Brian Madden Logo
Your independent source for application and desktop virtualization.
Marketplace

advertisement
Brian Madden's Blog

Quest Software buys Provision Networks! Finally a real challenger to Citrix in the app delivery space?

Written on Nov 12 2007 11,293 views, 47 comments


by Brian Madden

Quest Software has acquired Provision Networks. (press release) Provision's main product, "Virtual Application Suite," is an application and desktop delivery product that's very cool but suffers from the fact that Provision is a small company that no one's really heard of. But now that they're part of Quest, this could change.

The market opportunity

The market is right for a real competitor to Citrix in the “application delivery” space. (Or more specifically, the “Windows application delivery” space.) Citrix is huge, slow to develop new features, full of quality-control issues (How many hotfixes have they had to re-release?) and not really in touch with what the market wants (printing and profile management are still big issues ten years later).

Citrix has also grown comfortble not having any competition in this arena. Their Presentation Server product has truly had ten years of being the only option for server-based computing. (Really, their competition was convincing people that SBC was the way to go versus non-SBC. But if you went SBC, you went with Citrix. Citrix has been able to charge any price they want, and you had to pay it if you wanted SBC.)

Now Citrix sees VMware as their main competitor. Personally I think that’s a flaw in their strategy. Citrix’s “application delivery” messaging is perfect. They don’t have to compete against VMware to be successful. I think Citrix is just jealous of the fact that VMware’s market cap is 4x bigger than their's after three months being public, and they're jealous that VMware got 2-3x as many people at VMworld than iForum after just three years. Of course Citrix is a public company, so their #1 obligation is to shareholders (sorry customers, this is the reality of the world in 2007). Shareholders want growth, and Citrix can get more growth in the hardware virtualization space than in the pure application delivery space for the next few years. So is Citrix being true to themselves and their vision by going after XenSource? Does it even matter as long as they grow?

The problem is that I don't view server virtualization as anything more strategic than I view the choice of server hardware vendor. Sure it's "strategic" to some people (like those of us in IT responsible for running all these servers), but just as the business doesn't care what hardware platform its servers run on, it also doesn't care whether they're virtualized or not.

IT is about applications. Applications are strategic to companies. The only reason servers exist is to support applications. Citrix knows this. But for some reason they're chasing this hardware virtualization tangental market.

The time is right for someone to focus on application delivery and to challenge Citrix in this space. I think it will make both companies stronger and customers will be the ultimate winners.

What will Quest do with Provision?

It's interesting that the press release from Quest mentioned them buying the "VDI vendor" Provision Networks. I know virtualization is hot. I know VDI is hot. But the real reason I love Provision is because they bridge the gap between VDI and Terminal Server-based server-based computing. They view their "farms" as collections of resources for delivering applications and desktops, whether those come from single user (VDI) or multi-user (TS) systems. But the press release makes me nervous because I hope that Quest doesn't view Provision as "just" a VDI vendor. (Of course Quest is a public company, so they have the same growth pressures that Citrix has. So if VDI is hot right now, then I guess that's what they feel they have to do.)

I hope Quest will not try to enter the hypervisor or hypervisor management market. Forget the hypervisor. Let Citrix/Microsoft/VMware fight over that. That’s all religious battle territory anyway, and it’s going to be hard for one vendor to convince people to replace whatever they have. Plus the VMware IPO and the Citrix XenSource purchase mean that Quest would have to spend way too much to buy anything in the that space.

Instead I think there's still value in being "hypervisor-nuetral." When Citrix first announced Desktop Server, they marketed it as "desktop platform-neutral." They encouraged people to use blades, Xen, VMware, Virtual Iron, or whatever they wanted. (Yay!) But as soon as they bought XenSource, they renamed "Citrix Desktop Server" to "Citrix XenDesktop" and bundled the Xen-based hypervisor and management into the product. At iForum they said, "Oh sure, of course we'll still support 'other' virtualization solutions," but how do you think that will really play out?

Provision Networks has done a great job in the hypervisory-neutrality area. I hope that Quest continues this. Let the virtualization vendors fight each other over control of a commodity. Instead, Quest can truly focus on the application delivery. The market for terminal server add-on products has got to be in the $600M per year range. (Does anyone have real data on this?) The VDI market will probably be that big somewhat soon too, but in addition to, not at the expense of, the TS-based SBC market.

Quest recently bought ScriptLogic (a company that's exhibited at Citrix iForum in years past). Hopefully they can integrate the ScriptLogic and Provision stuff into a single product. Maybe throw in some printing? (I have to do some further investigation into Provision's stuff here.) Maybe a kick-ass portal to tie together SBC apps and desktops and local apps and streamed app? Maybe tie in with some SSL-VPN vendors to hook application policies into endpoint scans? Maybe look into some solutions for managing disk images? (Or maybe that's too close to the hardware virtualization space? I need to think about that some more.) All-in-all, I think Quest could make a very serious offering against Citrix. Price the whole thing at like $200 or $300 per user and they've got a winner!

