Broadcom CEO tells VMWare workers to ‘get butt back to office’ after completing a $69 billion merger of the two companies::In a meeting on Tuesday after completing the $69 billion merger, Broadcom CEO Hock Tan told VMWare employees their days of working remotely were over.
Yay. Hope this turns out great for him.
It will. This is just more layoffs disguised as back to office. They’ll lose a bunch of good workers, but they bought VMware for the customer base, not the workers.
America needs to start fighting for worker rights, it’s just sad how little they have.
They’ll lose a bunch of good workers
You’re looking at it from the wrong angle: They’re ditching anyone that won’t lick boots
Since they already deal with a fair few of VMware’s customers themselves, I’d say they probably bought VMW to bolster it’s software offerings. They seem to be wanting to get rid of a lot of the staff there, so customers tend to build relationships with their vendors, and burning those bridges ain’t going to help there.
VMware is effectively a monopoly on entreprise virtualization. What else are the costumers going to pick?
HyperV is a joke, promox is amazing but it’s free software, and every other relevant provider is just a layer on top of VMware.
I don’t do virtualization at the enterprise level but why wouldn’t enterprise use KVM? Does VMWare have any advantage over it?
VMware has the massive advantage that all the money you’re throwing at them gives you support. Yes, communities can and do offer similar if not better support than paid offerings but tell that to the people who decide what software you’re buying :)
Aside from the fact that it runs on Windows, what makes HyperV so bad?
I’ve used it a bunch and it seems fine save for some weird quirks with OSs older than 2012 R2
We have several big clusters built on mixed virtual and bare metal. I would prefer our system engineer to manually build on virtualbox before even touching hyper-v (which we clearly don’t!). For some political reasons our IT forced us to test to build a solution on hyper-v (cost saving on some non critical infrastructure proposed by some very non-tecnical people), I still have nightmares. I am not even the person who had to do it in practice.
It is long to explain it here, just give it a try. Windows server and all releted solutions are simply bad for real workloads. Who use it on server is just a company who doesn’t need to be productive on the IT side. Their core business is not tech related and they don’t care other than getting cheap sys admins
Well, I mean, that. It’s very capable but Microsoft gimps it by bundling it with windows server. The fact you have to use RDP to administer it is itself a non-starter.
You don’t need to use RDP though. In fact, MS really wants you to use remote powershell or admin center.
Although you could also use whatever 3rd party remote tools you want because you’re just running Windows Server
There’s also Nutanix.
Every shop I’ve been in that thought they needed VMware would have been just fine on HyperV.
It’s just name recognition.
You’ve not seen a wide variety of “shops” then, clearly.
I have a bit of insider knowledge on this, and you’d be surprised at how demented a CIO can be at getting away from a company that has pissed them off. VMware is no exception, and I personally know of 2 companies, which are top 5 in the world in their field, that have been exploring alternatives to VMware. The internal culture at VMW has been one of upping prices to match what broadcom will want for almost a year, and it’s causing clients to go elsewhere. Companies with an effective monopoly can still fuck it all up.
Citrix has xenserver. It’s not bad at all.
Broadcom CEO announces layoffs through obscurity.
Constructive dismissal
Either they’ve already inked special exceptions with their top talent, or those guys are about to leave.
Can’t imagine it’s too big a pool of engineers at the very top of virtualization technology.
On the other hand, they must think VMware portfolio is a rather stable set of solutions, while the bulk of innovation is moving towards kubernetes like solutions that they don’t want to follow, as they are late and don’t want to invest to build the know how.
They are considering to transform the business model more like oracle, sap, cisco, where the core business is sales not innovation. Their plan is probably that they have such a strong position in the market that talents are not needed, just average people who can patch out stuff somehow.
I have too much technical experience to agree with them that this is a good call. I believe it will be a disaster on the long run. But their background is clearly different, and they saw on the market a huge amount of successful companies with such business model. First among all pre-nadella Microsoft.
They’ll squeeze 5 years of blood from entrenched customers. That’s enough of a win.
The absolute disrespect for workers. Why talk to them this way?
Because they don’t see them as people, they see them as disposable assets and resources.
Sloan School of Business… Every worker is a cog. Every worker must have a very narrow job to ensure replaceability and low wages.
VMware is on death row.
That way of treating the younger generation won’t fly. The boomers put up with it, even some gen x. But the millennials and zoomers are all about workers rights. This dude is about to find out.
I fear that enough people will keep working that it won’t matter.
And they will, but a huge difference in innovation when the majority don’t want to be there. Quality will probably start to dip first. Then attrition will rise slowly. It won’t happen over night butbas the market improves, the bleeding will begin.
So time to devalue their company after purchasing? Aiming for tax writeoffs?
Literally trying to get people to quit so they don’t have to fire them because it is more expensive.
