Idc Vcc Mcs 2010 Final
Transcript of Idc Vcc Mcs 2010 Final
Copyright 2010 IDC. Reproduction is forbidden unless authorized. All rights reserved.
Multi-Client Study
Brett Waldman, Ian Song, Bob O'Donnell, Fred Broussard, Al Gillen
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 2
Agenda
Overview
Industry trend and data
Driver to adoption
Current deployment stages
Technologies
Services
Barriers
Opportunities
Essential Guidance
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 3
Objective
The increasing availability and maturity of technologies that organizations are using to virtualize the client environment are
causing many IT vendors to question what the future state of the desktop environment will look like, and where the opportunities
and risks lie. This study represents a targeted analysis of the range of technologies that enable the virtualization of the client
environment, including:
Centralized Virtual Desktop (aka VDI) (VMware View, Citrix XenDesktop)
Application Virtualization (Microsoft App-V, VMware ThinApp)
Virtual User Session Software (Microsoft Terminal Services, Citrix XenApp)
Distributed Virtual Desktops (VMware Player, Microsoft Virtual PC)
Although this study will consider all of these technologies individually, it will primarily focus on the use of Application
Virtualization, Virtual User Session Software, and Distributed Virtual Desktops within the context of a Centralized Virtual Desktop
environment, which over the past year has evolved from an emerging technology into a viable deployment model either used by
or of interest to most enterprise IT organizations. This study is intended to shed light on the following issues, among other things:
General short-term deployment expectations for Application Virtualization, Virtual User Session software, Distributed Virtual
Desktops, and Centralized Virtual Desktop within medium, large and enterprise IT organizations.
The impact that the current and expected future economic environment has had (is having) on customer deployments of the
technologies in question.
How organizations manage Centralized Virtual Desktop, in comparison to how they manage their traditional, thick PC
environments.
Motivations for the use of Application Virtualization, Virtual User Session software, and Distributed Virtual Desktops change
when used within a Centralized Virtual Desktop infrastructure, compared to the use of those technologies individually.
The objective of this study is to answer the above questions and more, in order to provide vendors with the holistic and
pragmatic market data they need to make decisions about how to respond to the trends emerging in the use of virtualization of
the client environment.
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 4
Agenda
Overview
Industry trend and data
Driver to adoption
Current deployment stages
Technologies
Services
Barriers
Opportunities
Essential Guidance
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Respondent statistics
5
QD2. What is your current job title or role? (Yellow)
QB3a. Who within the organization was primarily driving the initiative to consider client
virtualization? (Red)
N=208
.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
Other
Dept Head
IS/IT Professional
Mid-Level IT Execs
Sen. Level IT Executives
CIO
CEO
Work Title Driving initiative
CIO/CTO are typically vision
driven, thus is important to offer
holistic packages rather then specific
solutions
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Challenges: Management
6
QB1a. What is your greatest management challenge in your current PC environment?
5.8%
7.2%
10.6%
12.5%
13.0%
14.4%
16.8%
19.7%
.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
OS Management
Other (specify)
Device Management
Complexity
Data Management
Preventing users from making changes
Configuration Control
Application Management
N=208
• App management is biggest
challenge• App virtualization makes
great entry to VCC
• Configuration Control issues
shows need for VDI and
management tools
• Controlling user access is
another opportunity for
implementing client
virtualization
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Challenges: End user related
7
QB1b. What is your greatest end user related challenge in your current PC environment?
3.8%
5.8%
6.3%
6.7%
9.1%
9.6%
18.8%
19.2%
20.7%
.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
Other (specify)
User Authentication
Worldwide User access to their work
Data Loss
Disaster Recovery
Password Security
Compliance/Governance issues
Data Security
Training for new users
N=208
• Training, Security, Complian
ce top end user issues
• Offering consultative
services addressing these
top concerns can create
opportunities
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Challenges: Hardware
8
QB1c. What is your greatest hardware challenge in your current PC environment?
4.8%
4.8%
17.8%
23.6%
49.0%
.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Other (specify)
Power consumption
Disaster recovery
Scalability
Hardware costs
N=208
• Hardware costs top issue
• Customers need to understand
that VCC does not help with
CAPEX costs
• Need to focus on long term
TCO, and OPEX reduction
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Challenges: Software
9
QB1d. What is your greatest software challenge in your current PC environment?
