Microsoft's Mistake at VMWorld

I was shocked to hear that Microsoft passing out cards before Tuesday's VMworld keynote that stated "Looking for your best bet? You won't find it with VMware." The card also touted a URL http://www.vmwarecostswaytoomuch.com and was accompanied with a $1 casino chip from the Venetian. Here's the card.

Apparently, Microsoft was promptly asked to "leave the premises" as soon as they were made, but not before handing out some 3500-4000 cards and chips (according to Microsoft).

While sophomoric, Microsoft contends that they tried to gain additional visibility at the conference through the "normal" sponsorship channels at VMworld (sponsoring lunches, banners, and the like), only to be headed off by VMware.

So here's my take:
1. This type of action is boderline childish. Even if VMware did keep Microsoft's visibility artificially down, this is not the way to get VMware to change their stance (after all -- it is their conference). If anything, it had the opposite effect. And in the minds of many customers, these types of stunts further reinforces the perception (right or wrong) that Microsoft plays dirty pool. In the end, it detracts from Microsoft's credibility. It looks somewhat desperate. Of course, Microsoft will point to how many hits they get on their "VMware is way too expsensive" web site. OK, good luck with that strategy....which leads me to the next point. 

2. It's a bit disingenuous of Microsoft to say VMware is "way too expensive" when Windows Server comes with what Chris Wolf terms as "a Virtualization Tax". Chris states that "If you're virtualizing a Windows server OS today, MS licensing restrictions will force you to buy Windows 2008 data center edition, which as you know includes Hyper-V. To say VMware costs more is disingenuous." I agree. In order to get true VM mobility with Hyper-V data center edition is required. All the other editions either restrict mobility or restrict the number of VMs. Check out Chris and Richard's posts on Microsoft's licensing and their effects.

3. It's obvious there is a need for another vendor-neutral virtualization conference in the market. Microsoft feels constrianed, and I know there are others (although to their credit, they didn't pull the same stunt). The virtualization battleground is heating up and is getting intense. Virtualization is being tied to the cloud, a place where no vendor can afford to be absent or not get their message across.

Look Microsoft, if you want to put up a web site stating your case about VMware’s cost, fine (I think your case is weak, but fine). If you want to voice an opinion about your lack of sponsorship options at VMworld, OK....start your own conference or something. But don’t stoop to tactics like the one at VMworld 2008. It just sends the wrong message.

[posted by Drue Reeves]

Comments

[Andrew Cohen]

I couldn't agree more that this was hugely childish on Microsoft's part. It diminished my opinion of Microsoft, rather than enhancing it. I brought it up with someone at the Microsoft booth and their response was (cough, cough) "It's an industry event". Of course they immediately turned away and started speaking with somebody else. No, it wasn't an industry event, it was VMware's event.

Bottom line, I give credit to VMware for inviting its direct competitors to its show.

[marc farley]

Drue-man. Remember this one from last Spring?

http://direct2dell.com/one2one/archive/2008/03/04/48580.aspx

Microsoft was just copying Dell. Now who says Dell doesn't innovate?

[Matt Simmons]

Once, in my younger days, I got kicked out of the Windows 2000 release party (along with a dozen of my friends or so) for giving away Linux cds.

[dbmuse]

if you think Microsoft plays dirty in public. Imagine how dirty they play in private. The Microsoft monopoly needs to be split up.

[Drue Reeves]

Hi Marc,

Thanks for telling me about this one.

I didn't know Dell did this at HP's event...otherwise I would have blogged about it too.

Some people think these things are funny or amusing, and I suppose on some level, they are. But after people get a chance to reflect on it, they seldom think of these things as funny. In conversations I've had with colleagues, these types of things come up in part of a negative comment on the company.

But what I don't want to see happen is every event I go to have some competitor to the event shove some piece of marketing collateral in my face under covert pretenses. It's like the guy with the trench coat selling watches on the corner. Before we know it, everyone will have to be searched (for competitive material) before they can be let into the conference.