In enterprise tech, metrics help us define criteria for success or failure. For instance we use reporting tools to let us know how our systems are performing, what the latency is in critical applications, how we scale or grow the number of virtual machines in our environment and even mundane tasks such how long our backups took to complete. In enterprise tech, we are always defined by quality measurement, analysis and transparency so we can make good decisions that drive value in IT.

Unfortunately, the same is not always true on the internet where charlatans prey on the naiveté of others who may not understand the metrics available to measure the extraordinary claims of “internet success”. Transparency and honesty can be difficult to find so as a rule of thumb, when someone makes an extraordinary claim, I “trust… but verify”.

The most recent example of this was Wikibon’s claim on its blog that their video streaming from VMworld “reached nearly 200,000 live viewers over four days”. During VMworld, Wikibon teamed up with SiliconAngle to produce “The Cube” which streamed live interviews from the show over the internet. The streams were broadcast over SiliconAngle.tv and were linked on their main site SiliconAngle.com as well as promoted on Wikibon.com and Twitter.

If Wikibon / SiliconAngle generated 200,000 viewers in such a short period, it would be an amazingly extraordinary feat. On its face, the claim is truly absurd. Don’t get me wrong, VMworld is an amazing conference and this year over 17,000 people attended the show – a record for VMworld in an era that has seen IT trade shows decline dramatically. Still, “200,000 live viewers over four days” is a big claim.

There are a few publicly accessible ways to try and verify the claims. The first is Quantcast, which SiliconAngle subscribes to, directly measures traffic on SiliconAngle.com, SiliconAngle.tv and any other network of sites they have included to be tracked. According to traffic directly measured by Quantcast, SiliconAngle.tv (which is the site that broadcasted the event) had a single day peak of 2.5k global web site visitors and 242 US web site visitors. The entire SiliconAngle network (which includes sites that did not broadcast the event) had a single day peak of 7.9k global web site visitors and 1.9k US web site visitors. See the graph below:
The numbers are further validated by SiliconAngle’s Justin.TV channel which is the service they used to stream the event live. According to Justin.TV, SiliconAngle has a total of 4,066 views for ALL of their videos, not just those from VMworld.

So what does this all mean?

It’s not just a stretch to claim 200,000 viewers if the actual number looks less than 3,000… it’s a dramatic lie.

I really do like the guys at Wikibon and I suspect their inflated numbers came from SiliconAngle which is desperately trying to gain credibility in enterprise tech. According to multiple sources across the industry, Wikibon and SiliconAngle have been touting extraordinarily strong viewer numbers, influence and reach as they sell the services of “The Cube” for tens of thousands of dollars to vendors. If the Quantcast numbers are accurate, then SiliconAngle may be committing fraud. Since Quantcast is a service that SiliconAngle subscribes to and the script for tracking traffic has been verified as embedded in their sites, there is no reason to believe the traffic numbers are inaccurate.

Why do I care?

This is about transparency which is one of those things I have harped on vendors, media, analysts and pseudo-analysts in our industry for awhile. This is pretty simple: No one, especially end-users, benefits from bad information, marketing disguised as independent analysis or over-inflated influence peddling. It’s also not fooling anyone inside the industry. The problem is that too many people in our industry have come to expect games like this. Just “play along to get along”. Didn’t we get over this in the 90’s when over-inflated egos and over-inflated bullshit bubbles popped and sunk entire companies? Our industry has some really great people who provide great value and build companies based on good ethics and transparency. Too often, they are drowned out by the games less ethical people play. If you are passively “playing along to get along,” you are part of the problem.

SiliconAngle isn’t the first company to inflate their value to IT vendors and they won’t be the last. IT vendors are particularly responsible for doing their due diligence of potential partners since they will share in the burden of credibility. IT vendors should also understand the value of reliable metrics, measurement and transparency as they are subject to the same scrutiny from their customers – if they inflate their performance metrics, their customers are going to let them know it. Credibility isn’t the most important thing in our industry, it’s the ONLY thing.

Trust… but verify.

NOTE: When the discrepancy in the SiliconAngle site viewer numbers was discovered, I contacted Wikibon to share my concerns and to ask them if they had independently verifiable site statistics to support the claim on their blog. As of the time of this posting, Wikibon is looking to verify the numbers. If Wikibon or SilconAngle have independent, third party statistics that are different than Quantcast’s numbers, I’ll be glad to post the information.

