11.28.08
Gartner Group is Banned by Boycott Novell
We invite others to do the same
THE reason we have been writitng about the Gartner Group quite a lot recently is that they attack Free software very frequently [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. That’s several times in a matter of weeks.
As Matt Asay puts it, there is not much money to be made as an analyst in a world so saturated with Free software. It marginalises Gartner and one of its major clients/investors (notably — although not only — Microsoft), so its attacks on Free software are means of self defence.
It’s a pleasure to see even the community manager of OpenSUSE denouncing Gartner. Data Blankenhorn too has just gone on the polite offensive.
In order to simplify and improve people’s understanding of the Gartner Group, it’s likely that some time in the future we will create a cohesive resource. Gartner is just one of the largest of its kind, but equally bad are smaller firms like Forrester, Burton Group, and Yankee Group, which serve virtually the same interests.
IDC, which owns one of the most extensive media networks covering technology, is another serious problem. It’s a wound in the fabric of seemingly independent media, which merely instructs trends through a Web of citations of itself and selected clients. For it’s worth, it is the same in politics where public opinion is shaped by a consensus decided by interests-possessing ‘elites’, accompanied by policed media and curricula. █
Related posts:
- Gartner et al Fixing the Price for the Entire Industry?
- How Jim Allchin, