refuse and stop letting them push you around. If you're naive enough to lock into Microsoft with Hyper-V for RemoteFX, Systems Center for management, MDOP for App-V, and SA, then it's time for a wake up call to understand that when dealing with Microsoft you always need leverage or they will screw you.

In today's world of Windows XP, WinFLP (Windows Fundamentals) is given to SA customers for no cost. WinFLP is essentially a stripped down version of XP that you can deploy on commodity hardware to get the advantages of a slimmer Windows build with the flexibility of local execution as needed for your desktop environment. This is great if you don't want to buy new client hardware for your desktop virtualization project since you can redeploy your existing PC fleet with a thinned-down XP build to build a better ROI story. But with Windows 7, Microsoft has not provided clear direction on what their new WinFLP-like solution will be. Their answer of WES7 helps, but unfortunately they want to charge for it! So what can you do about it?

The answer back to Microsoft is very simple: F*** you! Tell them the value of SA has been diluted and that you're not interested in signing up for it again. Even if that's a few years away for you, tell them now that you're not interested in upgrading to Windows 7 until WES7 is given to you as part of SA just like WinFLP is today. They REALLY care about Windows 7 adoption now so now's the time to put the brakes on it. While you're at it, tell them that MDOP is not something you want or are willing to pay for unless they make it part of your SA agreement with VECD. Then tell them you won't pay for that either until a user-based VECD license is made available. To help yourself with this, avoid App-V or don't fully deploy it, let them know all the gaps with App-V and point out how slow their products innovate.

That's a direct challenge to the value of SA and MDOP, two things they really care about. Refuse to use MDOP, let Microsoft know that it's garbage, remind them that App-V doesn't work with IE 6, and now you have several more reasons not to go to Windows 7/SA/MDOP/VECD.

Maybe you can use this momentum to get off Systems Center as much as you can now too. If you already have it, relegate it to simple functions like inventory (which is what I bet most people use it for historically due to SMS) and some software distribution. Try to introduce other products and create even more leverage here if you can. If that's not a current option, review your whole management strategy as part of your future Windows 7 plans and actively look to get off Systems Center later.

And don't forget about RemoteFX. You should also refuse to entertain that since it will lock you into Hyper-V (another thing they really care about). Let Microsoft know that RemoteFX doesn't offer enough value on it's own and that you need them to explain to you why it's a good idea for them to marry Hyper-V with RemoteFX.

While you're thinking about your Microsoft value, you should under no circumstance use the MS VDI solution. A HUGE benefit of desktop virtualization solutions is that they allow you to use other platforms. With mobility becoming a greater part of the ecosystem, Microsoft will simply not move to embrace non-Windows options, so stay away. It also makes no sense to let Microsoft lock you into Windows/Hyper-V (and charge for it) and then try to charge you again for all the management tools to make it work! These are all increasingly commodity items, and Microsoft has to include or add a lot more value to justify their current business model.

But I digress. Back to WES7...

Deploying WES7 is a great option as opposed to a true thin or zero client. It's a myth to claim that WES7 is terribly difficult to manage if you design a slim build and simply point it to your existing WSUS infrastructure (or the public SUS servers). If you avoid putting other software on it, your attack surface stays small. WES7 is also a great way for Microsoft to keep Windows on the client so others can enable features like reverse seamless to take advantage and add value to desktop virtualization solutions that need remote and local execution flexibility.

Of course when comparing WES7 to a true thing client, I agree the OpEx is not a low with WES7. (At least not on paper.) But the CapEx argument for thin clients is not true, because cheap PCs cost marginally more, also offer low power models, and as soon as you try to add a second monitor you are not screwed. The cost savings of a thin/zero client quickly comes back to haunt you when the user experience is compromised and you have to run something local. Windows clients (including WES7) will provide you with the most support for Windows hosted infrastructure.

So wake up and force the issue with Microsoft now. Put the brakes on your Windows 7 deployment, revaluate all the Microsoft management tools that lock you in, and demand more value for SA. Microsoft doesn't understand what people want and can't react fast enough to the needs of the future desktop. So keep your fingers crossed that they can make the one small gesture of providing WES7 free to SA customers to at least make SA on Windows 7 equal to what it is today.

Microsoft hates Type 1 client hypervisors. (A guest post by AppDetective)

appdetective — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:01:00 GMT

I'm fully expecting both Citrix and VMWare to make a big deal about XenClient when it's released shortly and CVP when it get's closer to a release date. Virtual Computer is already out there with a client hypervisor, as is Neocleus. But what about Microsoft? They want people to use a Type 2 hypervisor (MED-V) which is just rebranded Kidaro with all the management functionality taken out. Of course you only get this if you buy MDOP which requires Software Assurance. So that's lots of money for MS, but for what purpose? I've posted plenty of posts on this site about what I think of this stupid strategy from the MDOP team. It boils down to more than just stupidity--it's lack of vision and greed. The extent of the Microsoft "vision" is to sell this as an application compatibility feature to stimulate Windows 7 sales. What a joke at the expense of customers who now need to patch two operating systems. Dumb!

Microsoft also recently purchased a company called Sentillion, which also has a product in this space. Who knows whether that's an extension to MED-V or just a special purpose Type 2 play? Either way, it's clear they're doing nothing in the Type 1 space.

I've argued in the past that Type 1 won't matter for a long time for a number of reasons:

Type 1 hypervisors will require a hardware refresh cycle since both Citrix and VMWare insist on using VPro which ignores a huge part of the market. Stupid!
Type 1 means you need juice to run, and there are lots of netbooks flooding the market where Type 1 just doesn't perform today.
There's a lack of mature management for Type 1 hypervisors. Yes Virtual Computer is trying to build this but they've got limited traction. Neocleus doesn't get the management need and focuses too much on security, although I do give them credit for not requiring VPro.

By far the best management layer I've seen for client hypervisors, is for MokaFive's Type 2 product. (I also really like RingCube, although they're not technically a hypervisor). So will any of these vendors port their management layer to Type 1? Will Citrix or VMWare let them? Type 2 will be around for a long time despite all its short comings with performance and security.

What about a client hypervisor for BYOPC?

Would you really use a client hypervisor in a bring-you-own-PC scenario? I don't think most people would be comfortable. Imagine a user who goes out and buys a brand-spanking new laptop only to get told by IT to install a hypervisor to run their crap that also degrades the regular performance that the user can't turn off like a running process? For regular users I just don't buy it, no matter how much I like the BYOPC concept and think it's the future for many use cases.

So how can this be solved?

Type 1 client hypervisors need to be shipped by the hardware manufactures. This would massively reduce the concern around driver support for Type 1 hypervisors. There are already examples of this happening in the netbook world. Companies like DeviceVM do some cool stuff, but these are just appliances which is different to the fully functional desktop.

Will Microsoft let Type 1 desktop hypervisors get underneath Windows?

Hell F'ing no. There is no way Microsoft wants anybody to become the platform to run Windows clients on. They will do everything in their power to stop this trend. Microsoft sells fat PC OSs per device; they want to sell SA and MDOP with average App-V as the sweetener; and of course they want you to buy massively complex Systems Center. Type 1 client hypervisors disrupt their cash cow business model just like hosted Virtual Desktops (a.k.a. VDI). My question is, "Will Microsoft let OEMs ship Windows on a Type 1 client hypervisor?" I can assure you they will not of their own will, because they're a monopoly protecting their turf until they know how to control the market.

Anti competitive practices at play?

It will be interesting to watch what happens once Citrix and VMWare release their hypervisors. Microsoft for sure will turn the screws on Citrix to make sure they don't get too far with this and I doubt Citrix will have the balls to stand up to Microsoft to simply tell them to F off and wake up to the emerging reality of BYOPC. Citrix has the vision for sure, but execution with Microsoft on their back, I am skeptical. Will the Xen open source community step in? Perhaps, but it will take years unless there's massive incentive to invest. Will Microsoft bully the OEMs to make sure they stay in line? Of course they will, and those OEMs don't want to disrupt their revenue streams. So back to VMWare: They've made it clear that they couldn't care less what Microsoft says. This is probably the greatest hope that there is for Type 1 client Hypervisors to become broadly adopted. VMWare is in a position to force the issue and have enough muscle to get OEMs on board. When it happens, what will Microsoft do? Will the regulators allow them to control the spread of innovation with their OS? I hope not!

Perhaps Microsoft builds their own Type 1 offering over several years and plays catch up like Hyper-V? Or should they support the movement and perhaps help Citrix capture the client market keeping VMWare at bay? (In effect keeping control at arms length in a regulatory-friendly way?) Who knows, but with the stupid MDOP team and their lack of anything, the future is bleak and short-sighted only.

Even if Microsoft eventually moves to commoditize the Type 1 client hypervisor, all the value is going to be in the management layer. Whoever builds the best management technology to support the various use cases will be in the strongest position. Again, I like MokaFive here, especially if they ported their management to Type 1. I've not tested XenClient, but I'm sure its management layer (much like CVP's) will be at 1.0 releases in 2010 and we'll all be debating about how bad they are for real world use. (And of course Microsoft is going to want this all to managed with Systems Center tied to SA!)

Wouldn't it be amazing if Microsoft could just wake up and realize that they're a huge bureaucracy that's unable to (or doesn't have the desire to) innovate on the desktop fast enough and instead just focused on supporting new innovation as opposed to blocking it with arcane business models? That would be nice, but buying something once this stuff is baked is lower risk for Microsoft. So even though Type 1 client hypervisors could make more money (since Windows would be more powerful to use), Microsoft is a monopoly who will only move if forced to do so. And unfortunately I don't believe Microsoft will allow Citrix to really build their BYOPC vision at any scale (which is just criminal for the industry and shame on Citrix), meaning that VMWare is in a great position to force the market.