VMware Is Absolutely Not a Dead Duck!

I ran into an article on eWeek this morning by Steven J Vaughan-Nichols, entitled Is VMWare a Dead Duck? I feel the need to respond. It isn’t just that I disagree, it’s that the argument used to support the proposition merits discussion and analysis. This is the argument, summarised:

Many companies and Open Source development groups are now offering “free virtualization”. Products include Xen, Open VZ, KVM, Virtual Box, UML. Red Hat is entering the fray with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1. So is Oracle, with a free Xen based offering. Dell is even bundling Xen with its PowerEdge servers and here comes Microsoft with Server 2008 which has its very own (bundled) hypervisor. So, as soon as the market understands that you can have virtualization for nothing, “VMWare est le canard mort”.

No, it’s not.

The problems with this line of reasoning are:

  1. The “apples v oranges” comparison. The confusion arises from the term “virtualization”. There are a whole variety of virtualizations – Dan Kusnetzky explains this well on ZDNet with a simple diagram. VMware is involved with only some of these. The original VMware proposition was to partition a server and run different instances of an OS in the partitions. Xen does this. IBM has been doing it for years on the zSeries. If that was all that VMware delivered then it would indeed be threatened by the rash of free capabilities that are emerging. VMware delivers more.
  2. Commodity Markets. Free software stands a better chance of dominating in a commdity market. Even so, Microsoft’s Windows OS and Office Software is surviving the attack of free products even though, in many circumstances, the products are close to commodity status. There is a whole crowd of free databases, including the ubiquitous MySQL. Neverthelss, Oracle, Microsoft and IBM still do very well out of database market. Virtualization is NOT a commodity.
  3. Free software isn’t exactly free. Free software is only free if it involves zero implementation effort and zero operational effort. Attacks on dominant vendors by free offerings rarely eliminate the value that large enterprises place in the dominant products. VMware’s primary market is the large enterprise, where the intelligent use of virtualization can save dramatic amounts of money over time. The savings dwarf the license costs of VMware’s software. Importantly, VMware’s value proposition scales. If you want to virtualize a handful of servers, then maybe the free products are competitive or even better. If you want to manage virtualization across a server farm, it’s VMware.
  4. VMware’s stock market value. VMware is on a roll. The stock market believes it’s worth $34.99billion even though it has revenues of just over a billion. That’s a huge multiple. The stock market gets things wrong sometimes, but there are reasons why the valuation is so high, beyond VMware’s growth rate of nearly 100%. Many observers see VMware as challenging both Linux and Windows on the server. After all it VMware not Linux or Windows that’s doing the job of using computer resources effectively.
  5. The Resource Space OS. VMware is gradually evolving from being a virtualization capability to being the Resource Space OS – in effect the strategic item of software that manages the whole resource space, including both clients and server, grids and partitions, storage and access. I know. It has a long way to go to do this, but it is streets ahead of the virtual competition. The way I see it, it will be difficult for any vendor to catch VMware and its core team of engineers.

VMware is neither dead, nor wounded, nor even out of breath. And a duck, it is not.

Categories: Commentary Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , Subscribe to RSS feed
  1. the Philosopher
    August 5th, 2008 at 05:27 | #1

    You have arguments that are not very valid.

    4. VMware’s stock market value is very volatile. There is no guarantee the stock value won’t drop another 40% in the next months. Check the graph. You don’t have a point here.

    1. Kuznetsky’s “simple diagram” contains application virtualization. There is no such thing. However, the diagram shows the area where hardware virtualization comes in. That’s vmware, Xen, kvm amongst others. Hardware virtualization is just that; it acts as more hardware than you actually have. What more does vmware deliver exactly?

    2. Your examples are on a different level than hardware virtualization. As little you would care if you have HP or Dell stuff to run Oracle on, you wouldn’t care about your hypervisor brand. The only thing needed is a company that does the installation for you, who will be responsible for maintenance. Like RedHat. You will find that whitin a couple of years, hardware virtualization is a commodity.

    3. Implementation costs are comparable in vmware cases. The licenses for free are free. How does xensource/xenserver and kvm lack scaling?

    5. What?
    No Vmware is not dead and will be around for a long while, but it will be of much less value than it is now.

  1. No trackbacks yet.