UPDATE: If Wikibon or SiliconAngle can independently verify “200,000 live viewers,” I will tear down this blog and turn it into a temple dedicated to both.

UPDATE #2: http://www.justin.tv/nicefishfilms#/w/371111248 is showing 518,000 “views” which I do not dispute at all. Views are not considered a reliable measure of traffic (hit refresh 10 times and you’ll see why). The claim that SiliconAngle and Wikibon are making is that there were “200,000 live viewers” which would be a significant feat.

© Greg Knieriemen for iKnerd.com, 2010. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Everyone these days has an opinion about why HP and Dell are aggressively bidding for 3PAR. So far, the explanations don’t seem to satisfy the question of why 3PAR and why now. I don’t know any more than anyone else, but I have some ideas.

Dell

Dell started the bidding frenzy at $1.15 billion and the reasons are pretty clear. Dell has a number of enterprise storage components already including it’s OEM relationship with EMC, iSCSI storage Equallogic and the intellectual property of a scale-out NAS start up called Exanet. Dell lacks a few pieces of the whole enterprise storage puzzle which includes a high-end storage array and a scalable, multi-tenant storage solution for cloud computing. 3PAR is the only obvious vendor that can provide this whole new line of solutions for Dell getting them closer to rounding out their storage portfolio. For Dell, the 3PAR acquisition will generate new enterprise business and, based on how you value enterprise and cloud storage sales of the future, the high cost for 3PAR may very well be justified.

Even with 3PAR, Dell is still going to have to build on their VMware integration like they have done with their acquisition of Equallogic. Back then, many people speculated that Dell couldn’t integrate an innovative and R&D intensive technology like Equallogic into their commodity-driven, low margin PC business. Dell proved many people wrong and were masterful in their acquisition of Equallogic. 3PAR doesn’t automatically complete the storage puzzle for Dell but it could be a huge leap forward. The challenge for Dell will really come down to how fast and how well they will be able to integrate 3PAR and how well they communicate the value proposition to prospective customers.

HP

HP’s counter bid for Dell was a slight surprise although there were reports that HP tried to acquire 3PAR awhile ago. HP has two enterprise storage lines already- the EVA and XP (which is OEM’d from Hitachi Ltd. in Japan). With the attempted acquisition of 3PAR, HP is essentially conceding what many in the industry already thought: The EVA line of storage has been reliable but just isn’t able to keep up with the escalating demands of enterprise and cloud computing. There is also a fair amount of overlap between the XP line and 3PAR. For HP, buying 3PAR means there will be some level of cannibalization of existing product lines. As with Dell, HP understands that the value of this acquisition really comes down to how much NEW business can be generated. The challenge for HP is that the cannibalization of existing products is not new business and can’t be counted on to justify the cost of the acquisition. To justify the acquisition, they are going to have to bank on greater sales potential with 3PAR than Dell is forecasting.

HP, however, is as well equipped to manage acquisitions as anyone. As they proved with their EDS acquisition for $13.5 billion in 2008, HP is more than capable of making big acquisitions and making them profitable as quickly as possible. In spite of some cannibalization, no one should doubt that HP could do well with 3PAR.

What’s after 3PAR?

Some stock watchers are eagerly looking for the next hot storage company as the spikes in the valuation of Compellent and Isilon have proven. While Compellent and Isilon are great technologies, they are distinctly and completely different from 3PAR. Compellent cannot scale to the extent of 3PAR and lacks the multi-tenant features that are required for cloud computing. Isilon is a scale-out Network Attached Storage appliance for storing file data, not blocks of data like 3PAR. Again, both Compellent and Isilon are great options for the solution sets they serve, but they should not be confused as an alternative to 3PAR.

For the loser

3PAR really isn’t an all-or-nothing option for either vendor. While some have speculated that there are other hardware vendors to be acquired, there is no match to 3PAR for sale today. The more likely scenario is that whoever does not get 3PAR will likely proceed with an OEM deal with an ably equipped, highly scalable, multi-tenant storage vendor… and there are a few. What they will really lose is control of their own destiny while R&D is managed by another company that’s presumably a competitor. It’s not a great position to be in but it’s not all that uncommon.

Who will win?

