If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   There is a mass extinction coming... for tech companies   (businessinsider.com) divider line 97
    More: Scary, CEO, extinction events, vmware, Lists of IUCN Red List endangered species, Avaya  
•       •       •

7822 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 May 2014 at 11:18 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-22 08:40:56 PM  
Companies are always coming and going with the ebb and flow. This isn't something new, and isn't likely to change. Also, if you have to point out that most of your competitors died recently, that might be kind of telling of the demand for the services/tech you provide.
 
2014-05-22 09:43:43 PM  
It is very telling that they didn't mention VMware.
 
2014-05-22 10:12:48 PM  
Control Data will rise again.
 
2014-05-22 11:08:54 PM  

RoxtarRyan: Companies are always coming and going with the ebb and flow. This isn't something new, and isn't likely to change. Also, if you have to point out that most of your competitors died recently, that might be kind of telling of the demand for the services/tech you provide.


Industries can contract, certain products can become obsolete, but sometimes one company just does a better job and others can't compete.

There's always going to be a market for networking gear, servers, database software, and operating systems, the markets just may change.

Of the ones listed IBM and HP would seem to be the most vulnerable.  Both rely on hardware that can be increasingly commoditized or virtualized.

Cisco is a bit safer.  Whether they move to more software based solutions running on generic boxes instead of custom designed hardware solutions they're still a trusted name in the business and provide a type of product that will continue to be in demand.

Oracle benefits from a heavily entrenched install base, and big firms aren't going to be fighting to be the first to move to unproven database solutions, but contracted managed cloud services take a bite out of them, then again, what's running the databases for the cloud service providers?

MS is the safest of the bunch.  They just don't have any legitimate competition for their main product (Windows OS), and are pretty diversified with plenty of other software and hardware lines.

I also think that the 'grow or die' thing is overplayed.  What's wrong with running profitably without growth?  Sure, steady or rapid contraction is bad, but why is maintaining a market share and level of profitability a bad thing?  If you've got a good thing going, just keep doing it and hold it steady.
 
2014-05-22 11:09:30 PM  
While "revenue growth" is important to Wall St, "revenue" is what's important to a company.  IBM will be just fine, I'm sure.  They've got more than enough cash in the bank to survive even true losses in operating capital for years.
 
2014-05-22 11:09:47 PM  
Yes and Oracle and Cisco want to be the ones consuming.
 
2014-05-22 11:11:53 PM  
Tute,

 I'm pretty sure that IBM is probably a market leader in the hardware that does the virtualization that you're talking about... they're making huge bank virtualizing the hardware that they produced years ago.  They're not stupid, and even when they do something stupid, they've got way more than enough hands in every business out there, to make up for it.  (see also OS/2, PS/2)
 
2014-05-22 11:15:02 PM  

ekdikeo4: Tute,

 I'm pretty sure that IBM is probably a market leader in the hardware that does the virtualization that you're talking about... they're making huge bank virtualizing the hardware that they produced years ago.  They're not stupid, and even when they do something stupid, they've got way more than enough hands in every business out there, to make up for it.  (see also OS/2, PS/2)


True, I don't expect IBM to die by any means.  The problem with articles like these is that they assume companies will continue on their current track and not adapt to changes.  IBM is a huge company and notoriously conservative in how the approach things, but that doesn't mean that they can't or won't position themselves to take advantage of changes in how things are done.

I'd also forgotten about IBM's leadership in supercomputing.  I imagine that can be a pretty lucrative business.
 
2014-05-22 11:21:42 PM  
Is "Business Insider" ever right about anything?
 
2014-05-22 11:23:23 PM  

Heraclitus: Is "Business Insider" ever right about anything?


Yes. John Chambers really  is the CEO of Cisco.
 
2014-05-22 11:27:54 PM  
The Cisco CEO is declaring this?  Yawn.
Cisco's business strategy is to leach into everything like a mold, then charge forever for "certificates" to use the crap they already sold you.
They're pretty much the closest thing to an evil empire we have out there right now.

I'll be interested when someone relevant actually has something like this to say.
 
2014-05-22 11:29:02 PM  
The corporations will fail! The people will prevail!
 
2014-05-22 11:44:47 PM  
Tech companies will die.  Others will be bought up.  Others will stumble badly.  Others will appear out of no where and achieve dominance.

In other words ... absolutely nothing will be different than before but the names on top of the buildings.

/yawn
 
2014-05-22 11:51:58 PM  

ekdikeo4: IBM will be just fine, I'm sure. They've got more than enough cash in the bank to survive even true losses in operating capital for years.


Plus, when they have one bad quarter they give their subcontractors the bum's rush on flat-bid contract accounts.
 
2014-05-22 11:55:19 PM  

ekdikeo4: Tute,

 I'm pretty sure that IBM is probably a market leader in the hardware that does the virtualization that you're talking about... they're making huge bank virtualizing the hardware that they produced years ago.  They're not stupid, and even when they do something stupid, they've got way more than enough hands in every business out there, to make up for it.  (see also OS/2, PS/2)


IBM's not much of a leader in hardware anything, but they are one of the largest consulting companies in the world now. Now, even though they got that way by charging $300/hr a head for fleets of warm bodies barely out of tech school and a 20 hour training course, businesses will keep paying them that money just to last-minute fix their overseas outsourcing binges.

Because if one thing is for sure, hiring quality technical staff is something no non-tech company ever wants to do.
 
2014-05-23 12:02:42 AM  
TuteTibiImperes:  Cisco is a bit safer.  Whether they move to more software based solutions running on generic boxes instead of custom designed hardware solutions they're still a trusted name in the business and provide a type of product that will continue to be in demand.

Cisco and VMware released their Nexus 1000v virtual switch for VMware and Hyper-V a while ago. And MS sorta had routing functionality, as far back as NT4.  I'm not willing do call custom hardware dead just yet. Once generic boxes can reach wirespeed switching, near-wirespeed routing, or the low latencies of "merchant silicon", then I'll worry.

You'll still need engineers and techs to config/run/maintain the virtual switches and routers, so the upheaval in the job market shouldn't be bloodbath levels.
 
2014-05-23 12:09:03 AM  

ds615: The Cisco CEO is declaring this?  Yawn.
Cisco's business strategy is to leach into everything like a mold, then charge forever for "certificates" to use the crap they already sold you.
They're pretty much the closest thing to an evil empire we have out there right now.

I'll be interested when someone relevant actually has something like this to say.


I was walking in San Francisco today and saw a wrap ad on a newstand for Cisco server hardware. I thought "whaaa? Isn't that open hardware thing started by FB years ago making that segment kinda over?"
 
2014-05-23 12:10:49 AM  

foxyshadis: IBM's not much of a leader in hardware anything...


I'm kinda hoping both ARM and Power8+OpenPower change the server landscape. Probably won't but I can always hope.

Do banks still field AS/400 and Series9(nee RS/6000) boxes?
 
2014-05-23 12:29:55 AM  

foxyshadis: IBM's not much of a leader in hardware anything, but they are one of the largest consulting companies in the world now


I was going to point out the same thing.  I'm too lazy to dig into it, but they haven't been a hardware company for a long time.  they even sold off their laptop business to China (Lenovo).

Why the "Scary" tag though?  Was the "Obvious" tag laid off?

Check out this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_automobile_manufacturer s_ of_the_United_States

Is it scary that we don't have 800 or so different car companies?

No, although it might be scary that there are only a handful that are sold in the US.
 
2014-05-23 12:31:17 AM  

Hz so good: foxyshadis: IBM's not much of a leader in hardware anything...

I'm kinda hoping both ARM and Power8+OpenPower change the server landscape. Probably won't but I can always hope.

Do banks still field AS/400 and Series9(nee RS/6000) boxes?


To me, Power8 sounds just like the SPARC Tx series, and you saw how well that worked out for Sun. You never know, though.
 
2014-05-23 12:35:17 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I also think that the 'grow or die' thing is overplayed. What's wrong with running profitably without growth? Sure, steady or rapid contraction is bad, but why is maintaining a market share and level of profitability a bad thing? If you've got a good thing going, just keep doing it and hold it steady.


Because there are always competitors with newer tech nipping at your heels, taking ever-bigger bites out of your market share, or worse, being bought by your competition.  Your current competitors are also constantly trying to take your current customers away from you. There's no standing pat in business anymore.
 
