Citrix's Road Ahead. (An Analogy.)

I’m often asked about Citrix’s position in the market, the future of their products, and their relationship with Microsoft. Recently I’ve started using an analogy comparing the server-based computing industry to the automobile industry.

I’m often asked about Citrix’s position in the market, the future of their products, and their relationship with Microsoft. Recently I’ve started using an analogy comparing the server-based computing industry to the automobile industry.

Let’s imagine that Microsoft is an auto manufacturer. Windows Terminal Server is a very basic car. It has wheels and it can drive around, although it’s very basic and most people choose to add upgrades to it to get their “essential” features.

Citrix MetaFrame Presentation Server is an upgrade kit for the basic Microsoft car. It adds leather seats, a nice radio, chrome accents, airbags, keyless entry, GPS navigation, and scheduled maintenance.

To some people, it’s perfectly acceptable to drive the basic Microsoft car, although most people choose to pay more to upgrade the car to the Citrix version.

Of course there are also people who want even more features. For them, there are dozens of smaller companies that sell very specific car upgrades. Companies like RTO and AppSense sell performance-tuning car parts. Companies like ThinPrint and triCerat sell CD changers and stereo accessory kits. No matter what you’re looking for, chances are that if there is some specific component of your car that you want to upgrade, you can find someone who makes it.

Instead of buying each accessory option piece-by-piece, most people just upgrade their car with the Citrix kit. It’s easier to order and people can buy it with the confidence that everything will work together. However, even with all this stuff, some people still choose to drive the very basic Microsoft car.

In fact, some of those basic Microsoft car people are really into music and they don’t care about anything else. For them, they buy just the basic Microsoft car and then add in the ThinPrint music system separately—it’s better than the radio that comes in Citrix’s add-on package and they don’t want any of the other Citrix features anyway.

This relationship between Microsoft, Citrix, and the third-party add-on companies is the way things were for several years. Microsoft added more features to their basic car with the introduction of each new model (power locks here, a basic AM radio there), but these features were minor in comparison to all the great features of Citrix’s upgrade package.

Then, in early 2003, everything changed.

Citrix had been making a lot of money by selling their car upgrade kits. Technically, this was fine with Microsoft since Microsoft sold the underlying car for each Citrix upgrade kit. However, Microsoft employees began to wonder whether they themselves should offer a car upgrade kit that was built-in to their basic car. They felt that there were a lot of people who didn’t even own a car, and they might be more enticed to buy a Microsoft car if that car came with all the options and the buyers’ didn’t have to look at third-party products to get their desired features.

This was not good news for Citrix. Once the general public started hearing about this rumor, people began to think, “If Microsoft manufactured upgraded cars, then who would need Citrix’s upgrade kits?”

Publicly, Citrix and Microsoft stood together and denied that anything like this was in the works. “Citrix is a key partner of ours,” said the Microsoft executives. “People cannot use a Citrix car upgrade kit without buying a car from Microsoft, so we like Citrix because they help us sell more cars.”

Privately, Citrix was really nervous about rumors that Microsoft would sell a more upgraded car. (Citrix even attacked independent websites that reported on the rumors, going so far as to say that the lack of solid information was damaging the automotive industry!)

Even though Citrix had been in the car upgrade kit business for a long time, and even though Microsoft’s upgraded car would not be as good as one with Citrix’s kit, Citrix had to develop a plan. And quick.

Citrix’s Plan: Rethink the notion of a car

Privately, Citrix was very worried about Microsoft’s upgraded base-model car. What should Citrix do?

Citrix felt that their car upgrade kit would still be much better than anything from Microsoft. However, Microsoft sold the base-model car for $11,900. The Citrix upgrade kit cost $3500 (and added $1000 to the car’s yearly maintenance bill). If Microsoft chooses to sell the newly-upgraded base model car for the old base price, then the differentiating features between Citrix’s kit and Microsoft’s base model might not be worth the $3500 price Citrix charges today. So what should Citrix do? Increase the feature set or decrease the price?

