re Kumar's comments:
Dell executives said last week that ConvergeNet's problems are short-term and amount to little more than "transitioning" issues as it is folded into the Dell structure.
But Mr. Kumar isn't buying that explanation.
"If they had delivered last year as promised, they might have had a chance."
I suppose Kumar's statements are reference his belief in the eventual success of EMC's push with FibreAlliance SAN standards?
If you believe EMC's solutions become the defacto standard, there is no room for competing standards.
This doesn't quite fit. The business buys the box, Dell stops referring clients to EMC, and picks up the business utilizing their own standard storage technology.
IT managers could insist on EMC; but if Dell's solution is 15% less costly reference complete installation, all included, then standard or no, Dell gets the business. They need the products to offer.
Dell states "25%" based on conversations with current IT managers, i.e., "I wish you could do it all - save us time and money..." etc. If this is what the IT managers are telling Dell, why would they be facetious, or why should we believe Kumar over Dell's conversation with potential buyers?
Most of the current systems are still operating on cobal! Ancient. You move from 32bit to 64, flip languages, and the entire network signature changes. There are so many changing formats, storage requirements (video storage coming on line for instance) that predicting any one standard for SANs would seem improbable.
A San standard does save on overall cost. But, if you can't get all to agree on the standard, why fight the market? IBM has to agree first, you'd think. |