2014-05-23 12:45:28 AM  

foxyshadis: ekdikeo4: Tute,

I'm pretty sure that IBM is probably a market leader in the hardware that does the virtualization that you're talking about... they're making huge bank virtualizing the hardware that they produced years ago.

IBM's not much of a leader in hardware anything, but they are one of the largest consulting companies in the world now.


IBM is one of those very few companies that has successfully pivoted, not just once, but multiple times, and has managed to make every pivot work. It's astonishing.

IBM 1.0: Time clocks and tabulators. Maybe these "computer" things will work out.
IBM 2.0: Mainframes with an open door back to typewriters or forward to the PC.
IBM 3.0: PCs with an open door back to big iron or forward to conslutants [sic]. Sell the hardware business to Lenovo.
IBM 4.0: Consulting services with an open door back to PCs-as-VMs or forward to supercomputing a'la Watson.
IBM 5.0: Farked if I know but it'll be fun to see if they can do it again, won't it?

The key is to put just enough into R&D that you have a foot in the next door, but not so much into R&D that you're betting the company at every industry pivot point. The PS/2/MCA bus would have sank most companies, but not IBM, because they had enough going on elsewhere that they could afford a few farkups along the way. Pivoting like this is astonishingly difficult to do, and it's compounded by the fact that you have to do it 2-3 years before it's obvious that microcomputers are going to eat your mainframe business, or that clones are going to eat your PC/Laptop business.

Most companies (i.e., every company that isn't IBM) have at most one pivot in them, and even that is likely to fail. Statistically, it's far better to sell the business to the highest bidder as soon as revenue growth plateaus than is to run it to the ground in a series of futile attempts to pivot. If you sell the business into a bubble, you have the capital to make an informed choice between laying around on a beach and trying again from scratch. Both are valid options, and both are higher-probability bets than trying to pull off a series of miracles like IBM has pulled off over the past century.
/and yeah, CSCO, what's up with VMW, it's so conspicious by omission that it's shining like an arc light on that page. You know something we don't know? What's up with the dog that didn't bark?
 
2014-05-23 01:05:10 AM  

Twilight Farkle: foxyshadis: ekdikeo4: Tute,

I'm pretty sure that IBM is probably a market leader in the hardware that does the virtualization that you're talking about... they're making huge bank virtualizing the hardware that they produced years ago.

IBM's not much of a leader in hardware anything, but they are one of the largest consulting companies in the world now.

IBM is one of those very few companies that has successfully pivoted, not just once, but multiple times, and has managed to make every pivot work. It's astonishing.

IBM 1.0: Time clocks and tabulators. Maybe these "computer" things will work out.
IBM 2.0: Mainframes with an open door back to typewriters or forward to the PC.
IBM 3.0: PCs with an open door back to big iron or forward to conslutants [sic]. Sell the hardware business to Lenovo.
IBM 4.0: Consulting services with an open door back to PCs-as-VMs or forward to supercomputing a'la Watson.
IBM 5.0: Farked if I know but it'll be fun to see if they can do it again, won't it?

The key is to put just enough into R&D that you have a foot in the next door, but not so much into R&D that you're betting the company at every industry pivot point. The PS/2/MCA bus would have sank most companies, but not IBM, because they had enough going on elsewhere that they could afford a few farkups along the way. Pivoting like this is astonishingly difficult to do, and it's compounded by the fact that you have to do it 2-3 years before it's obvious that microcomputers are going to eat your mainframe business, or that clones are going to eat your PC/Laptop business.

Most companies (i.e., every company that isn't IBM) have at most one pivot in them, and even that is likely to fail. Statistically, it's far better to sell the business to the highest bidder as soon as revenue growth plateaus than is to run it to the ground in a series of futile attempts to pivot. If you sell the business into a bubble, you have the capital to make an informed choice between laying around on a bea ...


This is all true. People have been predicting IBM's demise for 30 years or more. Probably a lot more, since I'm only old enough to be aware of 30 years of it, and that's only if I've been paying attention to it outside of time that would be prudent for me to pay attention for.  (I studied the history of IBM a lot when I was an OS/2 developer).  IBM isn't going anywhere, because they have so much income that it doesn't matter if they have a loss for 20 consecutive quarters, they'll still be there, and ready to come back.  Just about everyone else is dependent on that stock market to save them.
 
