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.