N=208
1.4%
7.7%
9.6%
13.9%
32.7%
34.6%
.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
Other (specify)
Disaster Recovery
Data Loss
Client OS migration
Software license costs
Application deployment
• App deployment and
software license costs
greatest software challenges
• Very related to app
management issues, and
can be addressed by app
virtualization
• OS migration, data loss and
DR not seen big concerns• These issues occur too
infrequently to be on the
top of mind
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 10
Industry Trend: Verticals
QA1. What industry classification best represents your site's principal business activity?
3.8%4.3%
5.3%
6.7%7.2%
7.7%
9.6%
11.1%
12.0%
13.5%
18.8%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
N=208
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 11
Industry Trend: Technologies utilized by respondents (verticals)
• Financial and manufacturing
leading VDI implementation
• Customers are becoming
savvy about picking the right
technology
61%
65%
29%
32%
62%
69%
44%
46%
35%
52%
35%
26%
42%
38%
26%
23%
48%
58%
42%
35%
50%
55%
36%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
CVD
VUS
App Virt
DVD
Total (N=208) Other (N=62) Gov't & Edu (N=53)
Services (N=23) Manufacturing (N=39) Financial (N=31)
QA6: Percent of company vertical who use this type of technology in its production environment?
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 12
Organization size
QA3a. How many PCs would you estimate your entire company to have?
22.1%
12.5%
7.7%
12.0%
16.8%
9.1%
19.7%
.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
500 to 1,000 1,000 to 2,499 2,500 to 4,999 5,000 to 10,000 10,000 to 24,99925,000 to 49,999 50,000+
N=208
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 13
Industry Trend: Technologies utilized by respondents (Size)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
CVD
VUS
App Virt
DVD
Total (N=208)
50,000+ (N=41)
25,000 to 49,999 (N=19)
10,000 to 24,999 (N=35)
5,000 to 10,000 (N=25)
2,500 to 4,999 (N=16)
1,000 to 2,499 (N=26)
500 to 1,000 (N=46)
QA6: Percent of company size who use this type of technology in its production environment?
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 14
Agenda
Overview
Industry trend and data
Driver to adoption
Current deployment stages
Technologies
Services
Barriers
Opportunities
Essential Guidance
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 15
Drivers to adoption
Business Drivers Technology Drivers
Lower total Lifecycle management
costs
Simplify management of Applications,
Hardware and OS
Lower total costs compare to traditional
PCs
Improve data security
Lower endpoint device costs Disaster Recovery Planning
Improving regulatory compliance Improve scalability
Decrease power consumption OS Migration
Reduce user downtime, support call
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 16
Driver to adoption (per technology)
1.3%
2.6%
14.5%
5.3%
18.4%
11.8%
25.0%
26.3%
25.0%
28.9%
19.7%
30.3%
38.2%
34.2%
3.8%
7.5%
13.2%
11.3%
18.9%
13.2%
18.9%
24.5%
15.1%
28.3%
26.4%
39.6%
34.0%
3.8%
11.5%
9.6%
13.5%
19.2%
26.9%
15.4%
17.3%
17.3%
28.8%
23.1%
21.2%
15.4%
46.2%
0.0%
14.8%
11.1%
11.1%
11.1%
14.8%
14.8%
18.5%
14.8%
11.1%
37.0%
22.2%
48.1%
33.3%
Other
Decrease Power Consumption
OS Migration
Regulatory Compliance
Limit User Downtime/Lost Productivity
Disaster Recovery/Preparedness
Lower Endpoint Device Costs
Lower total lifecycle costs compared to a PC
Lower total lifecycle costs
Data Security
Improve Scalability
Simplify OS Management
Simplify Hardware Management
Simplify Application Management
Centralized Virtual Desktops Virtual User Session Application Virtualization Distributed Virtual DesktopsN=76 N=53 N=52 N=27
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 17
Agenda
Overview
Industry trend and data
Driver to adoption
Current deployment stages
Technologies
Services
Barriers
Opportunities
Essential Guidance
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Summary
• VUS is a mature technology
• Customers are still figuring out how to apply App virt and
DVD in their organizations
• CVD is still leading VCC growth in the next 12 – 18 month
• No surprise, Public sector, Financial and education are
leading VCC adoption
18
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 19
Current deployments: Per technology
QA6. Does your company use client virtualization in its production environment or are you
currently testing or piloting it? If not, are you considering it?
