Good for proxmox.
Read TFA. Customers are going to Nutanix, Citrix, etc. NOT Proxmox.
It looks a lot like VMware just lost a 24,000-VM customer
81–90 of 151 posts
Re: It looks a lot like VMware just lost a 24,000-VM customer
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone looking at nutanix: what are the issues?
They still force you into a specific hardware organisation (hyperconverged, disks are on the compute nodes and storage is distributed) which doesn't make sense for everyone's workloads. Also, at least a few years ago(hope it's not still the case), a lot of their services were a bunch of open source poorly stitched together with bash, and their poor abstraction over it was leaking heavily. Their APIs were also very po…
Yeah, the company I work for has millions of dollars tied up in Pure storage arrays. We evaluated Nutanix and I just stopped listening after they said they don't support external storage. Huge missed opportunity for them.
Re: It looks a lot like VMware just lost a 24,000-VM customer
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I mentioned below: They are not snarky and they very gladly work with corporates as well. They are just writing in some weird pissy tone. Look at all the sponsored content they have from ZTE, as well as all the Nutanix specific articles because of Nutanix .NEXT Snark is fine if you are evenhanded by being snarky about everyone, but it ain't great if you're clearly picking and choosing and deciding to take money fr…
Hate to burst your bubble, but even the super tight-laced "serious" journalism, especially in tech, all works the same way too. Going super hardcore on "professionalism" makes it easier to sell objectivity whereas in the background you are also clearly picking and choosing to decide to take money from vendors. It's just one aesthetic over another. The corporate-style is made to win over those naive to think their sli…
> Hate to burst your bubble, but even the super tight-laced "serious" journalism, especially in tech, all works the same
You ain't bursting my bubble. I've wined and dined DarkReading, SDxCentral, etc.
At least they aren't being mean while selling access.
This is why I said read practioners personal blogs and stuff, not these kinds of corporate journals.
Re: It looks a lot like VMware just lost a 24,000-VM customer
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, the tone is supposed to be that way. It was designed as a UK-tabloid style IT news source, which have informal and opinionated tones (I don't know if it was originally done in jest or not). The fact that it publishes in a low-brow, combative style in an industry that is (historically, anyways) mostly educated is part of the "joke", especially has most other tech press at the time it was created in the 199…
The issue is these old school blogs aren't some random dudes eating ramen who love technology for the sake of technology anymore. They are now owned by press wire publishers and corporate conference owners, and as companies have increasingly moved away from both these options, the tone has become increasingly uneven. Look at how much RSA flamed Palo Alto Networks for deciding to quit RSA and how Register never uses s…
You might be right, but at least it is SOME skeptical source to fight back against the unending gusher of marketing bullshit.
The fact they may preferentially apply the snark based on "extortion" isn't great, but at least they are SOME voice, and like comedy some snarky sarcasm is often much more incisive that (shockingly) fluff.
And considering the gushing amound of shadow-sponsored fluff in other magazines, aka the flip side of your alleged "extortion". If anything, the non-snark is an honest signal to an informed reader.
Re: It looks a lot like VMware just lost a 24,000-VM customer
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Basically, this customer was using BOTH Nutanix and VMWare internally (I am VERY surprised how the previous CFO did not get fired for something like that), and because they already had the Nutanix knowhow and licenses, migrated fully to it. Why do you think that? Not putting all of your eggs into a single vendor basket seems like a solid plan - if anything the Broadcom/VMware disaster supports it.
> Why do you think that Have you ever seen Nutanix's pricebook as well as VMWare's? Spending 2x on hypervisors is dumb because now you need 2x the headcount on SMEs because you'll need both a Nutanix and VMware SME, as well as 2x the contract negotiations, and the money you are spending on both could have been better spend improving your product or hiring more people to sell your product. It's a bad use of capital. A…
And yet, every single large company I worked for had AWS, Azure and Google Cloud, without exception. Many also have extensive on-prem resources.
Also, the contract negotiations you mentioned work much better if the competitor is already well present in your company.
Re: It looks a lot like VMware just lost a 24,000-VM customer
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you have a sticky existing customer who's about to churn, you end up discounting below the price of the migration, then slowly rise the cost again, then do the same thing again (this is easy because margins are 80% in our industry). All vendors do this - you can't escape it. This is why companies began leaving for the Cloud - sure it's upfront more expensive, but the negotiations are not as protracted.
