On my ZDnet blog I had some fun with the Cisco announcement. In Cisco’s bong-sized cloud I opined that the 32 server limit of VMware’s VMFS means that

The platform they’re promoting is tiny by cloud infrastructure standards. Perfect for a dorm room – but not anywhere near close to what an enterprise hoping for economies of scale or management would want.

Scale: pay me now or pay me later. VMware chose later – and now “later” is demanding payment.

Interesting comments
The post got a couple of interesting comments that touch on Cisco’s messaging to their “coopetition” and users. Caspianhiro said, in effect, that Cisco’s message to a coopetitor is that this is just a logical brand extension:

I work for one of their partners with a competing blade. Cisco tells us that they are making the blade for a niche set of customers, especially in telecom, that want an all Cisco solution set for particular applications. The volume supported the business case. We don’t expect it to be price or feature competitive for business use, and it’s probably not going to fly anyway. But, if you are Cisco, and you know you can sell 100,000 of them a year without a lot of work, then why not?

Also, they specifically mentioned that HP is stealing market share from Cisco in the networking space, and they wanted a way to fight back.

AFAIK telco’s were not called out in the announcement conference. That said, this less ambitious strategy seems more realistic than a frontal assault on HP’s and IBM’s blade business.

Rpwillia0 said he heard a different message from Cisco.

Cisco in a recent presentation was talking like they were the only ones who could really figure out how to leverage the Nehalem processor and use all of that cheap memory.

That has the ring of authenticity about it. Engineers always just know they can do it better, and Cisco has plenty of smart engineers. Of course, that’s before they get into the details.

The StorageMojo take
Combined with the inexplicable purchase of Pure Digital Video for $590 million – Kodak’s market cap is less than $1B, Cisco could own a well-recognized brand AND have salable assets for 2x the Pure deal – one of 2 conditions hold:

  1. Either Chambers is way-y-y smarter than everyone else, or
  2. He’s desperate and hoping he’ll get lucky.

I’m rooting for the first, but thinking it’s the second.

Courteous comments welcome, of course.