Interestingly, Citrix choose a third option. They chose to re-define the public’s view of why they use a car. Here’s what they said:

For years, Microsoft has built a basic car, and we (Citrix) have sold upgrade kits for that car. However, we now realize that this is too narrow a focus. Let’s take a step back and forget the car for a second. Why does anyone drive a car in the first place? It’s for transportation—to get from Point A to Point B. So yeah, we’ve been in the car business for ten years. But in reality, we don’t build car upgrades, we sell transportation solutions!

What our customers need is an end-to-end transportation solution, and a transportation solution is about more than just cars. It’s about the entire infrastructure that’s required to get a person from Point A to Point B. We’re talking cars, roads, bridges, gas stations, and service centers.

Citrix will be your transportation infrastructure company!

From that point on, all of Citrix’s marketing materials, press releases, training materials, and conferences talked about one thing—transportation. Transportation Infrastructure. Transportation Strategy. You would almost forget that Citrix still made 90% of its revenue from selling car upgrade kits.

So how was Citrix going to transform itself from a car company into the transportation infrastructure company of the future?

In general, people agreed with the message that Citrix was delivering. Citrix was right on about the fact that getting from Point A to Point B required more than just a car. However, people couldn’t figure out exactly what this meant for Citrix.

Is Citrix still going to make cars, or are they exiting that business to focus solely on transportation issues?

Is Citrix going to try to enter the other “core” businesses required for transportation infrastructure? Is Citrix going to start selling gasoline and building roads and bridges? What about the other companies that are already in that business? If you need a bridge built, are you going to give that business to a car upgrade company who “understands your transportation issues” or are you going to give that business to a company that has been building bridges for the past 20 years?

What about Citrix’s consulting services? They used to consult on car issues (what’s the best radio for a specific situation, etc.), but now they consult on “transportation” issues. But will anyone buy transportation consulting from a company who gets 90% of its revenue from selling cars?

The Citrix sales reps were perhaps the most upset. Their commissions have been based on how many car upgrade kits they sell, except now Citrix isn’t marketing car kits, Citrix is marketing transportation solutions. However, when a customer walks into AutoZone, they ask for car kits, not transportation solutions.

Of course no one knows the answers to these questions (not even Citrix). One thing is for certain: Citrix wants to become a billion-dollar company, and to do that they have to sell more than car upgrade kits. Whether anyone actually views them as the company with all the answers to the world’s transportation problems remains to be seen.

Join the conversation


Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on July 26, 2004
Good way to put it.
This message was originally posted by Crummy Chap on July 28, 2004
In response to Leozinho's comment about desktops. IMHO there are fundamentally two ways to provide 'access' - Cisco/Checkpoint's way and Microsoft/Citrix/Tarantella's way. First is a comprehensive, network-based solution approach (similar to 'transportation' solution). Second is give access to a 'desktop', since that is what the user uses anyways to access everything in the office.
Cisco's access products include firewalls, routing, packet inspection, IPSec, MPLS, IDS, anti-virus, etc. While Citrix product gives you the desktop with some icon/app level access control. If Citrix wants to get into teh big 'access' market, they need to start doing some of Cisco's functions.
That is what I envision about enterprise access. Am I missing something here?

In terms of Citrix getting into markets other than Access - I think it will be a big distraction, since Citrix's customers use Citrix for one thing - that is access.

About BearPaw. I believe Microsoft has already spent enough time with Citrix that they got every piece of technology they need from Citrix. Reasons for delaying the Citrix cut-off - 1. Microsoft's legal battles about their unfair practices to cool off (encourage and showcase partners like Citrix in the meantime), 2. Marketing deciding that it is time to grab the market from Citrix.

