Dell to Buy EMC
-
Doesn't Dell already own a storage vendor?
-
That's a damn large buy out.
-
-
-
This makes Dell the world's largest storage vendor but a truly huge margin. Take EMC and add Compellent, Equalogic and more into the fold! I wonder how much will be kept, though. Will EQL survive the buyout? Unlikely. Compellent, I suspect, will as it is a pretty good product.
-
Who does that leave? How far off from a monopoly are we?
-
@Dashrender said:
Who does that leave? How far off from a monopoly are we?
HDS is #2. IBM is #3. NetApp is #4 (for the moment.) HP is #5. That rounds out the big boys. If the "rule of threes" makes sense then the big storage field is still oversaturated with vendors. Even if you discount NetApp because they make a very different style product than the others, that leaves four massive players, not three.
And then there are the little guys like Nimble, Exablox and many others. The field is still very open and broad.
-
Dell was the sixth player on the storage list before the buyout, so it is nowhere near monopoly. What Dell is bringing to the table is effectively nothing compared to EMC's portfolio. It is questionable if anything in Dell's lineup will even be kept after the lines fully integrate.
-
And the recent IBM and HP divestitures of their desktop, laptop and commodity server divisions would be used to show that Dell, maintaining those, doesn't have a useful monopoly but is actually providing a service to the industry in spite of the impact to their business (according to their own competitors.)
Dell does not offer mini, UNIX or mainframe systems like IBM, HP and Oracle do, so there is that as well.
-
IMHO, what Dell needs to do next is either buy Fujitsu or just enter the Sparc world independently and work with Oracle and Fujitsu to build a UNIX and mainframe business inside the Dell world as well.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Who does that leave? How far off from a monopoly are we?
HDS is #2. IBM is #3. NetApp is #4 (for the moment.) HP is #5. That rounds out the big boys. If the "rule of threes" makes sense then the big storage field is still oversaturated with vendors. Even if you discount NetApp because they make a very different style product than the others, that leaves four massive players, not three.
And then there are the little guys like Nimble, Exablox and many others. The field is still very open and broad.
And Yet somehow the Storage vendors have some of the most over-priced, over-sold products. I believe there's a lot of profit margins to be made.
-
@Jason said:
And Yet somehow the Storage vendors have some of the most over-priced, over-sold products. I believe there's a lot of profit margins to be made.
I wish there was an altruistic set of funds to do a mad advertising campaign for just these types of things - SAN = normally a bad decision, tantamount to the cigarette ads.
-
@Dashrender said:
I wish there was an altruistic set of funds to do a mad advertising campaign for just these types of things - SAN = normally a bad decision, tantamount to the cigarette ads.
I wouldn't say SANs are a bad decision, it's how you implement them and design your system that is the bad decision usually. It's not the products fault.
-
@Jason said:
And Yet somehow the Storage vendors have some of the most over-priced, over-sold products. I believe there's a lot of profit margins to be made.
Tons, that is specifically what Dell said drove the purchase.
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
I wish there was an altruistic set of funds to do a mad advertising campaign for just these types of things - SAN = normally a bad decision, tantamount to the cigarette ads.
I wouldn't say SANs are a bad decision, it's how you implement them and design your system that is the bad decision usually. It's not the products fault.
I was over simplifying for the sake of an ad. Almost anyone who would be listening and taking anything from the ad would be in a situation where a SAN is more often a bad decision for them.
-
@Dashrender said:
I wish there was an altruistic set of funds to do a mad advertising campaign for just these types of things - SAN = normally a bad decision, tantamount to the cigarette ads.
@Jason said:
I wouldn't say SANs are a bad decision, it's how you implement them and design your system that is the bad decision usually. It's not the products fault.
In the SMB space they almost, but not always, are a bad decision.
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
I wish there was an altruistic set of funds to do a mad advertising campaign for just these types of things - SAN = normally a bad decision, tantamount to the cigarette ads.
I wouldn't say SANs are a bad decision, it's how you implement them and design your system that is the bad decision usually. It's not the products fault.
Definitely not the product's fault. Rarely even the vendor's fault. @Dashrender only said that they were "generally" a bad decision, which is true from an SMB perspective. In an enterprise world, they are generally a good decision (cost savings at scale.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
I wish there was an altruistic set of funds to do a mad advertising campaign for just these types of things - SAN = normally a bad decision, tantamount to the cigarette ads.
I wouldn't say SANs are a bad decision, it's how you implement them and design your system that is the bad decision usually. It's not the products fault.
Definitely not the product's fault. Rarely even the vendor's fault. @Dashrender only said that they were "generally" a bad decision, which is true from an SMB perspective. In an enterprise world, they are generally a good decision (cost savings at scale.)
And those ads rarely make a dent in the enterprise world other than to have an exec say - hey I heard about so and so - and the real IT department will make the ultimate decision (but I know this isn't always the case either).
-
Anti-trust violation, anyone?
-
