Some facts first:
- Gartner vs. Microsoft, Episode I: the premices
On May 1st 2006, technology analysis firm Gartner Group published a report entitled “Windows Vista Unlikely to Ship Before 2Q07“. The report started with the following stance: “Microsoft’s track record is clear; it consistently misses target dates for major operating system releases. We don’t expect broad availability of Windows Vista until at least 2Q07, which is nine to 12 months after Beta 2.” Gartner fully participated into MSFT’s financial downgrading at that time (following the trend, MS Corp had just plummeted 11% in one day, down to US$23,8, after releasing disappointing Q3 figures). A long time Microsoft stockholder, I remember getting nervous against Gartner’s analysts: how the heck these guys could, sitting in front of their computers, declare things such as someone’s track record is clear?? Can’t people or organizations change?
Winner: Gartner
- Gartner vs. Microsoft, Episode II: The Empire Strikes Back
Gartner had forecasted the release of Vista as late as 2Q07, or April 1st 2007 min. That is 2 months late at least compared to the initial calendar, January 30th 2007; people at Gartner should catch up in maths: they say that’s one month in advance only: “For all the press on the topic, it appears that Microsoft will beat our prediction by a month (if they meet their 30 Jan. target). We will congratulate Microsoft as they hit their dates.” (see this post on Gartner’s blog about Vista).
Bottom line: it appears today that MS Vista is to be released on time.
Gartner was wrong: Microsoft’s track record wasn’t so clear. Or actually, I believe it’s clear MS is getting better: Windows 3.0 didn’t quite deserve the OS title; Windows 3.1 wasn’t ridiculous but a few years late compared to Mac OS; Windows 95 was intrinsically late & pretty dirty in terms of memory management and security; Windows 98 was much better in many respects; Windows Millenium was an unstable version of Windows 98; Windows NT eventually provided honest security features and some sort of stability; Windows XP is a very good product; and I still don’t know what to think of Vista, but my first impression (tested Beta) is extremely positive. It’s pretty clear the number of innovations (thanks Kari) improvements (3000!!) integrated is underrated (see Scobleizer) by most observers. So, to me, MS’s track record is crystal clear: the company has been getting better and better over time.
Winner: Microsoft
- Gartner vs. Microsoft, Episode III: The Phantom Menace
Gartner is definitely not a fair player. Taking advantage of its “CIO advisor” sort of situation, the firm now advocates that “companies shouldn’t rush to upgrade to Microsoft Windows Vista” (see here). Gartner’s call to CIOs is to wait until 2008, for the first service packs to be available. I don’t know what’s going on between Gartner and Microsoft, but the friendship thermometer looks rather low. After betting MS would be late, Gartner now pushes for companies to postpone updates.
Winner: Gartner
- Gartner vs. Microsoft, Episode IV: The Return of Gartner
Probably not satisfied yet, Gartner came up yesterday with one big new argument against Microsoft. Now that Microsoft is to release Vista on time, Gartner criticizes the calendar, saying launching in end of January will damage the entire PC market and Christmas traditionally booming sales. MS had anticipated such a move, and has negotiated preferential updating (through downloads) conditions with most OEM vendors. Still, potential reputation damage is high for MSFT. We’re talking here of the economic impact of being on time…Furthermore, Gartner anticipates a very low penetration rate for Vista (10% of computers equipped with Vista in the end of year 2007 only). So how come the launch of Vista may damage Christmas PC sales? It’s all illogical.
To state things clearly: had Microsoft been late, Gartner would’ve said “I told you”. Now that Microsoft is to launch on time, Gartner says “The timing’s wrong”. To repeat myself, there’s something opaque and unclear going on between Gartner and Microsoft. Has an employee from Microsoft had an affair with the girlfriend of a Gartner analyst? Has someone at Gartner had his/her grandmother taken a short position (equivalent to a put option) on MSFT? I don’t know. But I’ll figure it out.
