On November 24, 2010 I observed Chad Sakac (@sakacc), VP of VMware’s Technology Alliance at EMC have a very interesting Twitter conversation with “the competition” about the difference between the VCE Vblock and a “reference architecture”. I’ll summarize my take on this below but first, you should read what Chad had to say (in a more read-able format than a Twitter time line):
A series of FACT, which stand on their own, and I make no 3rd party comparisons.
Fact 1) VCE doesn’t compete with the channel. Channel can procure Vblocks from VCE as a single order, simplifying things.
Fact 2) Some customers require integrated infrastructure to have end-to-end single support. One reason for the VCE JV was that this was impossible in a multi-party model, even with good “first call handling + joint escalation”. Those customers indicated that for VCE to compete with HP and IBM, they demanded it.
Fact 3) Vblocks have a simple single tool for configuration and quoting. This BOM tool is available to VCE channel partners – very simple.
Fact 4) A reference architecture = a receipe on assembling component ingredients, and has great flexibility. A product has a narrower set of choices, but comes off a manufacturing line, from a vendor. You can have a V + C + E reference architecture. There are many reference architectures – all valid and good. Some customers demand that integrated infrastructure is a product to me, a product has a single product manager, has a defined single product roadmap, has a manufacturer, & has a lifecycle. Vblock is not a reference architecture, it is a product. There is an important distinction. Some customers want a reference architectures and some want products. Both are valid choices, but they are different choices.
OK – so, there you have it. 4 fact based points. Simple, and accurate. And given without a SINGLE negative comparison.
My Take…
My take on this, as an independent blogger, is that VCE and Vblocks are sometimes misunderstood by customers and “the competition” alike (or perhaps “the competition” really does understand it but just likes to spread misinformation in order to confuse us). Many people think that a Vblock is some big expensive marketing ploy to stick a bunch of hardware together and sell it under a fancy name. There is a lot more to it than that.
I’ll be honest, I like the VCE and Vblock concept. It’s very innovative. I’ve been an end user before and have dealt with vendor finger pointing. With VCE’s Vblock, you should be able to eliminate most of that. You’ll have one point for support for server hardware, network, storage, and server OS (vSphere, this case). Better yet, that one organization ensures that that “block” will perform as advertised. Sounds good.
Also, you can purchase this “datacenter in a box” (Vblock) from one company with one PO.
Finally, there is a team of some 300+ well-training infrastructure experts (vSpecialists) to support this “datacenter in a box”. The amazing things about these guys is that they understand the whole solution – not just SAN, not just servers, or not just software – the WHOLE THING. The vSpecialists are experts, at your ready, to support the Vblock. You can’t get that by buying a “reference architecture”.
A lot of end user problems are solved with this solution. There is a lot of innovation here. So, why the haters? If your company doesn’t do this and your customers aren’t demanding it, then why put it down? Who knows, maybe there is room for both solutions in the marketplace (other companies are still selling cellphone, even though Apple’s iPhone is seen as innovative). Let’s praise innovation that is helping makes the life of IT-people easier.
Chad made some great points in his “4 FACTS” Twitter rant. I learned something from it and I hope that you did too.
Leave a Reply