Did VMware just cancel their client hypervisor outright?

It's been almost two months since I wrote about VMware delaying the release of View 4.5 (and we've since learned that the release is being delayed even longer).

It's been almost two months since I wrote about VMware delaying the release of View 4.5 (and we've since learned that the release is being delayed even longer). Back then I wondered whether the delay was related to the client hypervisor. My thoughts were maybe it was turning out to be more work than they expected?

I mentioned this to an attendee of BriForum a few weeks ago, and his sarcastic reaction was "Oh please!" He pointed out that if Citrix and Virtual Computer can build a bare metal client hypervisor, than certainly VMware can too. His opinion is that VMware has cancelled their client hypervisor project because the whole concept of the client hypervisor is not in-line with VMware's datacenter- and cloud-based strategies.

This is certainly an interesting point. A client hypervisor forces VMware to admit that there is some type of computing that should not take place in the datacenter, and that's the exact opposite of everything they've been saying for the past few years. No client hypervisor plays nicely into Chetan's views about the prominence of datacenter-hosted VDI desktops in the future and the performance that can come from them.

So now that VMware is publicly backing away from the client hypervisor and pushing the Type 2 offline mode of View 4.5 for "occasional" instances when offline use is needed, maybe Type 2 is all they need and the client hypervisor just fades away as they steer everyone into the datacenter?

Adding fuel to the speculation fire, Alessandro Perilli reported last week that VMware lost Jocelyn Goldfein, the VP and GM of the desktop business unit. I get the feeling that Alessandro sort of posted that more as a rumor, but I can absolutely confirm his story and I can comfirm that Jocelyn's not running the desktop business anymore. [UPDATE: VentureBeat has confirmed that Jocelyn left VMware for Facebook.] And I also know that it was Jocelyn who was really gung-ho about the client hypervisor. So while that's certainly not hard evidence proving that VMware is abandoning the client hypervisor, it is consistent with what might happen if VMware abandoned the client hypervisor.

Join the conversation

7 comments

Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

1- they didn't get the application virtualization message which is, for all the customer I've talked to, the 1st step to user virtualization... and they did so even with a good tool (ThinApp) that could easilly become a real solution with some delivery and control mechanism


2- I've heard that the 4.5 will be delivered wihtout the integration of the user profile management


3- their CVP (don't remeber where I've seen Cancelled Virtualization Project as the real name) is now out of scope...


Could I say : Desktop Virtualization is not a market they are really after ? That's a shame because they could have trully good solution in lot of spaces due to their history : AppVirt with ThinApp, VDI with PCoIP, Client Virtualization, Profile Management... I think they didn't get the "User Facing Virtualization".


Cancel

Hi there Brian.


Just to add more insight about the virtualization.info article mentioned here: I got the *unconfirmed rumor* one month before publishing it (so my first tip arrived around mid-June, when Jocelyn Goldfein was already  on sabbatical).


I had to wait for two additional confirmations, from insider sources, before publishing as confirmed news, on mid-July.


And after the article went live, I received even more confirmations.


Cancel

This is just more VMware BS, since they FAILED. The bottom line is VMware is in real trouble and people just don't get it.


I posted here again today community.citrix.com/.../viewpage.action Below is what I posted and I think it applies to much of what is really going on. For the record I think this is a shame and will make our industry weaker as a result with one major player only, number three is MS so who cares.


Here is what I posted:


It for once would be really really nice if people from VMware would actually post some valid technical retort. Call me a idiot all you want, but please at least come back with something valid, you just look stupid.  


Citrix in this blog point out major flaws with PCoIP and point out flawed thinking amongst customers who don’t understand what it takes to implement in the real world. I see nothing from any VMware person that would negate fact, just cry babies ramblings like just wait customers will show you! Boo hoo cry babies, say something valid.


