Peter Christy

VMware Acquiring SpringSource

Paul Maritz seemed a little discouraged that the analysts didn't want to ask questions about SpringSource, which is understandable since the acquisition clearly has strategic importance for VMware beyond the $420M they are paying (not chump change). The lack of questions isn't surprising if you ask how many of those analysts really know what a framework is (having managed Dev Tools for Apple, I do.) The underlying question is whether VMware can thrive building systems that manage virtual machines or whether they need to get much more involved in what happens within those VM's in order to solve the customers' important problems and profit by providing those solutions. I've never thought that VM's were the do-all, end-all, and apparently VMW has come to the same conclusion. A framework is an architecture for implementing applications and a lot of code ("subroutines" in the good old days) to support that architecture and make application programming easier by providing a higher level abstraction. Utility and Cloud computing have great benefits but come with their own challenges. For example, what kind of data storage systems work well across multiple data centers and improve application performance for remote users? Or how do you know enough about what an application is doing in order to better automate its operation (e.g., provide desired availability and scaling)? In both cases, VMware's ability to play in the game is considerably improved with access to a framework than if complex technology can be largely concealed under the framework abstraction and just come to play when needed behind the scenes without much involvement from the application programmer. Microsoft already has broadly used frameworks (Microsoft Foundation Classes and more recently the .NET Framework). It's really hard to create a framework from scratch — the value of a framework goes up quickly as more people use it so you need both the framework and the users. The Spring Framework was created as an alternative to complexity of what Sun had developed for Java application architecture, and caught on in no small part because it was open source and free. As a way of getting into the framework business (more specifically, getting in a position of influence with the developer community and being able to add mechanism behind the scenes) VMW didn't have many alternatives and SpringSource was by far the best, subject only to the high cost (spending $420M for SpringSource isn't "accretive" by any stretch of the imagination). As noted above, it isn't as if MS doesn't have frameworks or developers — they certainly do —  but it does redefine how VMW views the competition and competes. (VMware declined to comment on this story)

What a Week

Paul Maritz must have had a reasonable idea of what he was getting into. In most aspects VMWorld was been a smashing success -- large and enthusiastic crowds, a big ecosystem pavilion. Paul did an excellent job on the keynote considering he had been on the job for all of 10 weeks (he was blessed by the fact that Diane Green was truly an awful public speaker so the hurdle was low) that dovetailed nicely with CTO Steve Herrod's excellent technical keynote the next day. Maritz sounded more like the leader of a $2B software company than VMware. The plans sound like business plans: (1) Paul admits they are really a platform vendor and they talk about a Data Center OS, (2) he put a stake in the ground that the Cloud was going to be a real business and (3) that they were getting serious about VDI (now branded as vClient). All of this makes sense if you're trying to answer the question "How will VMware make money?" (the question that Diane never wanted to talk about it). On the other hand, with the collapse of the "virtualization" reality distortion field came a further (and I'm sure painful) deflation of the stock, taking it down well under the initial IPO price. Some of the commentators apparently never realized that VMware really does compete with the big boys. Oh well...