Nutanix stock sunk by VMware migration challenges

erek

erek

8-D
2FA
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
18,390
“Ramaswami added further color on this challenge by noting that when Nutanix goes into these opportunities, it usually can impress with proof-of-concepts (PoCs). However, it’s a combination of legacy dependencies, hardware refresh cycles, and long-term support for those migrated applications that draw out the contract wins.

Nutanix’s strategy also involves finding specific Broadcom pain points that it can help an enterprise smooth over.

“We try to find places where … they can use our solution for, say, specific workload, specific use cases,” Ramaswami explained. “For example, we have a pretty good database management solution. We have a good Kubernetes offering. So these are things where I think we try to differentiate and also try to get in with [a] subset of applications. And so that's, I think, typically what we do.”

Revenue push pulls down stock​

This drag on actual deployments also impacted Nutanix’s ability to secure financial returns. Company management noted that it accounts for revenues from a deal only when a product or platform license is activated.

While Nutanix’s actual revenues for the quarter came in at the low-end of previous guidance, it’s now expecting the full revenue benefit from new deals to start hitting its books later in the year or even spill into next year than previously forecast.

“We saw more business than expected with start dates outside of the quarter. This resulted in some revenue being shifted out of Q1,” Ramaswami said during prepared remarks of this observed trend. “As we evaluated the impact of this recent change in our business mix on our fiscal 2026 outlook, we now expect to see more revenue defer than we had previously planned, driving a reduction in our full-year revenue guidance.”

This news did not sit well with high-expectation investors, with Nutanix’s stock plummeting 17% in after-hours trading following the release of its latest earnings and hitting a new 52-week low.”

Source: https://www.sdxcentral.com/news/nutanix-stock-sunk-by-vmware-migration-challenges/
 
Lets be honest , Broadcom called all the SMBs bluff , no one is really leaving , also they fixed the license model a bit.
We did a POC with Nutanix , even for the more remote sites its just not on par with VMWare and was not worth the hassle.
Right now , we are busy planing for VCF 9 , gonna be a massive change.
 
T_A said:
Lets be honest , Broadcom called all the SMBs bluff , no one is really leaving , also they fixed the license model a bit.
We did a POC with Nutanix , even for the more remote sites its just not on par with VMWare and was not worth the hassle.
Right now , we are busy planing for VCF 9 , gonna be a massive change.
Click to expand...
Lots of people are leaving, VMware migration is probably one of the more popular things we do these days. They just aren't leaving for Nutanix, it's all Open shift or open stack, with a decent amount of Azure Local thrown in.
 
w1retap said:
The company I work for (a fortune 500) is not purchasing anymore VMware products, and migrating away currently (to Proxmox). We have blacklisted them in our ASL. So I wouldn't say no one is really leaving..
Click to expand...
This. I'd rather be on ProxMox at the enterprise (KVM-based which is SUPER common) than Nutanix and their closed system.
 
Lakados said:
I migrated to Hyper-V, it was easy.
Click to expand...
Same here. Now I will say we didn't have a huge setup, at the time I was supporting a single college in the university. It was like 40 VMs I think, but it wasn't bad at all. A few VMs we took the opportunity to rebuild since it was a good time/excuse. Most we just migrated. In our case it was manual. Shut down the VM, copy the disk to the new server and convert the format (I think it was a Solar Winds tool I used for that but I can't remember), create the VM definition on the Hyper-V server with the correct settings, boot it up, log in, check things and install Hyper-V tools if applicable (newer Windows installs already had them) and then it was good.

This was like 10+ years ago we did this, before Broadcom, because of license fuckery. Hyper-V has worked well ever since. Is it perfect? No, but it does the job and I really don't have any big complaints.
 
Why would anyone crash from having picked a closed system and then switch to another closed system?
 
Cactusj said:
We are planning a migration to Hyper-V early next year. how big was your vmware deployment?
Click to expand...
3 physical servers with two redundant storage servers. Not terribly large in the grand scheme of things.
Was already using Veeam for offsite backup, so I got a cheap Buffalo NAS, added it to Veeam created local backups then used those to restore into the new containers in Hyper-V.

Microsoft has tools for converting the actual disk images, but I’ve heard horror stories. Decided the cost for the NAS was well worth saving the potential headache.

Took one of the storage servers and physical servers rebuilt them for Hyper-V once we had the local Veeam backups and then just started restoring them. Trickled them all over to Hyper-V over the course of a week so.

The only VM that gave us me a hard time was an older RedHat instance, ended up being easier to take a data backup and restore that to a newer Ubuntu install but it was pretty minor overall.
Probably could have fixed the RH server but it was already problematic so it offered the excuse I’d been looking for to finally do it.
 
I had one client with a nutanix cluster (4 node system), it was a pain in the ass, no external backup stuff supported it and the vms were always crashing so good riddance. (nutanix back-end not on top of esxi)

Other thing with it was that it stopped working if the subscription ended, it wouldn't let you power on virtual machines so screw them. At least vmware on-prem stuff still works fine if your support ends.
 
sk3tch said:
This. I'd rather be on ProxMox at the enterprise (KVM-based which is SUPER common) than Nutanix and their closed system.
Click to expand...
Sure if you know Proxmox, but lets be real, Proxmox does not offer enterprise level support yet for those who require it, companies like to be able to fall back on 24/7 next day or 4hr response time plans when all hell breaks loose.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Sure if you know Proxmox, but lets be real, Proxmox does not offer enterprise level support yet for those who require it, companies like to be able to fall back on 24/7 next day or 4hr response time plans when all hell breaks loose.
Click to expand...
I'd also argue that full Proxmox full motioning setups are limited. Possible, but limited. And historically, it means that what "was" might not be possible "now", which is a frustrating part of going Proxmox as well.

With that said, I did run production oVirt (old RHEV community, still exists btw) for many years on multiple 14 node clusters. In the very distant path played around with Xen, which also seemed more enterprise cluster focused.

The Red Hat world went "container crazy", so they ditched RHEV, but running oVirt for all those years, it was very stable.

Hyperconvered is of the devil. While we did use "blades", what we might call "converged", it too is a mistake. If you want a manged cluster that doesn't "hurt" you financially, separate your storage from your nodes, don't run a "blade enclosure", use something that is "friendly" (more agnostic with regards to "node types") and you'll do well, you'll be able to manage upgrades and swaps, etc.

I say this because we moved to VxRail, a hyperconverged Vsphere deployment, and it's very very very very expensive to mange. Not my idea, I voted against it. I've built tons of long lasting enterprise hypervisor cluster solutions using VMware and, as I mentioned, oVirt and some Xen over the years. You have to think "like a business". Businesses aren't going to tolerate 24hr style update maintenance, nor are they going to like gigantic budget breaking requests all the time. You've got to think.

And with that said, you can see why most companies are punting for the "infinite blank check" solution of moving to the (black box) cloud.... Where everything is possible, for a big price and sweat equity (and always changing...). Does it work? Doesn't matter. It's "the cloud".
 
cjcox said:
And with that said, you can see why most companies are punting for the "infinite blank check" solution of moving to the (black box) cloud.... Where everything is possible, for a big price and sweat equity (and always changing...). Does it work? Doesn't matter. It's "the cloud".
Click to expand...
It drives me crazy how many managers seem to lose their ability to math when it comes to the cloud. The idea of annualizing costs just goes out the window and they say "But it is so cheap per minute/hour!" Yes, it is, but there are a lot of hours in a year, and those servers we buy are lasting 5-7 years these days. "But they are expensive to replace!" Also yes, but guess what? You can save up the money you DON'T spend monthly on the cloud in a bank, banks will do that for you, and then have it for the servers when they need replacing.

We are having this fight bigtime at work with storage. They want everything in The Cloud(tm) and we have researchers that have literally a petabyte of data or more just for their project. Has to be online too because it is being used for processing. That is ruinously expensive in the cloud so it needs to stay on prem. However management wants it in The Cloud(tm)... So one of them literally suggested "Could you just not use as much data to do your research?" :facepalm:
 
I work at a non profit, and our CFO likes cloud offerings because it lowers Capex in favor of operating expenses. It smooths the budget spikes even if overall the cost is higher. I hate it, I enjoy buying new toys and holding on to them for 5-7 years, but I am not in charge of the budget so 🤷‍♂️
 
Cactusj said:
I work at a non profit, and our CFO likes cloud offerings because it lowers Capex in favor of operating expenses. It smooths the budget spikes even if overall the cost is higher. I hate it, I enjoy buying new toys and holding on to them for 5-7 years, but I am not in charge of the budget so 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
That's what I mean by people who can't math. The idea that operation expenditures are somehow better than capital is STUPID and to me it just says leadership is bad at math. Everything should always be annualized and looked at through that lens. If that is too hard, if putting money in a bank account to save is too hard, I'd argue that means the executive team should be replaced :p
 
Cactusj said:
I work at a non profit, and our CFO likes cloud offerings because it lowers Capex in favor of operating expenses. It smooths the budget spikes even if overall the cost is higher. I hate it, I enjoy buying new toys and holding on to them for 5-7 years, but I am not in charge of the budget so 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Most storage vendors offer solutions with that style now to combat that type of thinking so you can probably still get a solution that doesn't completely suck lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top