2014-05-23 01:25:37 AM  
So our knowledge economy does not include knowledge? who wooaddddaa thunnnk it.

/Tech != knowledge tech employs less than 2% of the population, that didn't make everything better?, let me get my fainting couch.
 
2014-05-23 01:31:51 AM  

ekdikeo4: This is all true. People have been predicting IBM's demise for 30 years or more. Probably a lot more, since I'm only old enough to be aware of 30 years of it, and that's only if I've been paying attention to it outside of time that would be prudent for me to pay attention for. (I studied the history of IBM a lot when I was an OS/2 developer). IBM isn't going anywhere, because they have so much income that it doesn't matter if they have a loss for 20 consecutive quarters, they'll still be there, and ready to come back. Just about everyone else is dependent on that stock market to save them.


SOX became part of the regulatory environment for a reason, but one of the unintended consequences was that early/mid-stage companies were deprived of the public markets as an exit strategy. The cost of compliance for a public company is simply prohibitive.

That impetus prompted a lot of post-Worldcom/UUNET names into either selling slices of the company to VCs in a series of Series A/B/C/..Z rounds in order to achieve a higher valuation to support either an IPO or prompt another competitor to enter into a bidding war in which the company gets sold pre-IPO. That environment also worked out well for companies who did manage to overcome the IPO hurdle and who were able to use their stock as currency. If you were lucky enough to have options on an 0.01% stake in SnapChat, does it really matter whether the company was taken over $4B plus $12B in Facebook stock, or $4B cash and whatever FB is worth when you can sell the FB stock and turn it into cash? Let the company and its acquirer burn over the long term; even if FB goes to zero, someone with 0.02% of SnapChat did well enough to meet his or her material needs for a lifetime.

tl;dr: in contrast to the dot-com bubble of the 90s, most of the good IPO candidates are now bought out long before they go public. They get bought out by the post-IPO companies who are looking for something, anything, to do with the valuations imputed by their IPOs, and they have these valuations because their post-IPO investors have already (over)paid a premium for growth. The smart money is long gone. Doing so can be a decent way to make money out of thin air, but serial entrepreneurship is hardly conducive to building a viable business.

The collateral damage of the serial entrepreneur is that the founder who was interested in building a viable business never gets a premium valuation, because nobody's willing to pay a premium for anything less than hockey-stick growth. He's forced to either turn the business into an unsaleable "lifestyle business" (this is about the most vile epithet that can be thrown at a company in the Valley) or into doubling and tripling down on the original vision, which often results in lots of people getting promotions as they struggle to manage all the new people the business hires to manage the anticipated growth, while the business itself crashes and burns.

tl;stilldr: On second thought, let's not invest in startups. They are silly places.
 
2014-05-23 01:45:34 AM  

acohn: TuteTibiImperes: I also think that the 'grow or die' thing is overplayed. What's wrong with running profitably without growth? Sure, steady or rapid contraction is bad, but why is maintaining a market share and level of profitability a bad thing? If you've got a good thing going, just keep doing it and hold it steady.

Because there are always competitors with newer tech nipping at your heels, taking ever-bigger bites out of your market share, or worse, being bought by your competition.  Your current competitors are also constantly trying to take your current customers away from you. There's no standing pat in business anymore.


In tech, that's true.  In some other businesses, it's probably not.  For example, running a liquor store.  In my state, if you own a liquor store, you can't open another one.  It's a stupid law, but that's how it is.  You can make pretty good money running just one liquor store judging from the cars that the owners drive.  And you get to pay your employees minimum wage judging from the cars their employees - if they even have any besides the owner - drive.

In that situation, there's nothing wrong with not growing and you're somewhat protected from too much competition because cities will limit granting permits for other liquor stores near you.  After all, they don't want liquor stores lining entire avenues.

A former co-worker opened a liquor store that happens to be the closest one to where I live.  Every time I go in there, I ask myself why I didn't think of opening a liquor store there.  I've seen lots of businesses fail and close their doors.  I have never seen a liquor store that failed though.
 