The anonymous post above points to the latest missing features in View, RTO. We’ve already lost client side hypervisors and now there is an active marketing campaign by VMware to say nah, type 2 is the future.  


virtualization.info/.../vmware-answers-to-citrix-on-xenclient.html


Yet more rumors that Vmware has failed with Client side hypervisors.


www.brianmadden.com/.../did-vmware-just-cancel-their-client-hypervisor-outright.aspx


The GM and other execs in the View team just got the boot.


virtualization.info/.../vmware-loses-its-vp-and-gm-of-desktop-business-unit.html


Burton group puts Citrix ahead


virtualization.info/.../xendesktop-beats-view-in-burton-groups-vdi-assessment-none-of-them-is-good-enough.html


VRC puts Citrix ahead, hmmm is that why they got the boot from VMWorld?


www.brianmadden.com/.../vdi-smackdown-head-to-head-analysis-of-citrix-xendesktop-microsoft-vdi-quest-vworkspace-and-vmware-view.aspx


http://www.twitter.com/crod points out numerous times how PCoIP suffers at loss.


Goldman Sachs published a report with some market predictions, that was commented on by Rupert Collier here www.brianmadden.com/.../should-citrix-just-buy-bigfix-and-appsense-and-dominate-the-windows-desktop.aspx Here’s is the summary:


VDI Market value:


$332m this year


$785m next year


$1.9bn by 2013


Market share:


42% Citrix in 2009


51% VMware in 2009


50% Citrix in 2013


39% VMware in 2013


So Vmware fans, I’ll give Citrix hell also when they are wrong and they know I do. But in this case they are right, you are not. POSoIP is flawed in many respects unless you create a perfect lab environment. Come back with facts, call me an idiot if you wish, but don’t underline why you are stupid cry babies.


Cancel

I have two comments.  First, unrelated to this (unfortuantely) is that many of the posters in blog that @AppSense's refers to point out a consistent problem.  People become emotionally attached and simply fling personal FUD under the banner of "anonymous".  


Relating to this, I am very interested in Brian's statement that VMware may be afraid of doing anything to pull processing power out of the data center.  Hypervisor lock-in aside, that brings up an excellent question about which model is better.  The lack of profile management and centralized application delivery management concerns me.  Is View a product with great potential that is destined to wilt and die on the vine?


Cancel

And by @AppSense I meant @appdetective....


Cancel

You know, there is a reason that Citrix, Virtual Computer, and Neocleus have a client hypervisor.


It's called XEN.


VMware's purchase of Tungsten Graphics in Nov. 2008 IMO is the initial indication that they wanted to control the hardware devices on the client. Totally redundant to what MS is doing and a nightmare as well.


Can you imagine the amount of patches/updates they will have over time on a client hypervisor? Take a look at vSphere/ESX for a clue.


VMware will spread FUD to try to invalidate a technology that they first validated.


It's actually quite funny to see a company which roots are utilizing the most resources out of your hardware tout a solution that insists you to run everything centrally which in turns makes you purchase low end processing at the client otherwise it's wasted because they don't believe in distributed computing.


Tsk. Tsk. When will VMware and their fans start to respect that end user device that they work on?


@appdetective - Awesome points. I love that coined statement you said earlier. Something along the lines of "My only view of VMware is from my rear view mirror".


Cancel

First off @Kata Tank: Great laugh on CVP=” Cancelled Virtualization Project”


I think the “attendee” of @Brian might very well be on to something. I’ve never quite pictured VMW, as of past & current, to have any real Interest in “Offline”/Local/Client side (Client/Server even if you so wish)even) and management thereof. IMO it’s for better or worse, I’d always see competition as something essentially good, so in that sense it’s a bit sad that VMW are not going full throttle as regards Desktops.


@appdtective: I posted a comment on the first link you mentioned (Harry’s piece) and also spread manure (if some so like) on the topic of RemoteFX. In the comment at Harry’s piece I took the angle of comparing RemoteFX Hyper-V exclusively with the View V-Sphere. In other topics, like here @BM I’ve lifted the RemoteFX Q from other angels, like pure curiosity of what people make of it and such. Quite the silence, why?  


As of now, I’m quite hesitant as of good advising in all things client side hypervixor:ng, bee it 1 or 2. As of VDI, the old gnome... I think it’s still a niche play, quite enough mature and valid for those few cases, but yet to shift or turn the landscape. But that’s just my opinion. What’s yours?


Cancel

-ADS BY GOOGLE

SearchVirtualDesktop

SearchEnterpriseDesktop

SearchServerVirtualization

SearchVMware

Close