Both Dell and HP have deep enough pockets and I wouldn’t be shocked if the bidding doesn’t go another round. It really comes down to how much value and revenue either one believes they can derive by acquiring 3PAR. Ultimately, whoever wins will have to execute a strategy in very short order to keep shareholders from questioning the deal.

© Greg Knieriemen for iKnerd.com, 2010. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 3PAR, DELL, EMC, Hitachi, HP

On August 4th, an article appeared in the New York Times that stunned Silicon Valley: Former internet policy adversaries Google and Verizon were working on a deal that would allow carriers to charge websites for premium access speeds.

On August 5th, both Verizon and Google were completely denying that a deal or agreement on net neutrality was in the works.

As it turns out, the denials were a word game.

The two companies announced on August 9th that they have been talking and have created a policy framework for the management of internet traffic. Ever since, Google has been fending off criticism from nearly every corner of the tech industry. As you read back to the initial denials from Google, it is clear now that the language was carefully chosen:

“The New York Times is quite simply wrong,” a Google spokeswoman said in an e-mail. “We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet.”

The New York Times was also right – a policy deal was in the works, it just wasn’t about “paying for carriage of Google traffic”. It’s a word game that back-fired on Google and unnecessarily fueled speculation about what the agreement really means.

As you listen to Google deny that they have abandoned ‘Net Neutrality‘ and peel back the noise from neutrality advocates, you get the sense that this really isn’t about policy as much as it is about appearance and communication. The most obvious problem is that the public is already skeptical of telephone companies so any policy agreement between Google and Verizon was going to be viewed poorly no matter how good the intent. Google had the same problem recognizing public sensitivities around privacy when they launched Buzz.

Google would help itself greatly if it just explained in plain English how this policy framework would be implemented by them. Some have speculated that the policy agreement is really intended to serve Google’s interest in providing faster service without impacting the internet:

Proximity to users is important because of the way data moves around the Internet – by hopping from one router to another. Because each hop takes time – only a matter of milliseconds, but still measurable time – the best way to speed transmission is to reduce the hops. This can be done either by creating a figurative fast lane, which violates net neutrality, or by putting the data closer to the user, which doesn’t.

Google’s agreement with Verizon could very well be merely a way for Google to get its data closer to users, by dropping its shipping containers into Verizon data centers, or perhaps their parking lots. The phone company’s data centers, after all, are typically a hop or two from Internet users.

Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay. This would save space for other traffic – and money for both Verizon and Google. Net neutrality would be not only intact, but enhanced.

If true, why doesn’t Google just communicate this? Why the tap dance, the clever denials and now defense of cloudy policy?

Wireless

One area still of concern is the lack of policy around wireless. Google claims that “the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market” and, for the time being, should not be impacted by policy. Yes, there is more competition in wireless, but not a whole lot more. When dial-up modems were the only way to access the internet, there were many more competitors. The telephone and cable companies jumped in and competition drove innovation to provide higher speed access which in turned spurred further innovation as the capabilities of the internet were exploited.

Today, in spite of high demand, the competition isn’t there to force wireless innovation. Instead, the incentive for AT&T (and most telephone companies for that matter) is to leverage the scarcity (supply) of wireless to build a tiered model of service.  Even though AT&T has more than enough demand for it’s services, it has been slower than it’s much smaller and less capitalized “competition” (Sprint) to roll out faster 4G service. Why? Because exclusive demand for the iPhone has muted any need for AT&T to compete with Sprint’s 4G service. The result is that AT&T customers will pay more in a tiered plan for the same bad service. There is simply no reason at this point for AT&T to compete and innovate when they can make more money with the same level service.

We needed more than demand in the dial-up days to drive innovation, we needed real competition – and it worked. Short of that level of competition, we’ll need a policy framework for wireless that keeps data neutrality in place so that innovation, not tiered services, becomes the priority for the telephone companies.

© Greg Knieriemen for iKnerd.com, 2010. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

It’s not surprising that Google’s Android has officially passed the Apple iPhone among new smartphone users. While the iPhone is sexier and easier to use, Android is carried by more phones, more vendors and more networks than the iPhone. Google has excelled where Apple never will: Options.

Some consumers want sexy and they want easy… but other users also want choice and flexibility. iPhones are sexy and easy but the entire Apple ecosystem (yes, even the iPad) is about control: control over features, control over what applications you can use and control over your network options. For Apple, a good user experience equates to locking down the system. FaceTime looks like a great tool for communications… if you ONLY want to talk with other iPhone users and ONLY over a wifi connection. It’s a good user experience in a controlled and extremely limited environment and that is what Apple does best.

For those who like choices and flexibility, the trade-off comes with a cost. The Android OS is not idiot proof and it’s not as intuitive as the iPhone. Simple options such as changing your keyboard are cool but do require a little engineering spirit. In addition, typical Android apps are cheaper than those in iTunes but finding the right ones that work the way you want them to requires trial and error. Still, flexibility and options are trumping sexy and easy.

While Apple enjoys a greater overall market share for now, the trend of new smartphone buyers towards Android phones should push them well past the iPhone in just a few quarters. The same trend will undoubtedly repeat itself again in a year when the market will be flooded with cheaper Android-based tablet computers. As my friend Robin Harris tells it, right now the iPad is “a category-creating monster hit”.

For now.

© Greg Knieriemen for iKnerd.com, 2010. | Permalink | 11 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

I’ve ranted on the podcast that Apple’s iPad was more of a toy than a high tech tool. If you want to read a book, watch a movie or play a game it’s a great device… but I’m still baffled why an enterprise engineer would want to run desktop virtualization through an iPad. It’s not what the iPad was designed for and even Steve Jobs has stated “We are not allowing apps that create their own desktops”. Contrary to fanboy belief, Apple does not create business tools, they create  consumer electronics.

Cisco on the other hand builds business tools and they’ve just unveiled the Cius (pronounced like ’see-us’) which can only be described as the business equivalent for the  iPad. The specs are impressive:

• 802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi, 3G/4G data and Bluetooth 3.0 help employees stay connected
• HD video (720p) with Cisco TelePresence solution interoperability for lifelike video communication with the simplicity of a phone call
• Forward-facing, integrated HD (720p and 30 fps) video camera with zoom
• Rear-facing, high-resolution 5-megapixel camera enables real-time, VGA-quality (640 x 480) video capture and still-photo capture
• Virtual desktop client enables highly secure access to cloud-based business applications
• Android operating system, with access to Android marketplace applications
• Collaboration applications including Cisco Quad, Cisco Show and Share, WebEx, Presence, and IM
• 7” diagonal, high-resolution color screen with contact-based touch targets delivers an elegant, intuitive experience
• HD Soundstation supports Bluetooth and USB peripherals, 10/100/1000 wired connectivity and a handset option
• Detachable and serviceable 8-hour battery for a full day of work
• Highly secure remote connections with Cisco AnyConnect Security VPN Client
• HD audio with wideband support (tablet, HD Soundstation)

The Google Android operating system of the Cius provides a solid, flexible and open platform for the multimedia experience of an iPad with potentially robust business application development that is already built for cloud access. It also comes with a virtual desktop client application. With Cisco’s AnyConnect Security VPN Client you also get a level of inherent protection. The Cius also stands apart from the iPad as a communication device whether it’s for voice or video calls.

Still, some questions do come up.

Is a seven inch screen big enough for business purposes? While this seems to be the form factor of the moment, I suspect as content creation becomes more prevalent on tablet computers, their size will increase to something closer to just under letter-size.

Will the Cius be restricted to business use or will it push down to ‘prosumer’ class? If the Cius is tightly hinged to their high-end enterprise tools like Cisco’s Unified Presence, it’s doubtful you’ll ever see it for sale in a Best Buy. If Cisco wants to put a dent in the market share of business notebooks, they’ll need to bridge both business and personal use to a degree.

Is this an iPad killer? Not at all… but they have built a far more practical tablet that is capable of adapting to the user environment. In fact, the Cius further legitimizes tablet-based computing which should also be good for the iPad.

© Greg Knieriemen for iKnerd.com, 2010. | Permalink | 8 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

In the battle of mobile phones, I picked the Sprint HTC EVO… and
that decision wasn’t really that hard. While the gadget guys debate phone specs, the real world debate is much simpler. Here is how I made my decision…

First, it’s a phone – While this should be obvious, this detail seems to get lost in the phone hardware debate. I had an iPhone for over two years and the service at AT&T was so bad for so long that I had to leave. Business calls were regularly (multiple times a day) getting dropped no matter where I was in the country. While I’ve had the EVO  just short of a week, I have yet to drop a call. In addition, I think the voice quality of the call is better on the EVO. I can’t imagine any reason why I’d want to stay with AT&T with such poor voice service. This reason alone was enough to cause me to switch to the EVO.

