Storage, Like Search, a Commodity: Key Vendors Omitted from the Report
December 9, 2014
Nothing spotlights the hungry like a price war. Low prices win. Now what happens to the expensive option? If you are Ferrari and enjoy a cult following of big money car people, you are sort of in business. If you offer expensive online storage, well, that is a good question.
Navigate to “IBM, NetApp Suffer As Storage Buyers Shun Mainstream Suppliers.” The write up points out:
A year ago IBM would have been the third-ranked vendor, but its revenues fell 7.2 per cent to $866m, giving it fourth place. Not so Big Blue is failing to keep up with modern storage technologies and its ageing product set has less and less appeal to customers.
The report from the ever resourceful, expert packed IDC (yep the outfit that sold my information on Amazon without my permission) looks at the world through glasses that give me a headache.
In terms of search, I recall that Coveo was at one time the supplier of search to this outfit. Since IBM bought NetApp, I am not sure what happened to the deal.
Vendors of search hoping for a home run by tagging on to a storage vendors’ wagon train may also be disappointed at the outlook for Big Blue.
Omitted from the mid tier consulting firm’s study were the many low cost storage options that are “good enough.” I, for example, use low cost online storage services and just set up the system to allow each system to copy data from my happy little Drobo. Cheap, multiple copies onsite and off site and none of the crazy pricing that accompanies the folks IDC studies like a Ouija board. I suppose IDC could consult its very own oracle, Dave (surf on Arnold) Schubmehl. Why not?
Stephen E Arnold, December 9, 2014
Comments
One Response to “Storage, Like Search, a Commodity: Key Vendors Omitted from the Report”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
embroidery scissors with case
Storage, Like Search, a Commodity: Key Vendors Omitted from the Report : Stephen E. Arnold @ Beyond Search