Winner: Gartner (for the reputation damage to MS)
Questions/Conclusion: in your opinion, what’s wrong between Gartner and Microsoft? What next? What would’ve been the best calendar for the launch of Vista? (according to Gartner I guess, Never).
In your essay you forget that Gartner’s report might have had an effect on Microsoft’s Vista schedule. During the fall Microsoft kept reporting how key features were being dropped from Vista. and even Aero will only on run on high-spec machines (256 megs of video ram… recommended? most laptops have shared video ram for love of all that’s good!)
And, the message from the front lines of IT seems, at least at the moment, to be that Vista just doesn’t matter. The OS filed has stagnated for so long.
I think you’re mixing up the business environment use and consumer use of Vista. They are different battlefields, the former is unaffected by Christmas release but is affected by a probably poor penetration.
If the 3000 improvements (definelty not innovations) are counted like Apple does, just a new icon is counted as an improvement.
If I remember correctly, it was the OEMs (esp. Acer) who were first up in the arms months ago on Vista’s past-Christmas release, not Gartner.
and really, it’s a real stretch to say that Vista is… on time.
Comment by Kari — December 2, 2006 @ 10:57
Hey Kari,
Hope you’re good. Long time no see.
To answer you points one by one:
1) I don’t think Gartner’s report may have had any effect on MS Vista’s schedule. It just seems unlikely that N.3 market capitalization worldwide starts abiding by analysts’ stuff.
2) No, I’m not mixing up business and consumer environments. Gartner says companies should wait to update to Vista. I’m not saying they’re right or wrong, but rather that they should stay away of debates after telling nonsense in such an arrogant way (”Microsoft’s track record is clear”).
Consumer environments come on stage when Gartner says MS made a bad move launching Vista on January 30th: Gartner thinks PC Christmas sales will go down. But if Vista doesn’t matter, then why should it have any impact on PC sales?
This is rather contradictory. In other words, I didn’t mix up B-to-B and B-to-C markets. Gartner did so rather.
3) You’re totally right: 3000 improvements, not innovations. My mistake.
4) Yep on Acer. Same for Dell & Co. But again, looks like MS tried hard to make an effort and allow for low-price (or sometimes free) Vista update download.
Comment by Jeremy Fain — December 2, 2006 @ 12:19
I’m from Seattle, and I can tell you really sound like someone who works at Microsoft. Am I mistaking?
Comment by Anthony — December 3, 2006 @ 02:26
Anthony> I apologize for being so bold, but you’re mistaking indeed. As of today, I have no formal link whatsoever with Microsoft (or Gartner). I’m not saying it’s not likely to happen sooner or later, on the contrary, but so far, I’m just a student. I have to say though that, as a petty and unsignificant Microsoft stockholder (still, lots of money for me), I was a little biased right from the beginning. But I think Gartner went too far against Microsoft this time, hence my post.
To complement your question: I admire both companies, Microsoft for its ability to remain on the roof of the technology world for so long, and Gartner – that I read very often thanks to a subscription I benefit from as an HEC Paris student – for the buzz it manages to create from mere articles, magic quadrants and CIO recommendations. When an executive committee doesn’t know which decision it should make, it goes to Gartner. Wow!
Comment by Jeremy Fain — December 3, 2006 @ 17:25
Thank you Jeremy. When will you enter the job market? I’m a headhunter in Seattle. Send me an e-mail and I’ll call you right back.
Comment by Anthony — December 3, 2006 @ 18:30
Gartner is so predictable in its reports! It’s always the same story: products will be late, don’t rush to upgrade, etc. Dear prudence!
If all customers were listening to Gartner, we’d still be in the 80’s technology-wise. Hopefully, there are courageous customers and end-users who jump early on new technolologies, and try to get the most out of it and OK, support some of the incurred pain.
