back to article Top dog EMC crushes whimpering rivals in storage pack

IDC's Storage Tracker bloodhounds have tracked the vendors across the market in the second quarter and rated them, and it looks like not a lot has changed in the hierarchy of the storage pack. EMC's market share is rising, again. Most everybody else is down, again. For external disk storage compared to a year ago: Alpha dog EMC …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

u

With every one of these IDC articles I think -

"Ha! XYZ company has the new ZZYY out now so we will see a change by next quarter, EMC will decline".

I'm starting to think it's not going to happen. The Evil Machine Company doesn't seem even slightly hindered.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: u

Agree, it seems like people are replacing Symm and Clariion, but their numbers never go down.

NetApp seems to have lost their buzz. The others have largely caught up with their functionality.

0
0
Linux

Re: u

Yup, replacing them with new ones.

0
0

Re: u

EMC are losing share slowly in the traditional SAN array segment, but that is a relatively stagnant part of the market. They are cleaning up in the NAS, Data Domain and Isilon higher growth areas.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

It looks like IBM is up, not down?

.... judging by the bar graph.

Who are all of these "others"?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

EMC's Party

Face it , it's EMC's party, the rest are just making up the numbers.

Anon , natch..

0
0
Anonymous Coward

The Devil is in the details

While the article analyzes revenue, it leaves out something that should be equally as important, IDC’s reported capacity shipped. According to IDC, in Q212 for Networked (SAN+NAS) storage EMC shipped $1.7B (33%), NetApp shipped $726M (14%) and IBM shipped $634 (12.3%). Of that same storage shipped, the IDC capacity numbers tell a different story. EMC shipped 1.114PB (27%) where NetApp shipped 833TB (20%) and IBM shipped 422TB (10%). While EMC still shipped more raw capacity, it did so at a rate that was much more expensive ($1,526/TB) than NetApp ($871/TB) and IBM at ($1,502/TB) was also significantly more expensive than NetApp. Some things to consider is that NetApp may be trying to buy market share with lower price or it could simply be less expensive. Additionally because all of NetApp’s storage has Deduplication, NetApp customers may have needed to buy less raw disk to get the same usable capacity and in fact NetApp may have shipped more effective capacity than EMC when you factor in that Deduplication. NetApp claims 43% average Deduplication across all customers and all data meaning that they would have shipped 1.307PB or 15% more effective capacity than EMC at a far less costly $555/TB when you factor in Deduplication. Net is revenue numbers don’t always tell the whole story.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums