Charles Makes a Point (or Two)

Marketing is a great thing, but sometimes it just goes too far.  All of this "cloud" talk is a prime example.

The discussion around cloud reminds me of the proverbial spring/summer activity of laying in the yard as kids and watching the clouds go by, calling out what it is you think this or that cloud is. 

"Oooh, look at that one, it's a dragon!" 
"What? that's not a dragon, that's a turtle!"
"Uh, huh, but now it's a sheep!"

The cloud is what you want it to be, because it is a giant nebulous concoction of water vapor and ice crystals, constantly changing shape and direction as dictated by the wind.  It isn't any one thing.

That's great for childhood games, but as an architect and a consultant, I've just about had enough of all this.  IT is a concrete thing.  Technology is black and white (or 1 and 0 if you prefer).  Nebulousness (is that a word?) does not fit in this environment.  You don't get to say to the CEO, "well, it was sort of online, depending on what your definition of 'online' is" (or depending upon your definition of 'is' for you politicos out there).  It's on or it's off and the business doesn't care why it was off if they needed it on. 

Every IT vendor out there has some definition of 'cloud'.  Literally, every single one.  Look at the web sites.  Everyone can tell you how they fit into the 'cloud', but not a single one of them can tell you what the 'cloud' really is.  Of course, VMware and Cisco think they have a good definition, as long as it means running everything on the Cisco unified compute platform with VMware.  That's the cloud?  Hmmm, I thought 6 months ago that was called consolidation.  Amazon thinks they have a definition, as long as it means shipping your data out to their server and storage farm to run compute cycles in their data center.  You know, I thought that was just good old-fashioned outsourcing.  SAP's got a definition, EMC has one, HP, IBM, everybody out there has one, and they are all centric to the products they've been trying to sell everyone for years.  Yes, there are some unique aspects to some of the products (EMC Atmos comes to mind), but for the most part, it's all the same with re-packaging.  vSphere and vCloud are ESX server with some really neat new features (and some completely undelivered as of yet promises), but it's still ESX Server.  The Cisco unified compute platform is servers.  Granted, an interesting architecture and management footprint, but let's be real here, they're servers.

What the 'cloud' really is in the IT context is the same thing it is in real life—vapor.  It's the second coming of the xSP model that will save all businesses from the pain of having an IT department.  I said to someone delivering a cloud pitch the other day "did you activate a time warp just before you came in here and take me back to 1999/2000?  These are the same concepts that were pitched at me about ASPs, data center outsourcing, and eCommerce 10 years ago!"  At least it sure feels like it to me.

Over the next few posts, I'm going to keep delivering my take on this topic, if nothing else to flush out some things and vent a little.  I think that there is too much hype here, and we're headed to another bubble bursting if we aren't careful.  The foundation of a technological breakthrough requires more than just a whizz-bang technology.  It requires sound planning, terrific execution, and a goal.  I don't think that anyone talking about cloud is providing those.  There's a lot of theory, a lot of talking, but not a lot of reality.  I'm all for open discussion, but could we maybe back off the child-like excitement that IT is going to be saved and suddenly align with the business based on the 'cloud'? 

EMC wins the Data Domain battle. 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31829763/site/14081545

No real surprise to me, but an exciting thing for sure.  What I find interesting in CNBC's article is the continued speculation that NTAP may chase down CommVault, FalconStor, or Sepaton.  Even more interesting is the notion that NTAP might put themselves up for sale.  Of course, as an ex-EMCer, the idea they might put themselves on the auction block is not a new rumor, but I haven't seen too many folks repeating that idea outside 76 South Street or EMC Field offices.

Chuck Hollis did a pretty decent job (in my opinion) of putting a good public face on the EMC Data Domain acquisition on his blog.  Steve Duplessie is missing the boat a little bit (again, my opinion) in his blog entry on the issue, but I do think he gets a couple of things right.

Steve's point about EMC having 82 ways to do dedupe is misguided and feeds into a FUD-Fest for all EMC's competitors in the marketplace.  Now maybe this should be blamed on EMC's marketing group for not delivering a crystal clear message around deduplication, compression, and single instance storage.  I can buy that argument.  But laying this cacauphony of competing dedupe strategies in the marketplace at EMC's feet isn't right or fair.  Every player in the market has some responsibility for that issue. 

