Pure next in line to put boot into Dell

It would seem smaller scale storage outfit Pure is next in line – following IBM's CEO Ginni Rometty and HP's Meg Whitman – to give Dell a kicking over its $67bn (£44bn) EMC deal. In a blog post Scott Dietzen, chief executive of Pure, said the transaction "comes out of weakness, not strength". He said: "Dell has been exposed …

[Rob Isrob]

Pure and others meet Kettle Black!

I've been having internal discussions similar to what is in this post... prior to the big news.

Storage Ed in this other thread says this:

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2015/10/07/pure_storage_ipo/

"You dismiss EMC dropping their pants. Their long datacenter dingdong will steamroll Pure and all these Flash startups. They can drop their trousers all day cus Xtremio like Pure is cheap commoditty hardware. The materials cost for a 50TB atray from either vendor is around $80k.. Tops. And EMC can operate with a dingleberry of margin while Pure starves."

What I mention internally is that same hammer is aimed at EMC. I'm sure EMC just loves the fact that XtremIO wins the VMAX takeout not "the dreaded competition." A pyrrhic victory. Not sure what it means other than being dependent on hardware margins (and software and maintenance thereof) is not a good place to be.. now and going forward.

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's worth noting that all of the companies to critique the deal have a competitive interest in drawing attention to the lack of wisdom of the move ... so, a really large pinch (or pinches) of salt is (are) required.

You say lack of wisdom here as if it is assumed the deal is unwise and we should only doubt the reasons offered by competitors.

It seems like this deal is really smart and Dell was doomed to fail without it. That is kind of what the CEO of Pure here is saying, but that certainly isn't a bad thing. Not only does Dell now have a stronger storage offering (which will hurt Pure greatly) but they acquire control of VMware, making them one of the biggest names in software (which HP and IBM have struggled to do with any success).

[Captain DaFt]

Hmm...

When a corporation makes a move that's obviously wrong, its competition usually smiles quietly and starts declaring the benefits of their own offerings.

When a corporation makes a move that could possibly supersede the competition, The competition starts howling about how it's a dreadful mistake, with charts and diagrams showing how such a move can only end in disaster.

Dell's competitors have given me more confidence in the Dell acquisition.

[MityDK]

Re: Hmm...

Nonsense. Competition isn't howling at all, more like shaking their head at the mountain of debt Dell is taking on to do this deal, and the inevitable bloodletting as redundant positions and technologies are shut down and eliminated. The only competitor I see really bent out of shape is HP, but only because they blew their chance at acquiring EMC over a dispute on the price. Meg Whitman looks bad in this deal. But her criticisms of the deal are still accurate--it's just that HP has the same problems too.

[Youngone]

Drives?

I'm not up with the play here obviously, but if Dell through EMC can offer storage, Shirley they can make the offer to the guys who do Cloudy things, thereby profiting from the cloud?

I guess there's a reason people seem to be talking about "the cloud" as some sort of threat rather than an opportunity for Dell/EMC, but I can't see what it might be.

As an aside, it did occur to me that if Meg Whitman says something is a bad idea, it will probably go gangbusters.

[toughluck]

Shrinking market due to cloud

If you make your living from high performance storage arrays and performance is your key differentiating feature, then customers will flock to you simply because they need that last ounce of performance to feed data to their software.

Cloud storage is not about performance, it's about price. Having an array that can deliver ten million IOPS at 1 TB/s is meaningless when the Internet connection to the cloud supports just 100 GB/s and just one million packets per second. If your competition can deliver two million IOPS and 200 GB/s, but do it for half the price, your hardware is then useless for the cloud.

Many customers warmed up quite a bit to hierarchical storage and no longer need on-premises high-end arrays when all online data is in fairly small flash, and cloud is treated as nearline storage -- flash enabled that.

[Ryan 33]

Pump the brakes there Pure

Let's wait for of few of your quarters reporting to Wall St to see how things are travelling, hey?