Reply to Message

My two cents

josephmartins 20th Oct 2009

Dennis,

I've already tackled many of the points discussed in your post elsewhere on the Internet. So I will focus on ZL's beliefs and intent in this comment.

[Note: Before I begin let me say that the terms 'vendor' and 'end-user' create artificial boundaries where none exist. A vendor is nothing more than the sell-side of a company. And a buyer or end-user is nothing more than the buy side of a company. There is nothing more amusing than listening to a Ford, GE, MIT or Warner Brothers IT employee talk about 'those damn lying vendors' as if he does not draw his paycheck from one. Let us not forget how our bread is buttered.]

Now...

Companies large and small (from the IBMs to the ZLs) are a dime a dozen regardless their size. Each of them believing their products to be more innovative, their employees smarter, and their road maps more visionary than those of their competition. They are, after all, drinking their own kool-aid. Everyone else is, in their minds, delusional.

In these days of incredibly complex hardware and software products, much of the analysis - while it may be based on some facts such as speeds and feeds - is largely subjective opinion AND largely contextual.

ZL is pissed off because some group of analysts at the mighty Gartner didn't rank it well in their largely subjective MQ? So what. They are entitled to their opinions. If the product is as innovative as ZL believes it to be, surely other analysts at other firms would/will have a different opinion.

Yes Gartner's opinion differs from ZL's. And, yes Gartner does earn money from the buy- AND sell-side of its clients. What of it? Are we really foolish enough to engage in circumstantial ad hominem reasoning? That's naive and indefensible.

ZL is implying that the MQ is biased solely based on Gartner's revenue sources. The company clearly hopes that disclosure would create enough doubt about MQ among Gartner followers to decrease the MQ's value and perhaps elevate what the company believes to be its own superiority.

[Note: I should mention I could care less about the MQ. I prefer to dig up my own evidence and draw my own conclusions.]

Disclosure aside (and I believe disclosure is a good thing), no matter how we slice it ZL's complaint is nothing more than kool-aid driven smacktalk.

Regarding your new adventure, Enterprise Advocates, I'll reserve my opinion about it until a later date when more information is available. Those who know me well know how I feel about self-branded 'end user' advocates. I often refer to them as wolves in sheep's clothing.