I also don't see EMC having another way of deduplicating data as a negative.  I quite frankly get tired of hearing the mantra'd pablem of "EMC has 82 ways of doing <insert functionality here>.  Which one will they try to sell you today?"  That drivel typically comes from the same camp that tries to fix their plumbing problems at home with a hammer and then wonders why the bathroom is full of water.  Get over it.  If you had billions in the bank to buy companies that fit your long-term strategy you'd do the same thing.  Good strategies aren't built around a single way of doing things.  That's what got EMC into so much trouble in the early part of 2000-2001.  Everything was done their way (Symmetrix) or you were an idiot and not worthy to buy their technology.  EMC provides choice to their customers and flexibility in how to design a solution for their most pressing information problems.  Why does everyone beat them up for that?

Anyway, I could go on for a whole post on that topic alone, so let's get back to the topic of the moment.  The acquisition makes perfect sense on two levels:

1. It stops a major competitor in the marketplace from getting better.  So what if this is a defensive move on EMC's part?  Defense wins championships.  Good for Joe and the EMC Board for executing an excellent defensive maneuver.  As a shareholder, I applaud them for not letting NTAP walk in and change the marketplace (again).  Thank you for finally recognizing that while backup as we know it is in a death spiral, the spiral is slow, and EMC needs to do more than try to convince everyone source-based dedupe is the salve that cures all wounds.  Now, go add to the investment and turn the R & D group loose on this code and get it everywhere as fast as possible.  Don't kill the product, don't take a 5 year ramp to understand how to use it, just go get it done!  I want to see products with elements of this code embedded in them within a year.  You brag about all your R & D, now let's see something real come out of it.
2. The code is good.  The device just works, and it isn't because of the hardware.  It's because of DD's code and approach.  Why not get the best code you can for this feature?  EMC knows more about backup than just about anybody in the marketplace, and when they turn this product line loose on their sales force, watch what happens.  It will be nothing short of amazing, if history is any past indication of potential success.  EMC spends a lot of time training their folks on backup, as well they should, and the only real challenge they'll have is getting their faithful followers to stop spouting the 'Data Domain sucks' mantra.

As a reseller of both EMC and Data Domain, this is a winning combination for us.  We no longer have to hear about how bad DD is from EMC, and fend off the lesser (though workable) Quantum solution when we believe target dedupe is called for.  We will get better support from the larger EMC support org, and have everything under one roof.  That helps our business quite a bit.  It takes some of the best minds in backup in the industry and puts them in one house, which for the partner community makes life easier.  Woo Hoo!

That said, here's what I don't like: 

1. EMC paid way too much for the feature, at least on the face of it.  It's going to be tough to recoup this, even with stellar execution.  They should have bought this company at least 2 years ago.   It was a miss on their part to not have done so.  I'm sure if you add in the lost opportunity cost for NTAP, EMC will make out like bandits, but in Joe's stellar track record of acquisitions, I just think this one is at least a partial miss, only because the timing was so late.  But, sometimes you have to overpay and suck it up.  This is probably one of those times.  It just makes me wonder what else is being missed that could change the landscape of the industry?
2. I fear Quantum is dead.  This is where things get a little ugly.  Can Quantum survive on tape alone?  I doubt it.  Their engine has been soundly decried as inadequate by their largest proponent.  That's not good for business.  I like the tape products for what they do, and it will be disappointing to see Quantum flounder further, as they have some really good folks over there who work hard to do what they do.  Perhaps EMC will finally make it official and forgive the $100M they loaned them by just buying them up, finally putting a tape product directly into their catalog.  There are lots of reasons this doesn't make sense, but some that do.  We'll obviously have to wait and see.

At the end of the day, target dedupe is a technology with a very limited lifespan, just as all VTL type products.  CDP technologies, automated information movement platforms, and improved compression techniques that save replication bandwidth costs will make 'backup' as we know it a dead idea in a matter of years.  How many, I can't say.  But if EMC (and others) keep going down the path of newer, tighter, faster compression and dedupe algorithms that make it possible to transmit terabyte data sets across less than OC-level bandwidth in reasonable timeframes, and maybe even T1/T3 types of bandwidth, we won't be having a conversation about backup anymore.  This applies across the board, little AX4/NX4 companies and V-Max companies alike.  They all suffer from the same problems, and these technologies allow for the problem to be solved at both ends of the scale spectrum. 

So get on the pony and ride, EMC.  Ride fast and get this acquisition done and the product into R & D.  Get us new stuff ASAP!