Done.

I'm game. We just need to decide the winning criteria. If it's whether or not VMware spins off/sells EUC - then I'm going to start researching the most expensive beers right now :)

Tal, Thanks for your comment; the "highest regard" is certainly mutual. Your logic is exceptional, but I belive it is based upon a faulty premise that EUC is just another silo business for VMware that it could nonchalantly sell or spin off in order to focus on its core competency. VMware recognizes that the desktop is an essential component of both the SDDC and hybrid cloud. After all, everything starts with the user, her access point and her applications. As a complete cloud enabler (and now provider), VMware has no choice but to develop an even greater committment to EUC. I also disagree with your statement about a lack of R&D ingenuity. In addition to exceptional innovative technologies acquired externally such as Mirage, VMware is rapidly producing organic enhancements such as View Accelerator, HTML access, increased integration with UC options, etc. EUC is a very big space and, as mentioned in my post, VMware has internal politics to contend with that Citrix avoids. Still, the vision is coming together nicely and setting the stage for true integration with both SDDC and hybrid cloud. A $6B organization is not likely to make the largest investment in its history to see if there's any meat in the pie. And EUC is the fastest-growing division in VMware meaning that they're nowhere near the necessity of a Hail Mary. To me, the massive EUC hiring is yet further evidence that EMC is absolutely strategic to VMware's future.

Thanks for the comment Brian - and I agree. While I didn't write about it in this article, there is a great opportunity for solutions integrators to evolve into "cloud integrators" to help organizations sort through the myriad options.

Andrew, Thanks for the follow-up comment. While I think the VMware acquisition of Wanova was a brilliant move, I am curious as to why you feel it "goes some way to showing the crassness of the marketing campaign that ES emarked on..." ?

Eric, Thanks for pointing out the cereal campaign against Novell - I had no idea. The conference truck campaign (or a variation of it) is pretty common among all kinds of vendors including Citrix, Oracle, HP and VMware (though Maybe Microsoft started it all?) - but that cereal campaign was definitely a VMlimited type of attack. VMware has a huge advantage over Novell in terms of thwarting Microsoft in that former Microsoft top executives Paul Martiz and Tod Nielsen run the show.

Andrew, Thanks for your comment. My purpose in including the older MS quotes was to show how the company has always lagged behind VMware - contrary to the theme of VMlimited. And the lack of SPLA for DT service providers shows, in my opinion, a narrow self-interest, not industry leadership as implied by the campaign. My post,though, was about the campaign, not about Microsoft's capabilities. Anyone who overlooks MS as an extremely astute competitor is not likely to hold their leadership position for long. I remember the way Scott McNeally used to publicly and blatantly bash Windows, Office and MS in general (he referred to MS Office as "bloatware"). Today Sun has been pretty much relegated to a patent litigation vehicle for Oracle.

Chuck, Good post and I agree with the overarching theme that ROI, used as a rigid, narrowly defined process as a means to avoid truly understanding and evaluating complex technologies – is bad. ROI is just a financial analysis tool, and like most tools, can be beneficial or not – depending upon how it is wielded. In my experience, the problem isn’t typically a misuse of ROI, it’s that most IT organizations either don't utilize financial analysis at all when evaluating alternative technology approaches, or they do so at only a very basic level – primarily considering just investment CapEx costs. The benefit of going through an ROI analysis as opposed to a more basic financial evaluation such as TCO, is that it demands a much broader perspective. Calculating the relative aggregate savings each alternative is expected to generate in relation to the outlays significantly helps both make and justify a decision. Factoring in both outgoing and incoming cash flows on a discounted basis by year further improves the comparison. A discounted cash flow approach additionally allows the finance department to better evaluate proposed IT investments versus other opportunities for the firm’s capital. ROI doesn’t necessarily have to equate to hard dollars. As you point out, the benefits of staying ahead of the competition may far outweigh the cost of doing nothing. That being said, there is no reason why an attempt shouldn’t be made to quantify the cost of falling behind the competition. Why perhaps not particularly meaningful to an accountant, going through the exercise can potentially provide insights and identify both costs/risks and opportunities not otherwise contemplated. A final note is that Cloud is driving more interest in extensive financial analysis including ROI. This is partly because organizations struggle about what components of their IT should be in a public vs. a private cloud. But it is also because many IT departments don’t have a good grasp on what their true costs are. In order for them to effectively provide IT-as-a-Service, they need to be able to accurately cost and price IT resources in order to encourage optimal utilization.

Michael, thanks for your extensive comment. You may be looking at RDSH as just Microsoft - though I consider it the broader category for what was formerly called server-based computing (SBC). We absolutely did sell SBC as a desktop replacement. Way back in 1999 we replaced the PCs for all 1,800 users for ABM Industries with Wyse WinTerms running Citrix MetaFrame. The project was a great success - saving millions of dollars. Citrix featured ABM in a national ad campaign in media such as BusinessWeek, Fortune, and the WSJ among others. As far as organizations deploying View because of loyalty to VMware - I don't really see that. I think that IT staffs are understandably impressed with the extraordinary reliability of VMware ESX, and that may play a factor. But there are also synergies in terms of management console, licensing and staff expertise that bridge from server to desktop. And now with the integration of vCOPs with VMware View, there is yet another compelling reason for VMware shops to incorporate the VMware desktop strategy as well. I also look forward to seeing the technology evolve and agree that desktop virtualization must be approached both carefully and strategically to be successful.

Brian, the question then becomes, do organizations faced with the dramatically improving economics, escalating eco-system support, and rapid enhancements of VDI continue to invest in alternative technologies, or begin shifting their enterprise desktop strategies to embrace virtual machines? My position is obviously reflected in this post.

Brian, Thanks for taking the time to respond. I agree with you that it is possible to do just about everything with RDSH that you can with virtual desktops, but often it is a lot more difficult. VDI also includes more options and the thriving eco-system around VDI enhances those options still further. In your book, for example, you discuss layering technologies. Products such as Unidesk can be very useful in handling the "long tail" issue. I definitely agree with your sentiments that RDSH vs VDI should not be the conversational focus. An organization's overall objectives must first be identified and then an appropriate enterprise desktop architecture defined to support those objectives. For those readers of this post who did not see my Amazon review of your book, I do want to reemphasize that I thought it was extremely well done - and entertaining besides. It is rare that I read every word of a book - especially one about technology. But while the logic throughout every section of the book ranges from sound to irrefutable, I think you and the other authors miss the intangible appeal articulated by Gartner's Berger that virtual desktops provide to users (and I would add to administrators). Of course, this is one of those debates that ultimately will be decided by the market. As far as I can tell, VDI looks like a good bet for the winner.

Julien, Thanks for you comment. I would disagree with your statement about VDI not being as fluid as a traditional PC. The ability to access a virtual desktop from anywhere on almost any device at any time is certainly much more fluid than a PC. Also, today's integrated zero-client/monitors by manufacturers such as LG & Samsung (& HP just announced one) are considerably less expensive than PCs & monitors, and of course require far less power. The zero-clients also have no local OS at all meaning that management is not an issue. I do agree with you that user satisfaction - or perhaps more importantly - aggregate productivity, is the objective of an enterprise desktop strategy of which VDI increasingly will be an important element.