N=208
32.7%
35.6%
55.3%
49.5%
32.2%
26.9%
21.6%
33.2%
9.1%
11.1%
7.2%
6.7%
24.5%
25.5%
14.4%
10.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DVD
App Virt
VUS
CVD
Use in production Testing/Piloting
Considering Not currently considering
Not Sure
• VUS is a mature technology – it
has the highest penetration in
production• Also easiest to deploy without
downtime
• High interest in CVD, App virt and
DVD
• Current development and interests
in VCC suggest customers are
more interested in virtualizing the
entire desktop environment rather
than just the apps
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 20
Current deployments: CVD by industry
QA6a1. Does your company use CVD in its production environment or are you currently
testing or piloting it? If not, are you considering it?
50.7%
60.0%
34.8%
36.0%
46.4%
61.5%
49.5%
26.7%
35.0%
43.5%
52.0%
35.7%
20.5%
33.2%
8.9%
5.0%
4.3%
4.0%
10.3%
6.7%
8.9%
17.4%
8.0%
17.9%
7.7%
10.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All Other (N=73)
Financial (N=20)
Services (N=23)
Education (N=25)
Government (N=28)
Manufacturing (N=39)
Total (N=208)
Use in production environment Currently testing/piloting
Considering Not currently considering
Not sure of futuer plans
• Manufacturing and Financial
verticals are the leaders in
production deployments
• Opportunities exist in industries
that has high numbers in testing
phase
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 21
Current deployments: VUS by industry
QA6b1. Does your company use Virtual User Session in its production environment or are
you currently testing or piloting it? If not, are you considering it?
64.4%
65.0%
52.2%
32.0%
42.9%
69.2%
55.3%
14.9%
30.0%
30.4%
32.0%
25.0%
7.7%
21.6%
4.5%
4.3%
3.6%
12.8%
7.2%
16.3%
5.0%
13.0%
28.0%
28.6%
7.7%
14.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All Other (N=73)
Financial (N=20)
Services (N=23)
Education (N=25)
Government (N=28)
Manufacturing (N=39)
Total (N=208)
Use in production environment Currently testing/piloting
Considering Not currently considering
Not sure of futuer plans
• VUS is very mature, which is
shown by the wide adoption rate
across industries
• Opportunities exist in the public
sector, services and financial
verticals where users
environments are standardized
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 22
Current deployments: App-virt by industry
QA6c1. Does your company use Application Virtualization in its production environment or
are you currently testing or piloting it? If not, are you considering it?
38.4%
35.0%
34.8%
28.0%
25.0%
43.6%
35.6%
23.3%
40.0%
43.5%
40.0%
17.9%
15.4%
26.9%
17.8%
10.0%
4.3%
16.0%
7.1%
2.6%
11.1%
20.5%
15.0%
13.0%
16.0%
50.0%
35.9%
25.5%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
All Other (N=73)
Financial (N=20)
Services (N=23)
Education (N=25)
Government (N=28)
Manufacturing (N=39)
Total (N=208)
Use in production environment Currently testing/piloting
Considering Not currently considering
Not sure of futuer plans
• Different types of app-virt
technologies are preventing
wide adoption
• Service opportunities lie with
helping customers finding
the right solution
• Increasingly becoming a
feature and stepping stone
to a holistic VCC solution
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 23
Current deployments: DVD by industry
QA6d1. Does your company use Distributed Virtual Desktop in its production environment
or are you currently testing or piloting it? If not, are you considering it?
32.9%
32.3%
34.8%
24.0%
21.4%
46.2%
32.7%
34.2%
41.9%
26.1%
28.0%
32.1%
28.2%
32.2%
9.6%
12.9%
4.3%
12.0%
10.7%
5.1%
9.1%
23.3%
12.9%
30.4%
28.0%
35.7%
20.5%
24.5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All Other (N=73)
Financial (N=20)
Services (N=23)
Education (N=25)
Government (N=28)
Manufacturing (N=39)
Total (N=208)
Use in production environment Currently testing/piloting
Considering Not currently considering
Not sure of futuer plans
• Adoption is low, manufacturing
is an outlier
• DVD management technology
is still relatively new
• Data security and compliance
are concerns compared to
other VCC solutions
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 24
Agenda
Agenda
Overview
Industry trend and data
Driver to adoption
Current deployment stages
Technologies
Services
Barriers
Opportunities
Essential Guidance
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Summary
• Hypervisor usage is on par with datacenter trends
• Density is king
• Servers used for CVD have slightly more sockets and memory
compared to a typical virtualized server
• SAN is the standard, mid-market and SMB utilizes NAS
25
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 26
Datacenter: hypervisors
QA5b. What is the primary server virtualization software you use? (yellow)
QD11. What virtualization platform do you support centralized virtual desktop environment? (red)
60.6%
10.6%
5.8%
10.1%
4.8%
8.2%
55.3%
7.9%9.2%
6.6%9.2%
11.8%
.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
VMware ESX/
vSphere
VMware Server
Microsoft Virtual Server
Microsoft Hyper-V
Citrix XenServer
Other
Total (N=208) Centralized Virtual Desktops (N=76)
Key stats:
100% respondents utilize Server
Virtualization (QA5a, QA5b)
• 71.2% use VMware (ESX & GSX)
• 15.9% use Microsoft (Vserver &
Hyper-V)
• 4.8% use Citrix (XenServer)
• 8.2% use Other vendors
Note: Does not necessarily reflect current market
conditions
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 27
Datacenter: Sockets
QD10b. What is the typical number of sockets?