The bottom line is that I hope Quest doesn't go virtualization crazy and ruin this whole thing. I still think application delivery has some long legs, and the market really wants a choice besides Citrix. So if Quest can sneak in there while Citrix is focusing on hardware virtualization, a little competition in the space will make everyone better in the end.

Financial Data for those who are curious

Citrix

Annual Sales: $1.3B
Market Cap: $7.5B

VMware

Annual Sales: $1.1B
Market Cap: $30B

Quest

Annual Sales: $500M
Market Cap: $1.6B

 



Comments

Guest wrote Nitpicking :-)
on 11-13-2007 3:31 AM
Citrix is huge, slow to develop new features, full of quality-control issues (Seriously? Nine separate releases of the same hotfix rollup pack?),

>> Brian :-) Where do you see 9 seperate releases for the same hotfix ?
I just see that the Read Me has been updated a couple of times

Readme version: 1.8
Readme Revision History


Thanks for the article, interesting read

Guest wrote Re: Nitpicking :-)
on 11-13-2007 3:48 AM
Ok, it was 8 times, not 9. So eat me.
Brian Madden wrote Re: Re: Nitpicking :-)
on 11-13-2007 4:09 AM
If we're gonna nitpick, then I'll point out that a version 1.8 release is a ninth release, not an eighth. (1.0 is the first, 1.1 is the second, 1.2 is the third...) :) But I know that some of those were just documentation updates, so the real number of releases doesn't matter. I was just making the point that they do re-release patches under the same version numbers to fix bugs in the patches. I could've just as easily pointed to any one of the many hotfixes they've re-released, or even the KB article that describes their hotfix re-release naming conventions. :)
Guest wrote Finally a real challenger to Citrix in the app delivery space?
on 11-13-2007 6:00 AM
Brian,
Reading the press release I see nothing about app delivery. Instead the press release only talks about "presentation and desktop virtualization solutions" and VDI. The gist of it seems to be that Quest has purchased Provision for VDI, not for TS. If indeed that is the case then Citrix, in fact, has one *fewer* competitor for CPS! (I would say they have a stronger competitor for CDS but CDS is not a real product yet anyway). Sure, Provision already has TS support built in, but the same was true regarding Propero and VMware. Also one has to ask if this is not another case of Sun/Tarantella all over again.
Guest wrote Re: Finally a real challenger to Citrix in the app delivery space?
on 11-13-2007 6:03 AM
Did I say CDS? Sorry, I meant Citrix XenDesktop :)
Brian Madden wrote Re: Re: Finally a real challenger to Citrix in the app delivery space?
on 11-13-2007 6:13 AM
Man did you even read the article? That was kind of my whole point in the second part, about how the press release was all VDI and no app stuff. But yeah, I get your point and could see that as an outcome too. For what it's worth, I don't think the Sun Tarantella thing is the same, because it was clear when Sun bought Tarantella that they wanted them for the traditional Tarantella stuff and that Sun didn't care about the TS stuff. It will be interesting to see where Quest takes this.
Guest wrote Re: Finally a real challenger to Citrix in the app delivery space?
on 11-13-2007 6:13 AM
Not the case at all. Provision is as invested in TS as it is in VDI. That's their real strength. They anticipate the inevitable convergence of TS and VDI into something that neither TS nor VDI is today. That's why we selected them as our solution of choice vs. the other VDI-only players out there who seem to suffer from a serious case of "broker overload".
Guest wrote Re: Re: Finally a real challenger to Citrix in the app delivery space?
on 11-13-2007 7:49 AM
I totally agree that Provision's vision is a blended solution of VDI and SBC, but that is not the question. The question is whether this is also Quest's vision. The press release is all VDI, so you have to wonder about that. As Brian stated, that may be only because of the way Quest wants to present this purchase to its shareholders. On the other hand, if that is where Quest sees value for its shareholder that is where is will go regardless of where you, the customer, want them to go (this is also a point Brian made). This is exactly what VMware did with Propero (yes, I know Propero's TS support was very limited, but the point is the same).
Guest wrote Did Brian really write this?
on 11-13-2007 7:54 AM
When I first read the article I have to admit I had to scroll up my browser to confirm this was Brian's writing. I have never seen such a speculative and uneducated piece coming from one of our industry's thought leaders. Don't get me wrong, I welcome competition for Citrix, especially in the Presentation Server market where it has been mostly uncontested in the past 10 years. But coming out with completely uneducated statements like "but just as the business doesn't care what hardware platform its servers run on, it also doesn't care whether they're virtualized or not", it is surprising to say the least. Of course business doesn't care about platform! They DO care about flexibility, scalability and high availability in app delivery that having a virtualized datacenter infrastructure can provide. Flaming Citrix for getting into the server virtualization space? It was the obvious step! Most of the people in this forum constantly regretted that Citrix didn't buy VMWare, it was discussed as the natural next-step into app delivery. Oh well, not a good start for the day, but I certainly hope Brian recapacitates.
Guest wrote Re: Re: Re: Finally a real challenger to Citrix in the app delivery space?
on 11-13-2007 8:03 AM
> Man did you even read the article?

