To start off with, it doesn't look like you actually read my responses, because you seem to be very selective about what you actually respond to, or even acknowledge is said. Things like working out the actual numbers, discussing the differences in the SSDs used and acknowledgment that "marketing numbers" age as the tech underneath moves on.
I also like the part where you totally gloss over not only the evolution of SSDs, but enterprise versus consumer SSD usage in Synology and HP arrays. Or the ability to use drives from any old vendor rather than HP-mandated stuff. Irrelevant, I take it. Easier to attack the dated marketing figured of a company with eleventeen squillion times less budget to get tests run.
It doesn't strike you as ridiculous to be arguing over how much faster than the speed of sound the jet can go when what the commuter wants is to get from Edmonton to Vancouver faster than driving and without dying? Compare like for like drives in both systems. Maybe HP goes faster, but I personally doubt it. Certainly not enough to justify the price delta!
"I don't think there's much point arguing about the price if your sole scoring mechanism is bang for buck then you can buy the equivalent from anyone and assume product parity."
When you are a price-constrained SME bang for buck is the sole scoring point. When you're an MSP trying desperately to eek out margin, bang for buck is the sole scoring point. Or did you not actually read the article and the very specific target markets it was addressing?
"But storage is more than just performance and that's where the pricing kicks in"
For some segments, storage is more than performance and capacity. Don't paint all niches with one brush.
"because H/A, data integrity"
Both of these are not commodities. As pointed out, available even from the likes of QNAP or Synology. It's not a marketing blurb anymore, it's a tickbox feature that must exist as a bare minimum or you don't even get to play the game. Next.
Vague FUD. Commodity gear such as Synology is perfectly stable. Tintri, Windows, Nexenta, Maxta, Nutanix, SumpliVity, ILIO, and on and on and on and on. They're all stable. Stability is the norm, not a rarity.
Qualification in the scenario discussed in the article is generally done by the MSP. That way they know what they're deploying and they get to milk that minor amount of effort for several years' margin, instead of the vendor. Which was kind of the point of the article.
"and support etc,"
Support? Support?!? Don't you mean ransom? Because you can't support HP equipment unless you stump up a ransom to be a qualified vendor. Oh, you mean the customer gets support? Well why is it better from HP than an MSP? HP offers 4-hour enterprise support? MSP offers "my cell phone is a taser attached to my testicles that rolls me out of bed and a drive across the city is 1 hr tops" support. Spare parts? Synologys are so cheap the MSP can afford to keep entire spare units on the the shelf and still make a profit, because they aren't paying the "support" to the vendor.
Is that optimal in all cases? Hell no. Is it increasingly common? Yes. There isn't a lot of breathing room for MSPs and this is what they are doing. So I talked about that. It's also part and parcel of where the discussion about "who owns the customer relationship" comes in, which you have been so very carefully avoiding.
"in fact the whole RAS package costs in R&D dollars."
Yes, I agree. The point here, however, is that the MSP would rather spend the R&D dollars and the reap the rewards. They take the margin, offer storage at a lower cost, both the MSP and the customer win.
"It isn't just about vendors gouging customers it's about engineered solutions rather than just lumping some components together, which TBH any number of assemblers can put together these days."
Arrogance much? So people "lumping some components together" and then taking the time to test them, qualify them and build a support infrastructure around that product just aren't as good as you? Even if their products stand the test of time, achieve the design goals, meet with customer expectations and reach a price point that works for all involved? Wow.
"If that fits your clients business model then so be it,"
Yo, back to the article, where I was talking about SME-focused SMEs and the SMEs they serve. Yoo-hoo!
"but you can't directly compare the two solutions."
Why not? What matters is fitness for purpose. Absolutely nothing matters beyond that. That includes everything from features to ecosystem to - you guessed it - price. Which means I can - and will - compare anything to anything else for a given niche to determine the fitness for purpose.
If you need to fly from Edmonton to Vancouver and your criteria are "get there safely", "get there within 3 hours" and "be affordable" you don't need to use a 737 or a Dreamliner to do the job. A Dash-8 will do.
A 737 or a Dreamliner would be more comfortable...but given that comfort wasn't a decision criteria then it's fitness for purpose is exactly the same as the Dash-8. Comfort being a luxury consideration would only be a deciding factor if the cost difference between the Dash-8 and the 737 or the Dreamliner were negligible or non-existant. All planes are fit for purpose.
So I can compare the Dash-8 to the 737 to the Dreamliner for this requirement set, despite them being completely different classes of plane.
Thanks for participating in the forums, and I hope you have a great day. Cheers!