I liked ex Employee's observation. Citrix is definitely a great marketing and sales company. All they need to do is get real solid technology in house. Just make sure that it is not dependent on Microsoft.
This message was originally posted by Andy Smith on July 28, 2004
What's amazing to me is that Microsoft continues to "innovate" its products and creep into the space occupied by others--even their best partners. Microsoft should instead be focusing its efforts on shoring up their products' security. It's almost criminal that their priorities are (seemingly) in putting partners like NetIQ and Citrix (and Tarantella too) in tight spots, when it should be on other things like security. NetIQ and Citrix are helping Microsoft, yet Microsoft is seemingly trying to "innovate" these partners out of business.

I'm not sure Bear Paw is really going to be all that great anyway. I've heard stuff about Microsoft releasing the "Citrix killer" for 5+ years. First it was TSE, then Windows 2000 TS, and now Bear Paw. The reality is that Bear Paw is at least a year to year-and-a-half away (maybe longer, now that W2003 SP1 has just been delayed until 2005) and it's very much hype at this stage. Who knows what they'll have in the end and how it will compare to Citrix. Session Directory was supposed to have lots of features competitive with Citrix, but once you've installed it you wonder what the heck Microsoft was thinking when they built it? It makes no sense how they implemented it. Using Tarantella/New Moon would be better than TS-alone.

The only point I would argue with is the pooh-poohing of the "access" messaging and concluding that it was a reaction to Microsoft's movement to add more features to the OS. I think Citrix was doing this anyway, and that there wasn't a correlation. The "Access" marketing isn't really aimed at us technologists that have worked with Citrix for years anyway. It's aimed at people higher up on the IT food chain. Citrix is hardly alone here in trying to define a new market space. Peoplesoft started out as a HR information systems company. Oracle was once just a database vendor. Mercury has done some similar marketing pitches in the "business technology optimization" space that they defined, and they've been successful in selling $1 million+ suites of their products to large customers, instead of people thinking of them as the "WinRunner guys." Citrix looks to be trying to do the same. Time will tell.
This message was originally posted by Leozinho on July 28, 2004
'Crummy Chap' argues that the problem is that the mgmts mentality is still locked up in desktops... I dont see a problem with this. In fact the desktop metaphore is still by far the most productive. SBC is being pushed more and more from one business app via your Citrix environment to a full solution for your office automisation. How can you provide a proper user-interface without a desktop from a thin-client that has none? (unless you offer just one app of course). Interestingly the latest thin-clients are XP embedded clients WITH desktop and lots of cpu power... Where the SBC solution is lacking, and this is a field where Citrix should get into in stead of this access market, is management of the user and server environment. Products like Appsense, PowerFuse, Tricerat (and Softricity in a bit of a different way) fair well because both Microsoft and Citrix have no solution whatsoever in this field. Citrix would better stick to their main product and expand it with features that really matter to us.
This message was originally posted by Crummy Chap on July 27, 2004
the key point is 'transportation' vs 'access'. We all know that Microsoft honors a friendship .. but only for so long. That angle is clear. If BearPaw has bugs in their rel1, it'll be given away for free. Who can beat that!

Citrix realized that and wanted their own access story. So, they went out and acquired ExpertCity. But GTMPC is not even an enterprise-class product. The problem seems to be that the company mgmt's mentality is still locked up in 'desktops'. Nowhere close to thinking the enterprise 'access' infrastructure provided by Cisco or Checkpoint. You can't effectively tackle enterprise access, if you don't get out of desktops. I wonder - every time Citrix says 'access' - aren't customers comparing Citrix with Cisco?

This message was originally posted by The Garbage Man on July 27, 2004
I have to admit, I like it... strange analogy but it fits very well. Working with Citrix since 96' and watched exactly what Brian had described. But let not forget Citrix use to make the car to and also provide very limited features (WinFrame). Maybe Citrix should buy one of Microsoft plants and start pumping out cars again (License the OS). Just think, maybe Citrix can pump out a striped down hotrod and instead of adding a CD player or leather seats, the hotrod is pushing 800+ horses under the hood and do a quarter mile in 7 seconds and then stop on a dime.
This message was originally posted by Leozinho on July 27, 2004
Of course the analogy with a car is flawed... a bus or train (server based computing) would be more accurate :-)