5.3%
25.0%
46.1%
6.6%
13.2%
3.9%
.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 physical socket
2-3 physical sockets
4-8 physical sockets
9-15 physical sockets
16 or more physical sockets
Don't know
N=76
• Note respondents may
have confused what is a
socket and what is a core
• Customers typically look
to latest hardware to
create highest density
platform possible
• Typically buy from same
hardware vendor they are
already using for server
virtualization
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Datacenter: Memory
28
QD9. On average, how much RAM do the
physical servers have that currently or will
support your centralized virtual desktops?
22.4%
11.8%
26.3%
22.4%
13.2%
3.9%
.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
8GB or less 16GB 32GB 64GB More than 64GB
Don't know
• Amount of physical memory
typically correspond to the # of
sockets
• Customers typically look to latest
hardware to create highest
density platform possible
• Customers are actually adding
more memory to CVD hardware
than typical server virtualization
workloads
N=76
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 29
Datacenter: CVD VM density
QD12. On average, how many virtual desktops do you host on a single server?
9.2%
22.4%
23.7%
14.5%
13.2%
7.9%
3.9%
1.3%
3.9%
.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Less than 5
5-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-100 101-150 151+
N=76
• VM density usually go up
when organizations deploy
CVD into production
• VM density is not typically
constrained by server
hardware
• Networking and storage
issues are bottlenecks
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 30
Datacenter: CVD Storage
QD17. What type of storage is primarily used with your centralized virtual desktop environment?
18.4%
35.5%17.1%
27.6%
1.3%
Direct Attached Storage (DAS) Network Attached Storage (NAS)
iSCSI (SAN) Fibre Channel (SAN)
Don't know
N=76
• 67% of respondents plan
to add storage to support
a CVD environment
(QD18)
• SAN is top type of
storage• Fibre channel is
preferred over iSCSI
• NAS has surprisingly high
share• Customers are probably
just using what they
already have
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Summary
• 3rd party CVD solutions dominate market
• Custom market is both a competitor and opportunity
• VMware has the market-share lead
• Citrix is catching up fast
• Too early to declare winner
• Windows 7 a time sensitive opportunity
• Thin client complement VCC very well, poised to grow
• HP and Wyse are leaders in the thin-client segment
• 3rd party management solutions and standardization are
dominate management style
31
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 32
Technology: Client Software – CVD
N=76
QD14a. Are you using a packaged centralized virtual desktop solution from
a 3rd party like VMware View or Citrix XenDesktop or did you build your
own custom solution?
Custom37%
3rd party63%
CVD• Using CVD without a 3rd
party solution is a very
viable option
• If you are not worried
about graphics, using it
over a LAN only, and can
apply existing PC mgmt
tools – custom solutions
makes a lot of sense
• 3rd party tools need to
add value• WAN capabilities
• High end graphics
• Improved mgmt
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 33
Technology: Client Software – CVD
N=48
QD14b. Which 3rd party centralized virtual desktop solution do you use
50.0%
35.4%
8.3%
6.3%
Citrix
XenDesktop
VMware
View
Microsoft VDI
Suites
Others
• Small sample size may
be affecting these results
• Survey was done in
March and does not take
into account recent sales
and marketing efforts
from Citrix which may
have changed landscape
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 34
Technology: Client Software – OS
QD8. What client operating systems do you currently use within your environment?
And in 18 month?
