NetApp has lost ground for the second quarter in succession, Dell is pretty flat and HP growing steadily. These are the headlines from IDC's quarterly storage tracker for external disk storage. The tracker looks at worldwide external dusk storage systems factory revenue and IDC ranks suppliers, giving them tied positions if …
HP overtook NetApp last year
according to the last report anyways
"IDC's numbers for the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2010 list EMC in top position with a 26 per cent share of the revenue at $1,582m, IBM is second with a 16.3 per cent share ($996m), and HP third with $704m revenue and an 11.6 per cent share. NetApp, which was in this position in the third quarter, has dropped to fourth position with $630m revenue and a 10.3 per cent share."
am I the only one to find the graphs counter-intuitive?
normally I would expect:
Q1, Q2, Q3
but instead it was:
Q3, Q2, Q1
In a language which reads from left to right, asking us to read the graph right to left is confusing.
Market share is one thing: margins are another. You look at cost/TB of EMC kit, or cost/hour for EMC consultancy, and everyone else is second league. The amazing thing about EMC is that they do so well even though they charge so much. Implies their stuff is compelling or the enterprise accounts are locked down.
Prices are not that different
I see a lot of different vendor pricing and EMC is quite simply not the most expensive. To be fair, they earned their reputation a decade ago, but it boggles my mind how behavior that ceased to exist a long time ago because of new competition in the market still creates such a stigma.
The bottom line is if you are looking at an apples-to-apples configuration amongst all the MAJOR vendors (EMC, HP, NetApp, IBM, HDS) then the prices should be all in the same range. If you see a config where there is a huge difference, then either a) someone is playing tricks in their pricing strategy; b) they are willing to buy your business at a loss; or c) somebody has cut corners in their config and undersized the solution to try and win the deal. That's pretty much what it boils down to.
You can also compare actual profit margins here:
Keep in mind it's difficult to compare EMC and NTAP with the big conglomerates because those companies don't break out their storage division profit margins. Their overall margins are dragged down by their commodity hardware businesses. Rest assured, their storage gear has margins that are right up there with where EMC and NTAP's are.
It's definitely the latter! Commercially difficult to budge from their key accounts and sell very very high in an account, often over the head of technical staff who wanted a different solution.
"external dusk storage"
Sounds pretty ethereal and cool, but I'm guessing that's a typo?
reverse polish graphs?
Is it me, or is this the only graph to have Q3 to the left of Q2?
Or is this the correct way to graph storage growth?
Lack of innovation...
it seems that some storage players were just too confident of their early success. They didn't innovate at all and customers accepted that to a certain point - until they couldn't keep their IT budgets up with their explosive data growth.
Now their situation has changed dramatically - they ask for more than just a naive storage system, they want to be as efficient as possible with thin provisioning, dedupe, NFO, HSM, etc.
If you want, customers have an implicit interest to become as "green" as possible in the IT and stop all waste and inefficiency.
So this "trending down" we see is actually good for the world...
Chris Schmid, COO balesio AG
Vendors end of year (the last quarter ever!)
This sleuth omits the simple fact that Q3 is end of the accounting year at hp and Q4 at IBM.
These tend to be the biggest quarters, by far.
So It wouldn't surprise me if hp went down in Q4 and IBM up.