But seriously, imho why Microsoft doesn't like the Citrix car upgrade kit is that it prevents customers from spending money (that they just spent on their too expensive Citrix upgrade kit) on their new fancy MOtor Management (MOM) product which they are pushing more and more as the product for car maintenance. The same goes for SMS2003 for which they published interesting whitepapers how you can use this in Terminal Server environments. But who's gonna buy those products if you already spent gazillions on your Citrix licenses.
This message was originally posted by ma nose, ma nose on July 27, 2004
Everyone is talking about Bear Paw this and Bear Paw that...well..fu*k that. You want to see the next version of MetaFrame....and im not talking about MPS 3.0...

This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on July 28, 2004
I agree in essence with what Brian is saying, speaking as an ex Citrix employee(speaking for myself not for my ex company or other ex employees)I could see a large change come over Citrix's view of the world, during my time(several years) there were a number of embarrassing and expensive acquisitions and OEM deals which just didnt ever workout in reality, the company's strategic direction changed direction moretimes than a weathervane in a storm finally ending with a very costly consultantancy program which created; to quote Mark T (in his usual over-enthusiastic manner) during an analysts call "a strategic plan for the first time in 10 years" combine this with the CTO & CIO parting with the company and what do you get???? a loss of confidence & trust within the company(internal stakeholders)doubt in the market's mind(look at the reduced share price & increased risk factor)& confused customers. in response to the very real fear(always denied by Citrix) but very apparent within Citrix,of the Microsoft relationship not being as close & solid as everyone claims it is(an allegation which is always sure to get any Citrix person angry and begin quoting Global partner of the year awards from MS etc..) Citrix cunningly realised that the only way to differentiate in a near homogenous products market and to cover the lack of a real coherent and integrated organisational & product strategy was to change the rules of the game....thus the self- invention of the previously unheard of(in this incarnation)Access market came about,(financial Analysts loved it until they started asking difficult questions)Citrix despite all its rhetoric is still essentially a 1 product company, thats not a good way to take the company to the X-1 billion dollars aim(note that they have no timescale set on this target)The strategic fit of some of the latest "joint ventures" is marginal to say the least, examine the "goto my pc" deal where does this product fit in with Citrix's way of doing business and it's product set? how does ithe new company integrate within the Citrix organisation, technology, channel & Marketing concept? does it? are citrix people even knowledgeable about this product? what are the future development plans for the product?

in addition to these issues where is Citrix's R&D budget? Citrix has a lower than average R & D for the software industry although possibly it has the highest in the "Non MS Access Market" segment:-)

another question to ask is "What new Product developments is Citrix actually working on? are any of their projects more than Service packs/Feature releases or platform releases? Do they expect to have any tangible new products which are not classed as a "service" will there be any new Standalone products or product families internally designed within citrix Engineering which not obtained via merger? one thing for certain is that their Metaframe for Linux(not the client) and allegedly already built in the UK will be very unlikely to see the marketplace. The gap between TSE & Metaframe is narrowing no amount of nice to have features will hide that simple unavoidable fact.

at the moment Citrix are a company with one very great product but if they were at school the Citrix report might read "keen, enthusiatic, talks too much, needs to listen and pay more attention to what others are doing, a nice pupil well liked most of the time but in summary must try harder and back the boasting with results" :there's a new analogy for you Brian:-) (if you want more information then please post a reply and i will get in touch with you privately)

in summary Citrix has evolved into a Marketing company which would be better selling merchandising rather than software, my customers always loved the giveaways.Marketing is great when it is backed by solid R & D along with a pipeline of NPD and a product portfolio at various lifecycle stages but when it doesnt have these basic pre-requisites then it's only a question of time before someone shouts"The emperor has no clothes on" and then the joke's on citrix.

well done Brian for articulating what many of my ex colleagues & myself may think about the company, keep playing the devil's advocate, maybe the senior people in citrix, Mark T, davie J, John B et al might listen to reason,I doubt it unless there is a major cultural paradigm change within Citrix to make it happen........answers on a postcard to Mark templeton CitrixFt. Lauderdale the CEO in charge of "Citrix Culture"
This message was originally posted by Brian Madden on July 28, 2004
Thanks. Brian
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on July 27, 2004
Brian, your Analogy of Microsoft/Citrix as a auto manufacturer is more confussing than Microsoft/Citrix as a access infrastructure manufacturer.