2014-05-23 02:18:39 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I also think that the 'grow or die' thing is overplayed.  What's wrong with running profitably without growth?  Sure, steady or rapid contraction is bad, but why is maintaining a market share and level of profitability a bad thing?  If you've got a good thing going, just keep doing it and hold it steady.


How many companies have we seen DESTROYED because they were worried about growth over breaking even? tons

Sure, resting on your laurels and missing the next wave is one thing (RIM).
 
2014-05-23 03:13:47 AM  
IBM stands for "I've been moved".  I had a job offer from them once.  I would have had to move to Tampa.  I almost took the offer.   Almost.  Somehow reason prevailed.
 
2014-05-23 03:18:37 AM  
You could have made the same prediction every year since 1985 and be pretty much on the money every time.
 
2014-05-23 05:08:53 AM  

labman: It is very telling that they didn't mention VMware.


When they announced NSX at VMworld last year I also noticed that Cisco was nowhere in sight.

Well...Bye.jpg
 
2014-05-23 06:13:49 AM  

RoxtarRyan: Companies are always coming and going with the ebb and flow. This isn't something new, and isn't likely to change. Also, if you have to point out that most of your competitors died recently, that might be kind of telling of the demand for the services/tech you provide.


I'm almost wondering if this guy isn't just hoping that one of these companies wipes out so that way he'll be acclaimed as a 'visionary' and add a few more zeroes to his comp package.
 
2014-05-23 06:37:02 AM  
It's not just that network virtualization (SDN) technologies will kill Cisco, it's all of those network engineers/administrators.  What's worrying for me (as a VMware Engineer/Architect) is that so many companies are investing in IAAS (Infrastructure As A Service) with their own datacenters.  A lot of us on the infrastructure-side will be out of work if we can't successfully pivot as it will be back to having OS admins and that's about it as there won't be a need for Storage, Networking and VMware engineers/architects.  We're not there yet, but operating your own datacenter is an expensive proposition and companies will get to the point where they're only going to pay for resources used.  Fortunately, we're not there yet...but I've been giving thought about my future in IT as it doesn't bode well when you have CIOs giving serious consideration to moving everything to the cloud.
 
2014-05-23 06:37:58 AM  

foxyshadis: ekdikeo4: Tute,

 I'm pretty sure that IBM is probably a market leader in the hardware that does the virtualization that you're talking about... they're making huge bank virtualizing the hardware that they produced years ago.  They're not stupid, and even when they do something stupid, they've got way more than enough hands in every business out there, to make up for it.  (see also OS/2, PS/2)

IBM's not much of a leader in hardware anything, but they are one of the largest consulting companies in the world now. Now, even though they got that way by charging $300/hr a head for fleets of warm bodies barely out of tech school and a 20 hour training course, businesses will keep paying them that money just to last-minute fix their overseas outsourcing binges.

Because if one thing is for sure, hiring quality technical staff is something no non-tech company ever wants to do.


Hiring them isn't their issue, PAYING them is.
 
2014-05-23 06:41:03 AM  
Good.

Doing my stat proofreading work, I've realized that many of these "tech companies" already don't exist... they're a few core employees, and ten different consulting companies doing different work. Nobody wants to employ anyone, and even the tech companies are more concerned with doing everything on the cheap (in the short term) instead of thinking about long-term viability or quality of products.

The general pattern for my work follows some of these trends. I've had several clients dump me for cheap Indian counterparts, who come over on H1-Bs for consulting companies and do the work for half the price... after a year when their contract expires (sometimes less when they get mad), they come back and ask me why none of the f'n math works. I've tried to be polite and professional all the time, but I'm sick of tech companies using the H1 program to try to keep labor costs low when there are plenty of available skilled workers here in the US. You get shiat product, no accountability, and in the long-term, your company develops a crappy reputation... but everyone thinks it's all good as long as costs in this quarter are slightly lower.
 
2014-05-23 06:51:56 AM  
Cisco. A company that rejects open source and lacks innovation and dev. That article is one thing. Projection. IBM is ridding itself of its low margin server business and soon storage to Lenovo. HP has made huge structural changes and dumping loads of money into R&D while gaining market share in every data center technology and orchestration applications. MS is MS. Software is very profitable. The Cisco preso fails to mention Lenovo as the next big enterprise player. It would not suprise me if Lenovo owned Cisco i the next 5 years. Cisco has fragile and conflicting partnerships with NetApp, EMC, BMC,VMware all to provide the same solution an HP can deliver with native technologies.  It essentially a fluff piece to mask his failings and short sighted moves. Smell ya later Cisco.
 
2014-05-23 07:23:32 AM  
Yeah, I'm sure Cisco is just fine and ignoring AWS, Rackspace and in a way Microsoft's was just an oversight of what is really going on.
 
2014-05-23 07:50:31 AM  
watch cisco be the first one out
 
2014-05-23 08:04:16 AM  
It'll be a bloodbath for CEOs. Change is awesome for grunts like me.
 
2014-05-23 08:46:58 AM  

Hz so good: TuteTibiImperes:  Cisco is a bit safer.  Whether they move to more software based solutions running on generic boxes instead of custom designed hardware solutions they're still a trusted name in the business and provide a type of product that will continue to be in demand.

Cisco and VMware released their Nexus 1000v virtual switch for VMware and Hyper-V a while ago. And MS sorta had routing functionality, as far back as NT4.  I'm not willing do call custom hardware dead just yet. Once generic boxes can reach wirespeed switching, near-wirespeed routing, or the low latencies of "merchant silicon", then I'll worry.

You'll still need engineers and techs to config/run/maintain the virtual switches and routers, so the upheaval in the job market shouldn't be bloodbath levels.


And most people don't understand any of that. Even an enterprise server can barely keep up simply transmitting 1Gb/s on its NIC to just one destination. Having it act as a router and make network routing decisions with a full pipe at 100Mb/s and 1000's of destinations in software is an achievement.

I have the feeling that people think they can use an Alienware box with 4 NICs running Linux Router Project as a peering point.

I also have a feeling that people think Network Virtualization is something more than an application layer. As you said, the physical networks still need to be designed and routed. NV is just another tool in the network admin's toolbox.

The direct competition are the network hardware vendors: Juniper, Brocade, and HP. Where I disagree with Chambers is his assertion that this is different now, and will be different in 4 years. Juniper grabs the low-hanging fruit; Brocade approaches from the storage network side; HP comes in from the server side. That's a dangerous combination of competitors.
 
2014-05-23 09:24:40 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Hz so good: TuteTibiImperes:  Cisco is a bit safer.  Whether they move to more software based solutions running on generic boxes instead of custom designed hardware solutions they're still a trusted name in the business and provide a type of product that will continue to be in demand.

Cisco and VMware released their Nexus 1000v virtual switch for VMware and Hyper-V a while ago. And MS sorta had routing functionality, as far back as NT4.  I'm not willing do call custom hardware dead just yet. Once generic boxes can reach wirespeed switching, near-wirespeed routing, or the low latencies of "merchant silicon", then I'll worry.

You'll still need engineers and techs to config/run/maintain the virtual switches and routers, so the upheaval in the job market shouldn't be bloodbath levels.

And most people don't understand any of that. Even an enterprise server can barely keep up simply transmitting 1Gb/s on its NIC to just one destination. Having it act as a router and make network routing decisions with a full pipe at 100Mb/s and 1000's of destinations in software is an achievement.

I have the feeling that people think they can use an Alienware box with 4 NICs running Linux Router Project as a peering point.

I also have a feeling that people think Network Virtualization is something more than an application layer. As you said, the physical networks still need to be designed and routed. NV is just another tool in the network admin's toolbox.

The direct competition are the network hardware vendors: Juniper, Brocade, and HP. Where I disagree with Chambers is his assertion that this is different now, and will be different in 4 years. Juniper grabs the low-hanging fruit; Brocade approaches from the storage network side; HP comes in from the server side. That's a dangerous combination of competitors.


Small businesses are the worst for that... when I was still doing medical office consults (thank god that stage of my life is over), I can't tell you how many times I'd wander into a practice with 20 or 30 physicians (~100 staff), and their "server" would be some off the shelf PC from Best Buy, configured by someone's friend. Even at points it would technically get the job done, it was painfully slow, and none of them could figure out why. The worst part is, when you price out a decent solution for them, a lot of times they want to make the same mistakes all over again.
 
2014-05-23 09:28:03 AM  
A lot of the services offered by the big companies are going in the direction of freeware.    SAP has a lot of business in the areas which can be converted to freeware.
 
2014-05-23 09:38:43 AM  
Betcha Pied Piper will be the next big thing.
 
2014-05-23 09:49:12 AM  
I wonder where converged infrastructure stands in John Chambers' vision.
 
2014-05-23 09:50:53 AM  

rev. dave: A lot of the services offered by the big companies are going in the direction of freeware.    SAP has a lot of business in the areas which can be converted to freeware.


fark SAP

/fills in timesheet
 
2014-05-23 09:58:53 AM  
Cisco isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

The notion that HP is somehow going to knock them out, because they can supply everything in-house just isn't playing out in the real world.
HP is the one circling the drain.

IBM also will be around for a long time, for no other reason than they have deep pockets.

I would be surprised to see Brocade survive the next 10 years. They're a one-trick pony and I predict the next big jump in Ethernet speeds will finally kill Fibre Channel for storage networks.
 
2014-05-23 10:09:02 AM  
 
2014-05-23 10:15:20 AM  
Mad Morf: I would be surprised to see Brocade survive the next 10 years. They're a one-trick pony and I predict the next big jump in Ethernet speeds will finally kill Fibre Channel for storage networks.

Brocade jumped on storage area Ethernet 10 years ago. Today, Brocade is an Ethernet company, although there's still a lot of fibre channel equipment left. Brocade also has a bigger SAN installation than Cisco, so don't count them out. When people think SAN, people don't think Cisco.
 
2014-05-23 10:30:09 AM  

Mad Morf: Cisco isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

The notion that HP is somehow going to knock them out, because they can supply everything in-house just isn't playing out in the real world.
HP is the one circling the drain.

IBM also will be around for a long time, for no other reason than they have deep pockets.

I would be surprised to see Brocade survive the next 10 years. They're a one-trick pony and I predict the next big jump in Ethernet speeds will finally kill Fibre Channel for storage networks.


After moving off EMC to Nimble via 10gbe iSCSI, you'll never get me to go back to fiber channel.  Never.  But too many companies have so much invested in it, getting them to move off is almost impossible.  It's so bad that Nimble finally had to offer their products with fiber channel interfaces.
 
2014-05-23 10:31:49 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Mad Morf: I would be surprised to see Brocade survive the next 10 years. They're a one-trick pony and I predict the next big jump in Ethernet speeds will finally kill Fibre Channel for storage networks.

Brocade jumped on storage area Ethernet 10 years ago. Today, Brocade is an Ethernet company, although there's still a lot of fibre channel equipment left. Brocade also has a bigger SAN installation than Cisco, so don't count them out. When people think SAN, people don't think Cisco.


The storage world is changing fast as well.  I'm not convinced we'll even be talking about SANs in 10 years using terms we do now.
 
2014-05-23 10:55:07 AM  

rohar: After moving off EMC to Nimble via 10gbe iSCSI, you'll never get me to go back to fiber channel.  Never.  But too many companies have so much invested in it, getting them to move off is almost impossible.  It's so bad that Nimble finally had to offer their products with fiber channel interfaces.

rohar: The storage world is changing fast as well.  I'm not convinced we'll even be talking about SANs in 10 years using terms we do now.


If you can make do with iSCSI, then you were not the target market for fibre channel: Extremely low-latency and low error-rates at top speeds. iSCSI is a shared ethernet connection, and fibre channel is a completely separate network.

You're right about SANs. Fibre channel over Ethernet is a newer protocol, and it's shared now. Fibre channel's "demise" will be that not enough cared about having it on a separate network. But even "demise" is hyperbole. It's a disk protocol on the same level as iSCSI, except that disks speak native fibre channel. FCoE is actually a better protocol than iSCSI, since there's no such thing as out-of-order or quietly dropped packets that a driver like iSCSI has to worry about. FCoE is a guaranteed network. Because of the merger of the data and storage networks, yes, the term SAN will be more of a logical designation, and just one more concept and set of protocols the network admin needs to deal with. Dedicated SAN admins will need to adapt or retire.
 
Displayed 50 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report