Yesterday EMC and Microsoft extended our strategic agreement - covering big parts of each others business.
EMC and Microsoft Extend Strategic Alliance Through 2011 to Deliver Efficient Information Infras
Joe Tucci and Steve Ballmer talk here:
http://www.emc.com/collateral/demos/microsites/mediaplayer-video/tucci-ballmer.htm
It's raised a few questions out there - like this one on Alessandro's blog: http://www.virtualization.info/2009/02/has-hell-frozen-over-emc-and-microsoft.html
No, hell hasn't frozen over :-)
This may seem funky, but it's not. I’ve always tried to be consistent about two critical things:
- EMC partners with technology partners to support what our customers ask of us.
- VMware does truly operate independently. I've seen Joe as the chairman of both boards deal with his "chinese wall", and it's impressive. Not sure if I could do it. Now, that doesn't mean we don't integrate, innovate, and partner like mad with VMware - to the contrary, they are ALSO a critical strategic alliance partner.
These days, in IT, "co-opetition" is real. Putting aside the virtualization part of the announcement for a second (because people think it's the most funky part) - let me use a more instructive example - it will blow your mind.
EMC Documentum and Microsoft Sharepoint on their surface look completely competitive, and sometimes they are. But also, sometimes customers ask us to integrate them.
This example, even more clearly than the VMware/Hyper-V angle highlights the dynamic, as the EMC Content Management division isn’t independent. So there are parts of “core” EMC and Microsoft that literally compete and cooperate AT THE SAME TIME.
We also need to maintain joint support/escalation, share roadmaps, solution testing/integration - it’s really unbelievable how much when you dig under the covers.
There are few black/white alliances at the largest of IT vendors - they all have these "multiple dimensions".
What’s the guiding principle?... Simple. What does the customer need? When vendors stay focused on this, things tend to work out.
Does a customer want Hyper-V? EMC wants to support them. Do they want VMware? EMC wants to support them. Exchange on VMware? EMC wants to support them. Sharepoint without Documentum? EMC wants to support them. Sharepoint integrated with Documentum? You got it. How about that deployed on a Virtualized Datacenter? You got it. Need a Sharepoint expert to help you design your app? Check. Oh, you need a VMware expert to help you design the solution? Check.
You see the pattern.
Customers expect their leading vendors to support THEM, and their business.
Are there strategic goals for EMC? Sure. Can they be black and white? Only if it were black/white at our customers - which it never is - so no - it's not black and white.
Now, within EMC, I'm personally TOTALLY ONE-DIMENSIONAL :-) My job is to make sure that EMC is the best choice for customers, partners, and VMware themselves when VMware is the critical dimension (which it is a LOT these days :-). We need to acheive that on our own merits, our own innovation, our own execution, our own expertise. Our resources and focus on this are... well... substantial, and focused :-)
There’s another group that does the same thing for Microsoft, including Hyper-V (here's one) I joke that they are my competition, but in reality they are my colleagues - and we “compete” during the day, and have fun at night. The best outcome is that we both succeed - by helping the customer succeed.
Does that make sense? It does to me. The best reinforcement I get is that customers regularly tell me that they like that VMware has remained independent and free, and ALSO happy with the integration and support we give them. This means we're doing our job.
>>Yesterday EMC and VMware extended our strategic agreement
Err...typo there I think!
Posted by: Chris Sommers | February 05, 2009 at 05:15 AM
LOL - thanks for pointing that out Chris. I cry "I'm only human" (was jet lagged and it was 3am for me).
Fixed....
Posted by: Chad Sakac | February 05, 2009 at 09:18 AM