People that read this site are not stupid morons, we don't need analogys.
This message was originally posted by agressiv on July 26, 2004
We want the GPS but none of the other fancy gear, and we want it to cost $50 with no maintenance. New Moon came close, then Tarantella bought them out, and the fear of them going belly-up scared us away. Then Bear Paw was leaked out fairly casually, and basically allows us to get a Nissan Sentra with the GPS for an affordable cost. I could care less about "solutions" - just give me a good PRODUCT at a reasonable price. Personally, I feel that Citrix EXTORTS money from IT shops willing to pay for their product, erm, "solution". "Here is a GPS for only $15000 with $7000 in maintenance costs" - blah. That is why we only have 200 licenses of Citrix when they could have sold us 5000 had the price been right. In addition, if we have a problem with the GPS we have to pay another $500? Ug. I'll be glad when 2003 R2 comes out and I can get rid of the remaining Citrix we have. Just my opinions, of course.
This message was originally posted by Gold Dealer on July 26, 2004
Good article. Here are some thoughts..

1) The Citrix Car Kit Upgrade offers a lot more in 2003 than the Microsoft Upgraded Model. In 2005 (?maybe) the BearUpgradeModel will start to be sold. Will it be as bug-free out of the box and as reliable as the Citrix model?

2) The 2004 CitrixUpgrade should be better for richer (read: larger) customers than the Microsoft BearModel.

3) It is obvious to the Citrix Upgrade Sellers that lots of customers still don't get it, because they buy the plain Microsoft Car. If Microsoft markets the hell out of the new BearModel, than they will be selling against their own software, at least "car-top NOS" revenue, as the Car upgrade cycle would be extended. Ultimately, it seems to me the Microsoft-owned Car Dealers cannot put forth the effort to sell the newest models as it cuts into their vision of selling the latest and greatest basic car model every 3 "enterprise agreement" years.

4) Ultimately, Citrix faces a threat 2 years out from Microsoft, and 2 - 5 years from the Internet N-tier model. I don't have a gut feeling on how this will play out.

5) If I was inventing a "transportation" strategy, I would have single, large "transportation hubs" that can easily move customers in and out using "Citrix taxis", I would call this "Utility Transportation".

This message was originally posted by me on July 26, 2004
Seems like Microsoft has been doing that for years with various products/vendors, but are now "seeing the light" They licensed code from Executive Software and included a somewhat functional Defrager with the OS. But if you want more functionality, you pay the doe for the "full" version from Executive Software. Same for Veritas and Volume Manager (what a POS that software is). They license the disk managment software from them but fail to include the dynamic disk functionality for clusters. So if you want to dynamically expand cluster volumes, you need to purchase the "way overpriced" Volume Manager software. Now, they are finally out of the license agreement with Veritas and have released the documentation for diskpart which allows you to expand cluster volumes without the need for Volume Manager (wooohooo). The same holds true for Citrix. Soon, we will no longer need Citrix either (bigger woohoo). I bet Executive Software will be out the door soon as well.

Anyway - just stating the obvious...cause I feel like typing something...
This message was originally posted by L.M. on July 29, 2004
There was a comment by Andy Smith earlier on Microsoft's predatory nature among its "partners". Sadly, what is really different at Citrix, Inc.? Look at the Citrix pipeline - they are talking about application streaming (Softricity, you can now bugger off). In the past, attempted to develop some form of printing situation improvement (bend over ThinPrint and Uniprint). Im sure that they already are looking at the enticing server performance improvement products, which basically leaves just thin client vendors and consultancy companies left(Brian, lets hope they dont get into publishing). So theres really nothing different with Citrix's business strategy - EXCEPT - that MS is not only a kleptomaniac, they also create plenty of damn good strategies and products.

