Advertisements

You can not ViewYonder any more

Today I am reprinting a post in full from a very good friend of mine, Why am I doing this three reasons:

  1. I do not like censorship,
  2. I believe in the Streisand effect
  3. The fact that everything in this post is true

Now you will not find this post on the original site as Steve has been asked [sic: Told] to remove it.

I read a brilliant blog post by J Michael Metz today about the recent Gartner report on FCoE by Joe Skorupa.  Of the many great lines and counter arguments in the post, likening Gartner to Chicken Little was comically accurate in my humble opinion, and is a typical analyst response to anything new and innovative: remember the scare stories about virtualization?  If you listened to guys like Joe, would you ever get anything done?

Please go and read the post yourself, but here’s the general outline to give you a flavour:

  • Define your terms – looks like Joe don’t know the difference between DCB and FCoE
  • Learning how to count – convergence increases components!  Does Joe think that virtualization increases physical server counts too?
  • Financial barriers – well, this is crap in crap out.  If you have more stuff (you don’t) then it’s more expensive (it isn’t)
  • Increased complexity – because it’s new?  because the teams, tools aren’t set up for it?
  • Hard to debug – crap in/out again, especially if you don’t understand DCB and FCoE.
  • Sublime to surreal – don’t do it because you might not get the benefit, but don’t rule them out.  What the hell does that mean?
  • Missed opportunities – when you don’t have an axe to grind, nor a hidden agenda, what’s the real opportunity?
  • Myopic strawmen – what about ETS?

Don’t forget that the ten-page Gartner report can be yours for $200.  Yes, that’s $20 a page.  The good times must be back!

If Joe can sell just nine of those reports he might want to invest in this FCoE course.

This is a stupid situation and could have been avoided if those that had the power; had actually thought this decision through before making a knee jerk response,  they would have spotted two major flaws to their censorship logic

  1. Hey Gartner I can still read it here
  2. The very fact that you have censored this post had raised its profile.

The fact of the matter is that Gartner was feeling exposed here, as they had released a piece of analysis that they were/are charging $200 to purchase, that is quite frankly full of inaccuracies, so instead, either re-writing the piece with the correct information, or defending their position they, pull the big boy bully tactics by getting the blogger’s employer to inform him to remove the post.  In this day of social media the Big Analytical companies are feeling worried, they are loosing their dollars, due to the “Information” that they peddle being out in the open on respected Blog sites, and when they are called out for inaccuracies they huddle and strike out without thought for the resultant actions,  Gartner have done more damage to their reputation with this action than if they had just let the post lie.

Now the end result is that we have lost a very good commentator and Blogger to the community, and all because of a big boy bully and a frightened corporate machine, it is the latter that surprises me the most, I would have thought that Cisco would have more backbone than that, for a company that purport to have embraced the world of social media they have acted the worse,  Cisco could/should have defended Steve, It does not matter that they may not agree with his position on the matter. They should have responded along the lines of “Steve’s blog is his own personal space and is not affiliated to us his employers”.

UPDATE – VIEWYONDER is back, Steve is back blogging with his mix of detailed commentary and humourous asides.  Thank heavens for a bout of common sense in the corporate machine that is Cisco.

Advertisements

6 comments

2 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. Well said Tom!

    It is indeed ironic how their attempt to pull the post has actually increased it’s visibity to the world. Very dissapointing that they cannot take what appears to be fair criticism, even more dissapointing that they resorted to contacting his employer as opposed to him in the first instance regarding it.

    Well done Gartner!!

    • RobB on May 11, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Well said! Gartner is Gartner, I would have expected more from Cisco. I guess Cisco is Cisco as well…

    • ThatFridgeGuy on May 11, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    So now when you see a Gartner report that has good things to say about Cisco products is it the truth or are they just repaying a favor that Cisco did for them? We’ll never know so for me that means any Gartner reports in the future favoring Cisco are untrustworthy.

    The same really goes for any other Gartner report as we don’t know what other companies they may owe a favor to for similar censorship favors done in the past.

    The worst part is nobody involved in this is better off than before it started and a case could be made that everyone is worse off, including the IT Community for losing a valued contributor such as Steve. It doesn’t matter if you agreed with him or not, as a matter of fact it’s good if some people didn’t as it helps to create valuable interactions regarding those opinions.

    Thanks Steve for your past contributions and we will all be better off if you are able to find a way to continue to contribute without fear of censorship.

    • Lars on May 11, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    Don’t they ever learn?!!

    Maybe (just maybe) in ancient times before the internet came around censorship was highly efficient (for some time). I guess censorship is still quite effective in some parts of the world that we do not normally like to compare with the civilized world.

    ..and the results were the same in ancient times as now. Censoring always drew attention. Attention in favor of the one being censored. My favorite is “Life of Brian”, the movie that was censored quite a few places after being released. John Cleese was interviewed at a TV show where he revealed that the popularity of the movie after the censorship started made the movie way more popular because everyone had to go and see what it was all about.

    I totally agree with Tom’s opinion here and Steve is one of the guys who have stood out from the mass by sharing many of his opinions that often has gone against the mainstream “public” opinion (ITIL). We often need fresh thoughts and second opinions about things because it’s not “definite truths” that are being told even though our teachers/press/leaders would like us to think so.

    Sharing your opinion on a personal blog should be protected by the constitution. It probably is, but it may take too much effort to defend one self when not even your employer is supporting you.

    I’m sure we haven’t seen the end of this yet.

  2. Thanks for the support, Tom, and the others in the comments. All done and dusted now, Cisco were actually very good in the end and have gone up in my estimation as decent employer and a good place to work. They support me in my personal blogging and I think this “event” has changed a few things for the better and I hope that the many awesome people at Cisco would consider starting their own blog and share their ideas. Problem with Cisco is that until you work here you don’t realise how many good people there are because they don’t go public much. That’s changing with blogs like unifiedcomputingblog.com and I hope we see more soon.

    Thanks for the support, I really appreciate it and hope I can return the favour one day but in more pleasant circumstances.

    Cheers
    Steve

  3. Tom, thanks for the informative and timely post. I was extremely troubled by Cisco censoring the brilliant and always provocative Steve Chambers, and am relieved that his blog is now online.

    Now, let me preface by saying that I have nothing against analysts. Of course, it is well known that some of my best friends are analysts — most of them, in fact. But, it does amaze me that anyone would consider it sound business practice to respond to any criticism of work of their work by leaning on their employer, who happens to pay their research fees.

    That would be like me complaining about one particularly horrible U.S. airline I have to fly on sometimes, and in response, having them ring up my CEO, and then forcing some retraction. Sheesh…

    Keep up the great work, Tom and Steve!

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ewan Leith, Andrew Storrs, tom_howarth, Lars Troen, Arseny Chernov and others. Arseny Chernov said: RT @tom_howarth: My view on @gartner_inc censorship http://tinyurl.com/35r9asu Streisand effect in action << please RT […]

  2. […] the Streisand Effect that PlanetVM and Rod Gabriel started: I read a brilliant blog post by J Michael Metz today about the recent […]

Comments have been disabled.

%d bloggers like this: