Cisco Blogs


Cisco Blog > Analyst Relations

Gartner Blade Server MQ and Associated Thoughts

So we recently purchased redistribution rights to the Gartner Blade Server Magic Quadrant. Here’s what Gartner permits me to say about that:

Gartner In the Magic Quadrant for Blade Servers, Gartner states that "blades represent an important stage in the evolution of servers as separate, discrete platforms give way to modular designs and the boundaries between servers, storage and networking become increasingly porous". In the report, Cisco is placed in the Visionary Quadrant, which defines "large vendors with a plan to drive market success through technology innovation."

I relish a good working relationship with Gartner, so I won't dwell on the report (you can parse it for yourself)--except to mention in passing that I find Cisco's placement (and the accompanying kind words) the most interesting thread in the report. Of course, I'm biased.

Instead of discussing that in context of the report, I'll simply share some associated thoughts about how the analysts (as well as partners and customers, of course) have begun to realize how dead serious Cisco is about the server market. I don't really find that very surprising, but, then again, I spend all day long talking to "server guys." Heck, I'm a server guy. Well, actually, I'm a software guy who spent long enough working for Sun to be able to fake a little feeds and speeds. But I digress. The point is: the server competency at Cisco is not to be underestimated.

It might be hard to believe the server focus behind Unified Computing for those that hold their Cisco preconceptions dear, but constituencies across the datacenter are really paying attention—and, in any case, it’s the convergence of compute and network that makes the promise of Unified Fabric possible. HP certainly gets this—at least if you are willing to see its purchase of 3Com in part as a defensive measure. But just as I don't want to challenge Gartner's usage policy, I'll leave my comments about our large, fine corporate partner on the brief side.

One final note: I know it's somewhat controversial to blog about a particular piece of research from a given firm—for which I've drawn fire in the past. The reasoning behind this is that I'm not supposed to be perceived as favoring the research or opinions of a particular firm—no matter what their market size or influence--when dealing with a wide group of opinionated analysts. While I understand that POV, I also tend to give my audience a bit of credit.  Plus, I've always been of the opinion that we buy distribution rights in order to share these opinions and spark debate.  And so I am.

<eom>

Comments Are Closed