Citrix is not a helpless victim in this evolving SBC market. One can be sure that they will not go down without plenty of business "alliance" partner crushing blows to add more value to their core market.
This message was originally posted by Hairyyak on July 30, 2004
Brian, great article I like it a lot. Its interesting that the point that Andy Smith raised in his initial post wasn't picked up by more people; that Citrix is trying to define a new market space. Its 100% what they are going hell for leather to achieve. Also his point about Bearpaw slipping is a good one as well.

The main thing that is being missed in all of this is that it comes down to selling and positioning, not technical reality. The Access Suite is designed to be pitched at a much higher level than the IT Manager alone. Its designed to allow you to pitch at the board level, that way you get buy-in quickly (or kicked out, which makes the sales qualification process easier) and once you get buy-in then bang order signed, role in the techies and thank you very much that’s the sales person off with their Advisor rewards to order a new car.

Reality is that ‘C’ level (CEO, CFO, CIO, etc…) decision makers don’t care if the latest widget from Mega-galactic Inc has four sprockets instead of five or if it costs more cash (they do like their widgets to have blue lights though). They want to find a solution to their run away IT budget (hence the drive for virtualisation and consolidation) and if you position Access Suite as a ‘spend to save’ strategy up front there are no nasty surprises for them. Oh and if that doesn’t work, point out that their competitors are already doing this and making savings. Cost is a lot of a barrier once you are talking at the right level in a company, and I fully accept that the Citrix solution is too expensive for some organisations.

Citrix have paid some clever people a whole load of money to develop a pitch to pull their current miss-match of products together and then created a technical direction by spotting the holes that need to be filled in to allow the products to meet the vision.

Bottom line is at this point in time its all about selling and positioning as I said at the beginning. There is no difference between selling Access Suite and WinFrame. Both products have more holes than a piece of swiss cheese, and both are sold off the back of a (reasonably) compelling story – reducing TCO.

The challenge is for Solution Advisors too raise their game in terms of selling and positioning which means both Sales and Technical people need to realise that its not about features and functions but concepts and solutions. Get your people lined up that way and there is no stopping you, go in with a half baked story about 2 products, shadowing on steroids and a portal thing and you have no hope at all.

Think about it would you buy such an obviously ‘Heath Robinson’ solution?