> All vendors do this - you can't escape it. This is why companies began leaving for the Cloud - sure it's upfront more expensive, but the negotiations are not as protracted. I don't get your point here: if you mean the public cloud, it's the synonym of vendor lock-in now.
Everything is vendor lock-in. The difference is negotiations are not as protracted, the muscle to develop a multi-cloud strategy is fairly well built in our industry, AND cloud purchasing offers multiple different styles of billing (eg. subscription driven, multiyear, credit driven, etc) whereas with on-prem you have only a single type of billing model.
Re: It looks a lot like VMware just lost a 24,000-VM customer
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Good move, and plenty more like this will happen. What is a good move? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying, but I thought the main lesson from the whole VMware fiasco would be that IT departments would not rely on a single vendor/hypervisor in the future. This consolidation just increases their dependence on Nutanix, does it not?
Consolidation is a good move, because it minimizes your overhead from a team management and procurement management basis. Infra is a cost center at the end of the day. > I thought the main lesson from the whole VMware fiasco would be that IT departments would not rely on a single vendor/hypervisor in the future Can you justify spending 2x your hypervisor budget when that same pot of money could be used to hire more e…
However, would it be sensible to keep a small team on a different tech (in this case move everything to N but keep a small V team) so that when shit happens in the other side you have an immediate team to migrate everything to this side?
(I'm thinking about MSFT who maintained a small Windows team when the majority effort went to OS/2 back in the 80s)
Re: It looks a lot like VMware just lost a 24,000-VM customer
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Basically, this customer was using BOTH Nutanix and VMWare internally (I am VERY surprised how the previous CFO did not get fired for something like that), and because they already had the Nutanix knowhow and licenses, migrated fully to it. Why do you think that? Not putting all of your eggs into a single vendor basket seems like a solid plan - if anything the Broadcom/VMware disaster supports it.
> Why do you think that Have you ever seen Nutanix's pricebook as well as VMWare's? Spending 2x on hypervisors is dumb because now you need 2x the headcount on SMEs because you'll need both a Nutanix and VMware SME, as well as 2x the contract negotiations, and the money you are spending on both could have been better spend improving your product or hiring more people to sell your product. It's a bad use of capital. A…
> It's a bad use of capital. At the end of the day, Infra is a cost center. It's something used to keep the lights on, but doesn't expand your TAM.
Indeed it is and while CFOs may not completely understand the technology they do understand risk and if the CTO has flagged "single vendor" as a risk then the CFO will go with that.
Re: It looks a lot like VMware just lost a 24,000-VM customer
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry just to clarify, leave for the cloud or leave cloud? Looks like in this case it is indeed leave for the cloud (leave VMs) but I also heard a lot about leaving cloud for self hosting.
Leaving/left for the cloud. There is some scaling down of cloud resources for self hosting, but as a whole all CSPs have seen growth in users across all buckets. On-prem doesn't give you flexibility, and leaves you open to getting arm twisted by vendors. Similar stuff happens in cloud ofc, but it's easier to implement a multi-cloud strategy than a multi-hypervisor strategy.
Gotcha, thanks for the insight.
Re: It looks a lot like VMware just lost a 24,000-VM customer
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do you think that Have you ever seen Nutanix's pricebook as well as VMWare's? Spending 2x on hypervisors is dumb because now you need 2x the headcount on SMEs because you'll need both a Nutanix and VMware SME, as well as 2x the contract negotiations, and the money you are spending on both could have been better spend improving your product or hiring more people to sell your product. It's a bad use of capital. A…
And yet, every single large company I worked for had AWS, Azure and Google Cloud, without exception. Many also have extensive on-prem resources. Also, the contract negotiations you mentioned work much better if the competitor is already well present in your company.
> every single large company I worked for had AWS, Azure and Google Cloud,
Multi-cloud is different from on-prem related stuff like multi-hypervisors, because there are multiple billing methods, the muscle to migrate is much better built in the industry, and your cloud costs can be placed within R&D (which traditionally gets way more leeway due to tax benefits) whereas any IT Infra spend will inevitably fall under the Finance&IT budget.