I truly and honestly hope you succeed. I know for certain that the market for on-prem will remain large for certain sectors for the forseeable future.
However. The kind of customer who spends this type of money can be conservative. They already have to go with on an unknown vendor, and rely on unknown hardware. Then they end up with a hypervisor virtually no one else in the same market segment uses.
Would you say that KVM or ESXi would be an easier or harder sell here?
Innovation budget can be a useful concept. And I'm afraid it's being stretched a lot.
Your point is well-made: the status quo is safe! Introducing any new product into an organization takes both a recognition of pain and some courage. In the case of Oxide, the pain is apparent: extant systems are expensive, vendors gaslight and squabble when issues arise, these heterogeneous solutions are surprisingly brittle. This is true even when dealing with what is ostensibly the same company! Try getting Dell, VMware, and EMC to agree whether a problem is due to the server, hypervisor or SAN!
In addition, app teams (i.e. the folks who deliver revenue to the business) are more productive on public cloud. They don't file tickets, they make VMs. Oxide is intended to bring the hardware, software, and interface innovations of the cloud into enterprise data centers with greater reliability and lower TCO.
However. The kind of customer who spends this type of money can be conservative. They already have to go with on an unknown vendor, and rely on unknown hardware. Then they end up with a hypervisor virtually no one else in the same market segment uses.
Would you say that KVM or ESXi would be an easier or harder sell here?
Innovation budget can be a useful concept. And I'm afraid it's being stretched a lot.