Then there’s email – Besides using the phone for calls, I also use it for email and calendaring – another typical business use. The email application on an Android-based phone is much more flexible in threading and filtering emails. The iPhone email client is simple and workable, but it’s no where close to business class.

Philosophy – There’s a philosophical aspect that drove me to use the EVO as well. Whether it’s an iPhone or an iPad, Apple makes products that are idiot proof and simple to use. This good philosophy extends to applications and has caused Apple to make some really bad decisions on how they control the application environment. I want to decide which apps I like and don’t like… I don’t want my phone manufacturer to filter out stable programs for arbitrary business reasons. There is no good technological reason why Apple rejected the Google Voice application. The rejection signifies everything that is wrong with Apple’s control of the application environment. It stifles innovation under the completely disingenuous guise of building a good user experience.

Tethering – Apple and AT&T promised that tethering would be available at some point in the future. As it turned out, it took over two years and a more expensive data plan. I’ve been extremely pleased with the tethering capabilities with the EVO if even on 3G for now. I expect it will be screaming fast with 4G.

GPS – With business travel, you need a GPS. Again, Apple has been promising this capability for awhile and they do offer it now, but it took awhile. (Clarification, I meant turn-by-turn navigation capability. When the 3G was originally released, it did include “A-GPS” but Apple prohibited developers from using the phone for “real time route guidance”)

Wireless hot spots are hot – The EVO easily converts into a wireless hot spot that up to 8 computers can connect to securely. This has become a critical business tool for group meetings where internet access isn’t available due to security or lack of access. There is an additional charge of $30/month to use the hot spot feature, but it’s well worth it for business travelers.

Bigger screen – The new Apple iPhone can tout screen resolution sizes, but the physical screen size is the same 3.5 inch screen. It may not seem like much, but the 4.3 inch EVO screen makes a definite difference. I think it’s much easier to read than the iPhone. In addition, the body width of email and internet articles easily snap to the width of the EVO screen regardless how much you zoom in. No more scrolling back and forth on the iPhone.

Weakness of the EVO

Learning a different way - I’ve seen and heard a number of concerns raised that the Android OS is not as intuitive as the iPhone. I’m not sure if it’s not as intuitive as much as it is just plain different. If you are accustomed to using the iPhone, you have to unlearn the iPhone way before grasping the Android way of using your phone. It’s the same difference going from a Mac to a PC… it takes awhile to get use to it.

Battery life – with my moderate use, the shorter battery life of the EVO barely gets by for me. Like many business people, my PC is my primary email interface and I’m just about able to get through a day without having to plug in my EVO. I do keep wifi and GPS turned off when it’s not needed which is a significant factor of battery life. For people who live on their mobile phones, battery life is a legitimate issue… just not for me.

Keyboard – the keyboard on the EVO (and all Android phones) is not as well laid out as it is with the iPhone. I’m still getting accustomed to it but I recall having to get use to the iPhone keyboard when I first got it.

So that’s my list of reasons… can you think of any criteria for business use I missed?

© admin for iKnerd.com, 2010. | Permalink | 21 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Reading Steve Jobs recent missive on Adobe Flash raises an interesting question: What about users?

First, let’s get a few things straight. The iPhone and iPad are designed for ease of use and were not designed for the hardcore nerd. There is very little customization and your choice of applications is limited to those that Apple approves. It is a tightly controlled ecosystem and they are nearly idiot-proof media consumption tools. While there are some cool and geeky business applications (as Gabe points out), the majority of users are non-technical and just want a simple and good experience.

That said, most iPad and iPhone users don’t care whether the content they are consuming is in Flash or HTML5 – they just want to see it. Jobs post on Flash wasn’t about the user preferences as much as it was about his own preference and making business decisions that exclusively benefits Apple. This is not about the user experience at all – but it should be.