For what it's worth, yes I did. Sorry for the oversight

> it was clear when Sun bought Tarantella that they wanted them for the traditional Tarantella stuff and that Sun didn't care about the TS stuff

Well you could argue that it's clear Quest bought Provision for VDI and that Quest doesn't care about the TS stuff :)

> It will be interesting to see where Quest takes this

Yes indeed, very interesting
Guest wrote Re: Did Brian really write this?
on 11-13-2007 8:26 AM
I think Brian absolutely hit the mark! The "business" just wants to go about its own business, so it truly doesn't care whether the servers are virtualized or not, much less whether the server hardware is from IBM, HP, or Dell. Besides, the hypervisor is going to eventually become as ubiquitous and boring as firmware. In fact, the hypervisor will most certainly become part of the server and workstation firmware sooner than later. This means that for some customers, it will make sense to power on a new server and press F10 (or DEL) to enable the built-in "hypervisor" feature. Other customers may not care for it. In both cases, business will go on as long as the apps are made available to the end-users.
John Radcliffe wrote Speculation?
on 11-13-2007 8:29 AM
Umm, what's wrong with speculation? Brian was offering his thoughts on where Quest/Provision/Citrix might be heading, which could be in a number of ways, as he pointed out. I got the impression that several of these thoughts were hitting Brian as he was typing it up. What's wrong with that? This article never pretended to be a 'this is the future and how things will definitely be' type of article. I happen to disagree with both of you, in that I think that large businesses do care about the platform - at least from a support perspective, but that doesn't mean it's the main issue, or that Brian's article is not what you think it should be. I can't find the flame for Citrix getting into the virtualization space that you mention. Or course Citrix is jealous of VMware's market cap, who wouldn't be? Hope your day gets off to a better start too :D Recapacitates - now there's a word that makes people jump for their dictionary. Thanks for the word of the day!
Guest wrote Re: Nitpicking :-)
on 11-13-2007 8:30 AM
What are you talking about... There is nothing in the article about Hotfixes and Rollups... Please limit the discussion to the article at hand... Anyways, Citrix has NOT re-released a Roll-up 8-9 times. They did re-release Rollup 02 (2.0.1) for CPS 4.0 back in the day to fix a bug in the installer. The v1.8 that you're seeing in the Readme is the Readme version, not the hotfix version. The readme does get revised and updated frequently to add more detail. I will agree, however, that Citrix's QA process has tanked over the last year or so. Too much emphasis on shareholder value and not enough on product quality.
Guest wrote Re: Did Brian really write this?
on 11-13-2007 8:36 AM
Brian is right on this... Most business don't care if they are running on HP or on Dell Server. They only care about cost and vendor support as these are really the only differentiators between the hardware manufactures. When it comes to virtualization, the same will be true. Given that performance is relatively the same, it will come down to cost and vendor support.
Guest wrote Re: Speculation?
on 11-13-2007 8:50 AM
I feel bad for Brian as some idiots are lashing out. If they don't like the Brian's website why are they here? As for VMware's market cap and dominance, that's about to change if it already hasn't. The stock has been in a free fall since Dell purchased EqualLogic. Yes, I understand EqualLogic is a storage vendor but investors are stupid and only see the word Virtualization. Oracle is set to release Oracle VM tomorrow (for Free) and HP is set to release their virtualization products so we'll see how well an overpriced product will last.
Guest wrote Re: Re: Nitpicking :-)
on 11-13-2007 8:54 AM
Whoops, found the 9 times reference in the article sorry. Anyway Brian, you really goofed on this one. CPS 4.5 R01 was released only once. The readme was update 9 times!
Guest wrote Re: Re: Speculation?
on 11-13-2007 9:12 AM
I cannot predict stock, or I would have bought VMware stock at the IPO, but I think VMware has realized the hypervisor is becoming a commodity some time ago. That is one reason they started giving away GSX, for example. VMware knows management is where it's at, and their management tools are the best by far. OTOH Microsoft, Oracle and even Citrix do have resources so race is definitely on.
Brian Madden wrote Re: Re: Re: Nitpicking :-)
on 11-13-2007 10:40 AM
Okay, I didn't read it that way, but I see it now. I corrected this editorial to reflect that.
Guest wrote Re: Re: Did Brian really write this?
on 11-13-2007 12:32 PM
Not sure what "Mom and Pop" shop you work in, but you clearly missed the point. Yes, businesses do care about virtualization, especially at the Enterprise level. My organization is spending millions of dollars (ATM Fees) virtualizing everything they can get their hands on. And while the hardware vendor may not be as important, the fact is VMware is getting millions from large organizations for their virtualization products and Citrix sees the value of entering that market.

But let's take it a step further. If I can provide a user a virtualized desktop (VDI), with all of the applications that user needs, why would I need a product that can only virtualize applications(CPS)? C'mon guys, think outside of the box...
Guest wrote Re: Speculation?
on 11-13-2007 12:35 PM
Recapacitate: To qualify again; to confer capacity on again. or if you want to break the word down... Re-capacitate. Capacitate: To render fit or make qualified; enable. Just in case anyone wanted to know... ;-)
</