N=208
4%
5%
0%
1%
36%
5%
49%
3%
5%
1%
3%
73%
5%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Other
Linux
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Current In 18 Month
• Windows 7 shares will
grow ~38% in the next 18
month, most of it come
from Windows XP
migration
• Migrations are causing
CIO’s to evaluate VCC• Time to strike is now
• After Win 7
migration, CIOs may
back off VCC for
sometime
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 35
Technology: Client Hardware
QD5. What is the PRIMARY device that users currently access their solution?
50.0%43.4%
50.9%57.7%
28.8%
27.6%
37.7% 21.2%
12.5%
15.8%
9.4%
11.5%
4.8%6.6%
7.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total (N=208) Centralized Virtual Desktops (N=76)
Virtual User Session (N=53) Application Virtualization (N=52)
New desktop or mobile PC Legacy desktop or mobile PC Thin Client Desktop
Mobile Thin Client Diskless PC Other (please specify)
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 36
Technology: Client Hardware
QD6. About 18 months from now, which of the following do you expect users
will use as their PRIMARY device to access their [technology] solution?
44.2%38.2%
45.3% 46.2%
20.2%
22.4%
26.4%
15.4%
18.3%21.1%
15.1%
17.3%
11.5% 9.2%9.4%
19.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total (N=208) Centralized Virtual Desktops (N=76)
Virtual User Session (N=53) Application Virtualization (N=52)
New Traditional desktop or mobile PC Legacy Traditional desktop or mobile PC
Thin Client Desktop Mobile Thin Client
Diskless PC
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Technology: Client Hardware – Thin Clients
37
.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Le
ss th
an
25
0
25
0 to
49
9
50
0 to
1,0
00
1,0
00
to
2,4
99
2,5
00
to
4,9
99
5,0
00
to
10
,00
0
10
,00
0 to
24
,99
9
25
,00
0 to
49
,99
9
50
,00
0+
Total (N=208)
CVD (N=76)
VUS (N=53)
Application Virtualization (N=52)
DVD (N=27)
• A majority of organizations
have fewer than 250 clients
• Almost 30% have larger
installations of 1,000 or higher
• Not surprisingly, thin client
adoption is higher with sites
deploying CVD
• New “zero” clients optimized
for CVD should drive this
higher
QA4a: How many thin clients are in your organization?
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 38
Technology: Client Hardware – Thin Clients
N=70
QD6b. From which manufacturer did you (or will you) purchase your thin clients?
47.1%
32.9%
28.6%
7.1% 7.1%
1.4% 1.4% 1.4%
.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
HP Wyse Dell Not sure Other Oracle Sun
Fujitsu DevonIT
• 75% of respondents
(N=208) states that they
will have a mixture of PCs
and thin-clients in their
production environment
(QD7)
• Dell only resells other
vendors thin
clients, mostly
Wyse, which may make
Wyse the market leader
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 39
QE1. What methods are you using for tracking and managing software on PCs?
(multiple answers allowed)
Technology: Management
• Most organizations have solution for
managing PCs• Implies process oriented
management capabilities and
receptivity to process automation for
managing the virtualized desktop the
same way as for the server
• For respondents with no tools to
manage their PCs, there is the
opportunity to address lower virtual
machine costs due to implementing
standardized management
63.2%66.0%
46.2%48.1%
52.6%
41.5%38.5%
55.6%
31.6%
35.8%
26.9%
48.1%
.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
CVD (N=76) VUS (N=53) App virt (N=52) DVD (N=27)
Use a 3rd party tool Track through standard build
Scripts are used Use in-house sw solution
Manually identify apps on each PC Freeware tools are used
Plan to add a 3rd party tool
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 40
QE2. Which 3rd party tool do you use?
Technology: Management
• Microsoft strength not a
surprise
• Main rationale for not
lowering costs is because
of use of these 3rd party
tools
• Migration to Windows 7 a
focus of both the 3rd part
tool vendor and
enterprise over the next
18 months or so
29.8%
37.1%33.3%
46.2%
29.8%
28.6%33.3%
15.4%
14.9%
14.3%8.3%
15.4%
4.3% 8.6%4.2%
7.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CVD (N=47) VUS (N=35) App virt (N=24) DVD (N=13)
Novell ZENworks
HP Radia, Client Server mgr
Numara Track-it
IBM Tivoli
Altiris(Symantec)
Other
Microsoft SCCM/SMS
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 41
Agenda
Agenda
Overview
Industry trend and data
Driver to adoption
Current deployment stages
Technologies
Services
Barriers
Opportunities
Essential Guidance
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Services
• Early adopter are DIYers
• Solution support and education are top services today
• Customers choose service providers based on familiarity and
expertise
42
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Services: Internal vs ExternalTotal VCC
43
82%
81%
79%
75%
74%
71%
67%
67%
61%
60%
12%
7%
15%
6%
18%
13%
20%
18%
28%
27%
6%
12%
6%
19%
8%
16%
13%
14%
12%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Implementation & Migration
Biz or ROI Justification
Proof of Concept
User Segmentation
Hosting
Strategy Workshop or Biz Plan
Design Services
Optimization
Education Services
Solution Support
Internal Resources External Resources No plans to implement
QF1. With regard to [technology], for [x] services, please indicate whether you plan to use internal resources, plan
to hire an outside services firm, or don’t plan on implementing at all.
• Early adopters are very
much DIYers
• Solution Support and
Education Services are
top external services
• Neither are surprising in a
emerging market
• Customers are under-
appreciating user
segmentation• Most advanced (and
successful)
deployments are doing
this
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 44
Services
QE5. Who implemented or will implement your [technology] environment?
69.7%
59.2%
77.4% 76.9%70.4%
14.4%
25.0%
7.5% 5.8%14.8%
10.6% 10.5% 11.3%9.6%
11.1%
5.3% 5.3% 3.8%7.7%
3.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total (N=208)
Centralized Virtual
Desktops (N=76)
Virtual User Session (N=53)
Application Virtualization
(N=52)
Distributed Virtual
Desktops (N=27)
Outsourced everything to a company specializing in thisVAR/Reseller helped us
Product vendor(s) helped us
Did it all ourselves
• Early adopters are very
much DIYers
• As VCC goes mainstream
services opportunities will
explode
• VCC experience and
reputation is #1 attribute
of chosen outsourcer• Many have close ties to
either VMware or Citrix
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 45
Services: External vendors
QF2. Which external vendors did you use or plan to use to implement?
26.7% 27.9% 30.0%20.0%
29.4%
22.5%18.6%
16.7%33.3% 23.5%
20.0%
27.9%
30.0%10.0%
17.5%
9.3% 26.7%
20.0%
17.6%
15.0%14.0% 6.7%
20.0%
23.5%
10.8%11.6% 20.0%
11.8%
5.8%2.3%
6.7%
13.3%
5.8% 2.3% 6.7%
23.5%
4.2%2.3%
6.7%3.3%
5.9%
3.3% 7.0%3.3%
.8%5.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total (N=120) Centralized Virtual Desktops
(N=43)
Virtual User Session (N=30)
Application Virtualization
(N=30)
Distributed Virtual Desktops
(N=17)
Accenture
EMC
Cisco
Dell
Sun/Oracle
Citrix
Microsoft
IBM
Other
HP
VMware
• Of people who use
external services VMware
and HP lead the way
• Other is very strong as
customers want vendors
with strong expertise in
VCC
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 46
Agenda
Agenda
Overview
Industry trend and data
Driver to adoption
Current deployment stages
Technologies
Services
Barriers
Opportunities
Essential Guidance
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Barriers
47
Organizational Technical
Buy-in Solution cost
User acceptance Technical limitation
Internal know-how Solution complexity
Politics Solution maturity
Security risks Vendor support
Low priority
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Top Reasons NOT to use VCC
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
CVD (N=36) VUS (N=48) App Virt (N=78)
DVD (N=73)
We plan to use it sometime in the future
I don't know enough about said technology
Still need to get users trained and accepting of the solution
We are considering using it sometime in the future.
Still looking for overall company acceptance of new ways of computing for users.The price of the solution is too high.
Product/technology is not mature enough
I am satisfied with traditional PC management
We do not have enough free time to try new technologies at this timeWe do not have budget at this time
Other, please explain
48
• Not using VCC
because
• No budget
• No free time
• Price is not an issue
• Other is so high for
DVD due to lack of
education
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 49
Barriers: Organizational
QC1a. What are the top 2 INTERNAL barriers you have faced while considering the deployment / pilot of
client virtualization within your environment?