On the technical merits of his argument, he’s right but hypocritical - Flash isn’t “open” but neither is the iPhone or iPad. Jobs is also right that Flash is a heavy application and Adobe has done a miserable job of creating a light version for smart phones. I’m not going to argue that Flash is critical for a good user experience even though it’s widely used – it’s not all that elegant and it’s a resource and power hog… but it would still work.

Steve Jobs is being opportunistic. I suspect this has less to do with technical concerns or user experience than it is about money - Flash support on the iPhone and iPad would create create a huge hole for Apple’s App Store since Flash applications and games are available for free on the internet. Without Flash, you are forced to buy a non-Flash application from Apple. At the end of the day, this isn’t about the user experience, it’s about control and money.

© Greg Knieriemen for iKnerd.com, 2010. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

The Cleveland Plain Dealer admitted today that it’s companion site, Cleveland.com, unveiled the identity of an anonymous poster which in turn exposed a potential conflict of interest for a local judge. Some of the anonymous posts referenced cases covered by the judge. According to the Plain Dealer, it was the judge’s daughter who used her mother’s email address to set up her anonymous account on Cleveland.com.

Both the paper and the site are touting the deliberate privacy violation as an “ethical debate”.

There isn’t a debate at all. Regardless of the seediness of a judge’s daughter commenting on mom’s court cases (if that is all it really was),  The Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com had no business at all investigating who is posting comments on the site unless there is a compelling legal reason to do so. While it might make for an interesting story in the paper, there was no public interest or compelling legal reason to disclose the anonymous poster.

Still, this from Plain Dealer Editor Susan Goldberg:

“You can argue we should not have uncovered lawmiss’ identity,” Goldberg said in an interview, “and maybe we shouldn’t have. But once we did, I don’t know how you can pretend you don’t know that information. How can you put that genie back in the bottle?

This is an unbelievably dumb comment from a newspaper editor who understands all too well that journalists regularly expect anonymity for their sources. No, the paper shouldn’t have investigated who is leaving anonymous posts… and no, the only “genie in the bottle” is one that the paper created. Justifying it this way is a nonsensical, circular argument. Compounding this failure is Goldberg herself: she is a newspaper veteran from San Jose and knows the technology universe all too well from covering Silicon Valley. It’s hard to believe she of all people doesn’t understand the intersection between technology, privacy and journalism.

It’s also commercial suicide.

Newspapers are struggling to transition their business to the online universe where building a community is paramount to their success. Building that community entails trust that is built between the site and the participants of the site. The Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com willfully violated that trust.

© Greg Knieriemen for iKnerd.com, 2010. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Just received this email from HDS:

2 March 2010

Dear Valued Partner, Due to the recent acquisition of Sun Microsystems by Oracle Corporation, there has been much speculation as to the effect the merger will have on the market, product offerings and partnerships. As you are aware, Hitachi Data Systems and Sun Microsystems have enjoyed a successful business partnership. On March 31, 2010, the current distribution agreement that Hitachi Data Systems and Sun Microsystems have been jointly operating under for the past nine years will come to an end. This relationship has given our partners access to industry-leading storage solutions built on Hitachi technology on which many of the world’s top enterprises have come to rely. With the acquisition of Sun Microsystems, Hitachi Data Systems and Oracle agree that the time is right to evolve this relationship into one reflecting the priorities of the new company. We are jointly determining the positioning of the products and solutions based on Hitachi Data Systems that you have deployed with clients. We understand you and your customers have questions and concerns surrounding service obligations to the global install base moving forward. Hitachi Data Systems will be answering all questions and concerns with solid transition programs and will focus on meeting the demands of the continued excitement in the marketplace around the Hitachi Data Systems technology and the unique leading edge solutions that the Hitachi Data Systems brand has, and will continue to bring to market. These solutions will continue to be made available to you and your customers under the Hitachi Data Systems brand name. Details will be forthcoming on programs and processes that will help guide you and your customers, as we transition this business moving forward. A new chapter is here, and Hitachi Data Systems sees great opportunities for you that will materialize in the market. Protecting, developing and growing your business is our top priority. Thank you.

© Greg Knieriemen for iKnerd.com, 2010. | Permalink | 13 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

This is an interview Simon Seagrave (techhead.co.uk) and I did with Gary Thome, HP Vice President and Chief Architect of Infrastructure Software and Blades at the HP Blades Day last week in Houston.

© Greg Knieriemen for iKnerd.com, 2010. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: