Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DownSouth who wrote (37771)	1/11/2001 8:12:20 AM
From: Allegoria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

So what are the criteria for dividing a market? Do we continue with the SAN/NAS division? And I not trying to belabor the point but I forgot, Why is NTAP a gorilla and EMC a king? Good luck, Eric

To: DownSouth who wrote (37771)	1/11/2001 9:00:18 AM
From: gingersreisse	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

SAN and NAS are architectures (or even components) in the storage market Agreed, and I'd add another dimension for smaller users, remote storage. Verio/NTT has established technology gateways for small firms to give access to "big company" IT structures. One storage alliance is ArsenalDigital, which is funded by Sun and Veritas. The gateway is linked to the client by fiber, and provides remote storage, high speed access to the outside world, transaction processing, etc. ArsenalDigital uses a Solaris 8 system and E450 servers, SAN shop, projecting 300mn storage events monthly. You pay for what you use, and you don't need to maintain an IT staff or storage expertise. I don't have price points yet. It almost seems like a horizontal expansion of the hosting services offered by Exodus, but with more value added elements available. www.arsenaldigital.com privately held since 1998, IBM/Sun veterans with MSDW venture capital, no brag book of demonstrated sales. GSR

To: DownSouth who wrote (37771)	1/11/2001 10:02:12 AM
From: Knight	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Does NTAP's patented WAFL architecture contain technology that could be leveraged for SAN environments (servers attached to centralized storage) as well as NAS environments (content management/delivery) allowing NTAP NAS to replace SAN?

To: DownSouth who wrote (37771)	1/12/2001 8:46:41 AM
From: Allegoria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I sure hope I get invited to the NTAP gorilla crowning party! I will won't I? I'm trying real hard Apollo! Hold the crown a second. Before the party let me get this straight. We are crowning NTAP, not as a gorilla of the overall storage market, but a domain of it (You used the word "niche" instead of "domain" but the concept is the same). This domain is NOT based on architecture. For the time being we define this domain as being distinguished "…by the purpose of the storage subsystems". We currently labeled this domain using your words: "content management / delivery versus centralized storage." Maybe a little fuzzy, but its fine. I would simplify it since if you deliver, you manage, so I proffer "content delivery versus centralized storage". But the label doesn't really matter does it? It's the definition that counts. Importantly, we agree that these domains are distinct - it is fairly obvious each domain serves two entirely different purposes. That is, it is unlikely that in the next few years either domain will likely take over the other's functions. You have predicted that the NAS architecture will connect the storage network to the communications network, but neither will not replace the other. Seems reasonable enough. It is fair to say that EMC and NTAP might compete in each other's domain. EMC already is, NTAP isn't. With WAFL being as brilliant as you say, EMC must have a big chore. It is known that NTAP's content delivery domain is far smaller than the larger centralized storage domain. And the domains are projected to show approximate relative growth rates in the coming years. NAS is much too generic a concept to have standards. But NTAP has "a unique, open/proprietary file system which is patented and has resulted in a disruptive innovation." But EMC only has "software tools sitting on top of a closed proprietary architecture." Given the IDC analyst statement about EMC's open systems I provided earlier, can I ask you to provide the facts on which you based this judgement? techweb.com NTAP "is the gorilla of content management/delivery because it is the p/p leader with bte and the software tools to perform the job. NTAP's filers for storage, content delivery software, and caching appliances fulfill the requirements of this environment." You said it perfectly. My problem is that exactly the same can be said for EMC within the centralized storage domain. What doesn't EMC do in your above statement? WAFL? In the centralized storage domain, if EMC doesn't have a 'WAFL-type' of IP (causing disruption) then EMC cannot be considered a gorilla, is that it? Regards, Eric Just so I don't loose the questions I have that no one has answered I'll copy 'em along for later: Does anybody know of a link to that discussion ? (sub-dividing markets?) Is this generally recognized by our esteemed leaders on this thread as a potential pitfall of the definition game? Or not? What criteria is used in sub-dividing a particular market? I will won't I? (crowning party) Given the IDC analyst statement about EMC's open systems I provided earlier, can I ask you to provide the facts on which you based this judgement? What doesn't EMC do in your above statement? In the centralized storage domain, if EMC doesn't have a 'WAFL-type' of IP (causing disruption) then EMC cannot be considered a gorilla, is that it?