44.7%
47.2%
36.5%
55.6%
35.5%37.7%
26.9%25.9%
30.3%
39.6%
30.8%
25.9%26.3%
20.8%
36.5%
14.8%
21.1%
15.1%
23.1%
40.7%
23.7%
18.9%17.3%
11.1%
.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Centralized Virtual Desktops (N=76) Virtual User Session (N=53) Application Virtualization (N=52) Distributed Virtual Desktops (N=27)
Internal Organizational Buy-in User acceptance of the solution Internal know-how Internal Politics Security Risks Low IT priority
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 50
Barriers: Technical
QC1b. What are the top 2 TECHNOLOGY barriers you have faced while considering the deployment / pilot
of [technology] within your environment?
59.2% 60.4%63.5%
81.5%
56.6%54.7%
51.9%
59.3%
28.9% 30.2%32.7%
37.0%
26.3%
22.6%
26.9%
18.5%17.1%
18.9%
15.4%
11.1%13.2% 13.2%
11.5%
3.7%
.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Centralized Virtual Desktops (N=76) Virtual User Session (N=53) Application Virtualization (N=52) Distributed Virtual Desktops (N=27)
HW & SW Cost Technical Limitations Other Complexity Maturity/Sophistication Solution support
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 51
Agenda
Agenda
Overview
Industry trend and data
Driver to adoption
Current deployment stages
Technologies
Services
Barriers
Opportunities
Essential Guidance
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Opportunities
• Management is key to scale – partner opportunities abound
• LANDesk, Altiris likely starting points
• Management can help overcome certain technical barriers
• Bandwidth and boot-storms
• Think holistically
• Need to be able to manage VCC, thin clients and traditional clients from single console
• Education, training, and integration services are top priorities
• As desktops move into the datacenter, tighter integration will be required
• Datacenter IT will need to learn certain desktop skills
• Desktop as a Service will become a reality (at least internally)
• Win7 migration – a short term opportunity
• 18-24 months left in this window
• Don’t expect Windows 8 to provide this opportunity again
52
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 53
Agenda
Agenda
Overview
Industry trend and data
Driver to adoption
Current deployment stages
Technologies
Services
Barriers
Opportunities
Essential Guidance
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 54
Summary
• Relatively small percentages of the organization are using virtualized desktops in any form• As little as 15% of clients are virtualized• VUS is most mature, CVD is the hottest, and people are still confused about
DVD
• Of the respondents, the top three vendors (VMware, Microsoft, Citrix) represented almost 92% of the server virtualization market.
• Desktop virtualization is in the production environment, as well as in test and dev• Though production deployments are not scaling, yet!
• Increased use of desktop virtualization solutions are expected in the future• 15.3% of respondent desktops were using CVD, and expected to go to
25.1% in 12 months.
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 55
Summary
• Top criteria for selecting a vendor• Cost, Reliability and Service/Support..
• CIO is primary driver of client virtualization technology adoption, as well as IT staff
• PC expected to be the dominant form factor over the next 18 months• Windows 7 will be the dominant OS on that platform to work alongside
client virtualization solutions
• 69.7% of respondents did the implementation into production themselves
• Data shows clear preference for “Do it yourself” implementations, migrations, education• 60 – 80% of respondents felt they could handle tasks themselves in
areas around migration, education, training, rollout…• 13% plan to use external resources
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 56
Summary
• Lower costs not top reason for deploying/piloting the virtualization technologies • Simplifying application management• Simplifying hardware and OS management• Lower costs are not top of mind
• Top reasons for not using desktop virtualization:• Do not have budget• Technology not mature enough• I am satisfied with existing PC management• Considering it in the future
• 30% of respondents report supporting 31 or more virtual desktops from a single server, up to 150 or more. • suggest that management complexity is greater for the shops with more than 50
virtual desktops per server (same problem as on server virtualization)
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 57
Summary
• 56.3% of respondents considered the technology strategic rather than tactical• Surprising given the small #’s of virtual desktops across the companies
implementing virtual desktops in any form.
