Most notable is surely Microsoft's move in to leaders, not Google's static position. Microsoft have historically not really been up to it in big enterprise shops, but looks like that has changed.
It's Gartner Magic Graph of Wonder time! And Google won't be happy
Focus your eyes on this little MQ beauty from Garner’s gnomic gnosticians who have tracked, analysed and rated enterprise information archive suppliers' products and technology. GartnerMQ_IA_2015 2015 Gartner Magic Quadrant for information archiving. Whoo-hoo, Commvault is a challenger and not a leader. In fact there are …
COMMENTS
-
-
Monday 16th November 2015 13:37 GMT Indolent Wretch
Re: Gartner
Basically if a report says Gartner at the top then ignore it. Or better still burn it with fire.
Most recently during the general election (UK here) I was trawling my constituency for a candidate I felt was enough of a human being to actually vote for.
It wasn't easy. After discounting everyone else I was left with the Lib Dem and the Green.
The Green guys full CV was up on a site so I had a read. Former senior researcher/manager at Gartner.... Uh Oh.... But I didn't want to judge to early so I jumped down to the bottom of the document and was confronted with a seemingly endless list of buzzwords, one to a line. Not knowing what I was reading I paged up a few times. 3 pages further up I found the title of this "section" was "Skills I possess".
Within a few lines of that the first skill that caught my eye "Thought Leadership".
I voted for the other one.
-
Friday 13th November 2015 18:31 GMT Anonymous Coward
Clearly the sub's had a few
"Commvault ius accomoanied by Bloomberg"
"niche plkayers’ box"
"premises or a a service from the cloud (SaaS)"
"HP has vanished."
No it hasn't, it's now HPE, arguably in the lead position this year.
I suspect this might have been better if I'd been down the pub at lunchtime.
-
Friday 13th November 2015 18:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Many people have asked before, but why are you still giving Gartner any credit?
I don't know of a single person in the IT industry that actually considers those guys with even the smallest of credibility.
They are basically a bunch of lawyers and PR people that attempt to shape business to what they want it to look like, then when it doesn't happen, just change what they think it should look like.
Analysts? No.
-
Monday 16th November 2015 12:09 GMT Rufus
Re: Many people have asked before, but why are you still giving Gartner any credit?
..Because sadly there are still many large companies stuffed with "Enterprise Architects" who will only consider shortlisting suppliers based on whether they are in the Gartner Magic Quadrant or Forrester's Wave, regardless of whether it's a good match to the actual business requirements!
-
Friday 13th November 2015 19:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
Spelling errors.
Or instead of moaning you could report the article in the provided link at the bottom and help them sort out the errors privately.
Otherwise someone may feel obliged to point out your own non-use of proper punctuation, incorrect spacing and improper sentence construction. Something to do with glass houses and stone throwing should apply here.
Just saying.
-
-
Saturday 14th November 2015 10:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: rag bag of technologies
Exactly what I absolutely thought on first read. Second and third as well. Somewhere in yon offsite secure storage, I've got both Microsoft's and IBM's offerings. IBM is quite coherent and just consumption of stacks of Redbooks away from a new implementation stood up. Microsoft's? Ummm.... Stacks of books are required, yes. An IT-enterprisey <--> Microsoft's translation dictionary is definitely in order. Then again, IBM quite literally wrote the book.
I just have a lack of comprehensive understanding why MS keeps fucking with the terminology beyond IT worker lock in as well.
-
-
Saturday 14th November 2015 21:23 GMT stephanh
A modest proposal
May I propose the following to the esteemed editors.
Whenever Gartner unleashes yet another of their reports on the world, rather than discussing the latest, could The Register take the report of, say, two years back, and review how much of it has come true?
I think this would be most enlightening.
-
Monday 16th November 2015 05:01 GMT ben_myers
Random selection and a dart board?
Methinks Gartner draws the names of these companies out of a hat, then affixes tags with the names to darts which are summarily thrown at a dartboard. In a pub, of course. By people who have tippled a bit too much. Oh, and then somebody takes a photo of the dartboard. That's about how much sense these charts make. Huge steamy piles of crap, dredged from porta-potties.
-
Monday 16th November 2015 23:43 GMT taylormills15
As one of the companies included in this Magic Quadrant, it is surprising that Gartner is called a research company. If they are a research company, why do we have to rewrite their description to include a complete listing of all the specific things our product does? You would think a cursory look over our website would provide that.
-
Monday 16th November 2015 23:43 GMT taylormills15
Gartner - A Research Company?
As one of the companies included in this Magic Quadrant, it is surprising that Gartner is called a research company. If they are a research company, why do we have to rewrite their description to include a complete listing of all the specific things our product does? You would think a cursory look over our website would provide that.