cloudstack-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ilya <ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OpenStack Revenues Approaching $3.4B: 451 Research
Date Thu, 28 Apr 2016 20:48:07 GMT
Well summarized!

On 4/28/16 9:38 AM, Ian Rae wrote:
> The accounting is incorrect, these are just marketing claims. Much is
> services or "attached" revenue. In the past some analysts have confused
> the revenue of entire companies (Rackspace) with being OpenStack
> revenue. Bottom line is, most companies are not making money from
> OpenStack itself. Many are deriving value however, but ROI is very unclear.
> 
> There has been a huge amount of money invested in OpenStack, but many
> have done so with the goal of selling their product that plugs into
> OpenStack. Most of the focus is still on implementation challenges
> (product market fit, time to value and supporting use cases). Some stuff
> works today and some doesn't.
> 
> And it depends how you look at "works" ...at CloudOps we are concerned
> with operationalization and long term efficient operations and lifecycle
> management. So for us it is hard to actually know...it is hard to find
> people at the Summit who want to talk about this since most are focused
> on proving a business case in the short term related to selling product
> or support services. With a ton of investment some providers are seeing
> success in the private cloud as a service market. You can debate the
> long term usefulness of private cloud but in OpenStack it is a smart
> model because it limits the scale and failure domains and it offloads
> the cost of implementation and operations to the service provider. And
> so it delivers value if the service provider can pull it off. Maybe
> BlueBox and Rackspace can make this work longer term.
> 
> End of day for OpenStack to be considered successful there needs to be
> successful product-market fit over a reasonable period of time which
> needs to give good ROI for customer, and is profitable to build maintain
> and support for the service provider. It also needs to live up to the
> promise of help you own your destiny as opposed to getting stuck (say
> unable to upgrade or locked into a service provider).
> 
> There are a lot of folks invested in this foundation so law of large
> numbers means a few may find that business case, call it survival of the
> fittest. Then again lot of folks attending the Summit are talking about
> OpenStack being a "skip" technology which should concern some. Others
> talk of OpenStack being just an API and the projects themselves should
> compete with each other and be interchangeable.
> 
> I think the future is going to be more complicated (not either or), and
> this is the CloudOps bet. For example we have successfully
> operationalized many components of OpenStack (sometimes in conjunction
> with CloudStack) and our customers rely on those today and they deliver
> daily value at low cost and we can upgrade them (not always easily mind
> you).
> 
> The good news for CloudStack is we continue to see growth in our
> customer base and success in driving profit. I think this comes from
> finding a product market fit. Still lots to solve and hoping the next
> Collab (June 1-3 Montreal) will enable leadership in both solving some
> issues and making progress with functionality.
> 
> There's probably a balance in between the brazen focus on marketing over
> value delivery of OpenStack foundation and the heads down in the
> trenches quiet work of Apache CloudStack, but lack or large disrupted
> and confused vendors may ultimately be the reason the community succeeds!
> 
> Hoping everyone interested in this topic will attend the
> June Collab conference that is showing a lot of sponsorship and interest!
> 
> http://ca.cloudstackcollab.org
> 
> Ian
> 
> On Thursday, 28 April 2016, Jules-Henri Gavetti <jhgavetti@ikoula.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jhgavetti@ikoula.com');>> wrote:
> 
>     Hello,
> 
>     On the French Market :
>     1 year ago every body talk about OpenStack.
>     Now nobody care.
>     Why because a lot of big company lost a huge amount of money in POC
> 
>     CloudStack is business ready.
>     We see more and more ISV build plugin for Cloudstack 
> 
>     In the 3.4 billion you have hardware, software and consulting.
> 
>     HP sell Openstack with his hardware and mix the revenue.
>     Every Openstack supplier do that.
> 
>     3.4 billion doesn't really exist !
> 
>     A bientôt 
> 
>     Jules
> 
> 
>     Le 28 avr. 2016 à 17:50, Will Stevens <williamstevens@gmail.com> a
>     écrit :
> 
>>     I would be curious to know how many billions of $ of consulting
>>     and operational costs were incurred to boost the $3.4B of
>>     revenues.  :)  I wonder which number is bigger...
>>
>>     You still can't upgrade an openstack cloud, so if you want to go
>>     to a new version, you have to build a new cloud and migrate all of
>>     your workloads.  
>>
>>     I am not saying you can't make money with openstack, but I would
>>     rather be an openstack consultant than an openstack provider, and
>>     that says a lot about the actual technology...
>>
>>     On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Sunando Bhattacharya
>>     <sunando@indiqus.com> wrote:
>>
>>         I really don’t know on what basis we are saying that openstack
>>         doesn’t work… $3.4Bill of revenues !!!
>>
>>         Fact is openstack is production-grade and catching up fast on
>>         most counts with ACS, and actually ahead on some features like
>>         NFV.
>>
>>         Lets call a spade a spade
>>
>>         *Sunando Bhattacharya*
>>         *M* +91 97111 52299 <tel:%2B91%2097111%2052299>
>>         www.indiqus.com <http://www.indiqus.com>
>>
>>         <https://www.indiqus.com/blog> 
>>         <https://www.linkedin.com/company/indiqus-technologies-pvt-ltd-> 
>>         <https://twitter.com/INDIQUS> 
>>         <https://plus.google.com/+Indiqus_technologies/about> 
>>         <https://www.facebook.com/indiqus>
>>
>>
>>         /This message is intended only for the use of the individual
>>         or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information
>>         that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the
>>         intended recipient please delete the original message and any
>>         copy of it from your computer system. You are hereby notified
>>         that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>>         communication is strictly prohibited unless proper
>>         authorization has been obtained for such action. If you have
>>         received this communication in error, please notify the sender
>>         immediately. Although IndiQus attempts to sweep e-mail and
>>         attachments for viruses, it does not guarantee that both are
>>         virus-free and accepts no liability for any damage sustained
>>         as a result of viruses./
>>
>>
>>         On 28 April 2016 at 8:26:21 PM, Giles Sirett
>>         (giles.sirett@shapeblue.com) wrote:
>>
>>>         +1 to that will 
>>>
>>>         Kind Regards
>>>
>>>         Giles
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>         D: +44 20 3603 0541 <tel:+44%2020%203603%200541> | M: +44 796
>>>         111 2055 <tel:+44%20796%20111%202055>
>>>
>>>         Giles.Sirett@shapeblue.com
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>         giles.sirett@shapeblue.com 
>>>         www.shapeblue.com <http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>>         @shapeblue
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 28 Apr 2016, at 15:39, Will Stevens
>>>         <williamstevens@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>         Openstack is just bitter because they still don't have a
>>>>         product that works and our product works just fine.  Just
>>>>         goes to show that more money doesn't always solve the
>>>>         problem...  :)  All that money and almost no success
>>>>         stories.  Kind of sad really...
>>>>
>>>>         On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Madan Ganesh Velayudham
>>>>         <madanganesh@actonmagic.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             Greetings,
>>>>
>>>>             Just bumped onto this article, thought of sharing:
>>>>
>>>>             http://www.eweek.com/cloud/openstack-revenues-approaching-3.4b-451-research.html
>>>>
>>>>             <snip>
>>>>             The decision to turn over OpenStack to a foundation in
>>>>             2012 stands in contrast to the CloudStack platform and
>>>>             its parent, Citrix. Citrix donated
>>>>             <http://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/citrix-walks-away-from-openstack-moves-to-apache-cloudstack.html>
>>>>             CloudStack to the Apache Software Foundation, but it was
>>>>             never set up with the same true, multi-stakeholder,
>>>>             stand-alone foundation as OpenStack's.
>>>>
>>>>             "If Citrix would have done a foundation around
>>>>             CloudStack, *we would now be at a Cloudstack Summit, not
>>>>             OpenStack Summit*," Sadowski said." Sadowski said.
>>>>             <snip>
>>>>
>>>>             The bold highlighted line was hurting a little bit!
>>>>
>>>>             Cheers,
>>>>             Madan
>>>>
>>>>             --
>>>>             Madan Ganesh Velayudham
>>>>             Founder & CEO
>>>>             ActOnMagic
>>>>
>>>>             *Cloud Governance, Analytics, Management Simplified with
>>>>             ActOnCloud!*
>>>>             www.actonmagic.com <http://www.actonmagic.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ian Rae  
> CEO | PDG
> c: 514.944.4008
> 
> CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions
> www.cloudops.com <http://www.cloudops.com> | 420 rue Guy | Montreal |
> Canada | H3J 1S6

Mime
View raw message