• 31.6% responded that it took less than 6 months to implement their desktop virtualization solution into production• Remaining 69.4% were in the 6 months or more to implement
• Due to inexperience, funding, technology maturity, etc
• Top 3 benefits seen as a result of implementing in production• Simplify hardware management 41.4%• Simplify OS/Application management 34.2%• Improved scalability 30.9%
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Essential Guidance
Interest in client virtualization is high, but so is confusion about the technology
Huge amount of educational efforts still necessary, even on basic virtualization
principles
Don’t assume knowledge in developing marketing materials
Many adopters only focus on one small aspect of solution and miss the bigger
picture
Both an opportunity and a challenge
– Opportunity is to find the specific functions that either help save costs or solve a
problem for organizations and highlight them
– Challenge is they don’t see or utilize the broader capabilities made possible
ROI benefits cited by users tend to be focused on very specific, practical issues, not
the more grandiose potential of rethinking entire desktop PC strategy
E.g., reducing licensing costs
58
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Essential Guidance
Most customers still focus on PCs as the end point, but interest in thin clients is
growing
Many IT shops take a conservative approach and go with what they know
New “zero client” products optimized for CVD should help
Perception is that thin clients still too slow and media performance poor
– Also afraid of pushback from end users
Concerns about internal buy-in from IT staff remain high
Political battles, turf wars within IT still a gating factor, so plan accordingly
Previous experience with other centralized computing models greatly influences
openness to client virtualization, as well as depth of understanding and usage
Target marketing messages at different levels of experience
Focus more efforts on customers with large or well-established virtual user
session deployments
59
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Essential Guidance
PC hardware management less of a concern than expected
Most feel they have that under control
Application management or license control management a bigger issue
Limited usage of a single or small set of “golden images” that can be used
across all virtual clients in an organization
More likely to maintain individual images per user
– Reflection of the simplicity of many deployments (and limited
understanding of full potential of solutions)
Develop tiered educational programs that can walk people up to higher
levels of usage sophistication as they become more familiar with the
product
Start low and very simple
60
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Essential Guidance
• Tailored approach to prospect/customer engagements…
• Customers using tightly managed rich clients
• Stress ease of use, security, compliance, focus on application as reasons to use desktop virtualization
• Customers using loosely managed rich client
• Stress lower cost, application manageability, data management and configuration control
• Custom Solutions both an opportunity and challenge
• Stress awareness of solutions, time to market, standardization, ease of use, security, compliance and allowing IT organization to focus energies on other business unit priorities.
• For a services based offering, time to market is likely the strongest argument for using a services offering, rather than complexity or lower cost
• Stress findings that majority or organizations implement desktop virtualization in 6 months or longer, and for strategic technology, this is too long.
• As integration with existing rich desktop environment becomes an issue, more complexity should be expected.
61
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Appendix – Research Schedule
SMBs and Virtualization
I/O Virtualization Taxonomy
Worldwide System Infrastructure Software 2010 Top 10 Predictions
IDC's Software Taxonomy, 2010
Centralized Virtual Desktops vs Client Hosted Virtual Desktops
Virtual Client Computing: 2010 The Inflection Point
Containers: Niche Solution or General Solution?
Worldwide Virtual Machine Software 2009 Vendor Shares
Centralized Virtual Desktop Competitive Market 2009 Vendor Shares
Worldwide Availability and Clustering Software 2009 Vendor Shares
Application Virtualization Competitive Market 2009 Vendor Shares
Centralized Virtual Desktop Competitive Market 2010-2014 Forecast
Desktop Virtualization Management Software 2010-2014 Forecast* Full research schedule available upon client request
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS
Appendix – Research Schedule
Virtual User Session Software Competitive Market 2009 Vendor Shares
Worldwide Virtual Machine Software 2010-2014 Forecast
Worldwide Availability and Clustering Softwae 2010-2014 Forecast
Virtualization 3.0 Ecosystem Forecast Update
Application Virtualization Competitive Market 2010-2014 Forecast
Virtual User Session Software Competitive Market 2010-2014 Forecast
Worldwide Virtualization Services 2010-2014 Forecast
Infrastructure cloud series - Public clouds
Infrastructure cloud series - SI's
Virtualization and the Impact on Security Models
Infrastructure cloud series - Extending virtualization platforms
Infrastructure cloud series - Hosting providers
Worldwide System Infrastructure Software 2011 Top 10 Predictions
* Full research schedule available upon client request
Mar-11© 2010 IDC Source: 2010 IDC Virtual Client Computing MCS 64
Brett WaldmanSr. Research Analyst
System Software
(508) 988-6748
Ian SongResearch Analyst
Enterprise Virtualization
Software, Client
(508) 988-6883
Al GillenResearch VP
System Software
(732) 842-4276
Fred BroussardResearch Director,
Enterprise System
Infrastructure Software
(508) 935-4404
Bob O'DonnellVice President
Clients and Displays
(650) 350-6482
Contact
Copyright 2010 IDC. Reproduction is forbidden unless authorized. All rights reserved.
Multi-Client Study
Brett Waldman, Ian Song, Bob O'Donnell, Fred Broussard, Al Gillen