Unlikely, but how about if you were told you how to use your IT budget more effectively, spend cash on solving problems not the day-to-day administration, give your staff more interesting projects not just fire fighting, then it becomes appetising. Try it some time, you might find it works. I have.
This message was originally posted by agressiv on July 28, 2004
...that would be a bold move to make, to have Citrix *not* be dependant on Microsoft, and its too late in the game for them to re-invent the wheel and rediscover themselves as a company. They can add all the "Access" and "Solutions" products they want, but they will still have Metaframe as their core competancy. I doubt Citrix will even attempt to compete with Cisco - Citrix is 100% a software company, where at least 95-99% of Cisco is hardware based, depending on who you ask. For a while, Microsoft had a "contract" with Citrix not to invade upon their market share, and in exchange Citrix allowed Microsoft to adapt WinFrame for Windows. That contract has since expired, and the only thing Microsoft can't do is use the ICA protocol. All other bets are off. If Citrix weren't dependant on Microsoft, they would have to leverage something else other than Windows, or go back to their WinFrame model. Otherwise, companies will have to pay for TS Licensing *and* Metaframe licensing, which probably causes many SMB's to not look at Citrix due to cost, which I posted above. Terminal Server provides 80-90% of the functionality people need, and session directory is a neat feature that works really well with F5 load balancers with minimal overhead. The only catch is the requirement of Enterprise Edition. From my talks with Microsoft, Bear Paw will require Enterprise Edition, although from what I heard from Brian and Ron and their trip to Microsoft, they don't see that being the case. I would bet the whole DOJ investigation was the big thing holding them up, because when you think of it, the core features of Metaframe that don't exist in Windows are really not that large. Claudio Rodrigues's WTSPortal product is an excellent example of the "next step" that Bear Paw will provide - Seamless Apps and Publishing. While its not as feature-rich as a Citrix or New Moon, many administrators have their own ways to add some of the other missing features (through scripts, web pages etc) that would equate to saving their company the 5-6 figure cost to support Citrix. If one or two developers could develop those features in a relatively short amount of time, imagine what a powerhouse like Microsoft could do? I would imagine "Bear Paw" will be snuck into R2 just so they can avoid the product attacting attention to itself. This is not an uncommon practice for Microsoft. For instance, App Center 2000 SP2 is really "App Center 2003", and the first step in the instructions is to uninstall App Center. Tarantella obviously got the hint about Bear Paw, now giving their product away "for free" with the only cost being a support/maintenance contract. That slashed their price by 2/3 at least. So the question is, for the average business that is looking at implementing a *new* thin client solution once Bear Paw comes out, what will be the compelling reason to get Citrix? I just have to wonder how many are buying into the whole "solutions" or "access" marketing hype. Their product is already expensive enough with just Metaframe alone; adding everything else puts it out of reach for many.
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on July 30, 2004
Hi Brain, isn't the issue that the extras cost way more than the car? Doesn't the car cost $1,000 (server) + CALS and the Citrix extras cost $400 per concurrent i.e $20,000 for 50 users?!! Although the argument in the past is that the Citrix 'tax' to users is revenue neutral the new issue for Microsoft is of course Linux which is causing Microsoft to re-evaluate the cost of the overall solution to end users. If as you have suggested in other articles that R2 closes the gap significantly then customers will look for solution 'completers' (load balancing??) at say 10% of what they are paying Citrix. Given 90% of Citrix revenues are from presentation server.. and they have big monthly costs.. do you forsee a problem??
This message was originally posted by Crummy Chap on July 30, 2004
Microsoft, like any large company, is the biggest predator of our times. For the sake of its own survival, Citrix needs to step out of Microsoft's way and find alternative technology. Small vendors are more sensitive to dependencies than the large companies and are more nimble with their approach. Once a company crosses a few hundred millions in revenue, it is tough to steer from their star product and technology. Typically that is when they need a management change. Recent exit of Citrix CTO probably shows that thinking.
In response to aggressiv about Cisco. Checkpoint and Symantec are software companies doing well in the access market. Citrix also can do some of it using a software approach.
This message was originally posted by Andy Smith on July 29, 2004
There is a fundamental difference between Citrix and Microsoft in terms of their "predatory" nature. Appsense or ThinPrint works equally well with or without MetaFrame. MetaFrame only works with Terminal Services. Appsense and ThinPrint will do just fine if Citrix puts similar functionality in MetaFrame, because they will go after customers that use TS-only solutions. In other words, Microsoft can more easily create a "Citrix-killer" but Citrix can't likewise create an "Appsense killer" or "ThinPrint killer."
This message was originally posted by JT on August 2, 2004
And to think I used to be satified with a bicycle.
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on August 18, 2004
citrix doesn't have to get into the 'gas, roads, and bridges' industries in order to provide 'transportation solutions'. where your analogy breaks down is where the complexity of having, say, 18 different road styles, not all of which will work reliably with your car, comes into play. also, people are building roads from point A to point B, from point C to point D, from point D to point B... when they could just build a highway with exits at A, B, C, and D. that is the message off Access Infrastructure.
Microsoft have always been good at STOPing on a dime ... He He
Apparently you haven't followed the history of Citrix and MS. MS didn't allow Citrix to renew their kernel license which is why MS took over the core of Term Services. MS realized that Citrix was pumping out a lot of cash from their product and wanted a bigger piece of the pie. In the end I think Citrix was happier anyway as they didn't have to keep supplying patches for MS's core piece as well.

But perhaps lessons in spelling.