But upgrading to a new OS is indeed a slow process in the market. What’s interesting is the delay between the btob and btoc launches of Vista/Office 2007. It’s justified by some logistical considerations (it’s easier to ship to developers – through the web – to enterprises with CDs – than in retail with packaged products, there are also some licensing considerations with customers having purchased 3 years long “Enterprise Agreements” that are ending in 06). But in the end, consumers will end up adopting Vista much faster than orgs. Simple math: in the western world, about half of the PCs are sold in home, the other in orgs. But most new home PC shipped in 07 will be with Vista. While most PCs shipped to orgs will be reformated to an old OS by their IT departments (many times even not XP, but only Windows 2000). So, there will be many more Vista PCs in homes than in orgs in 07 and probably 08. Consumers will pressure orgs to adopt Vista, not the other way around. Most large orgs deploy a new OS in a very long cycle – Gartner or not : 1 year of evaluation, testing with hardware and custom applications, then 3 to 5 years of deployments. MS has probably put a lot of R&D efforts in Vista to ease migration, deployments and network administration of Windows in mixed versions environment. But it’s never enough. Legacy is always the greatest burden of IT!
So when Gartner advises customers to be slow in upgrading, they are just saying the obvious! They would be a better advisor with telling customers how to deploy faster and at the lowest cost. Not just with encouraging a “wait and see” attitude.
Btw, to be clear, I am a former MS employee…
Comment by Olivier Ezratty — December 3, 2006 @ 19:04
My wife used to work for Gartner, and they don’t seem to like Microsoft too much there!
Comment by Hans V. — December 3, 2006 @ 19:25
Anthony> Thank you for your interest, but I’m pretty much all set as far as my future’s concerned. I’ll keep your e-mail address in case I go to Seattle one of these days (never been there, great city I heard).
Olivier> If I understand well, Gartner is just repeating one more time the scenario that has already occurred everytime a new mainstream OS was launched!! On your recommendation to Gartner “would be a better advisor with telling customers how to deploy faster and at the lowest cost”, I’m not sure the people at Gartner are the right people to give such operational advice. Gartner analysts are basically consultants (see their profiles over here: http://www.gartner.com/0_admin/AnalystCoverageAreas.jsp#Software%20Markets).
They’re excellent at providing market summaries, but I’m not sure all of them master the tricks of organization-wide deployments, quite unfortunately indeed…
Hans> I’m not sure you can generalize as such, even though your testimony’s pretty insightful. Montesquieu once said that “all generalizations are dangerous, including this one”;-)
Comment by Jeremy Fain — December 4, 2006 @ 00:12
Jeremy, you’re right about Gartner’s positionning.
I still wonder what’s their added value compared to reading a good bunch of (less expensive) IT news magazine…
Comment by Olivier Ezratty — December 4, 2006 @ 15:00
Dr Dobb, The Register et alii are less mainstream than Gartner.
As far as I see it, Gartner is used by functional executives needing to make a decision about an investment. Say for instance that they’re planning to invest on an SFA software, they’ll take a look at Gartner’s subsequent Magic Quadrant to back their decision.
Comment by Jeremy Fain — December 4, 2006 @ 18:38
[...] Les prévisions du Gartner ne font que refléter une réalité incontournable : les grands clients mettent toujours environ un an à évaluer une nouvelle version de Windows et jusqu’à cinq années pour la déployer sur leur parc, en général à l’occasion du renouvellement progressif du parc matériel de PCs. Heureusement, les particuliers adoptent plus vite ces nouvelles versions. La moitié des PC vendus en France l’est dans le grand public. Tandis que ceux qui vont dans les entreprises sont reformatés dans une version ancienne de Windows, ceux qui atterrissent dans le grand public le seront avec Vista dès début 2007. Le faible pourcentage de PC réinstallés avec Linux n’y change pas grand chose. [...]
Pingback by Opinions Libres - Le blog d'Olivier Ezratty — December 7, 2006 @ 01:00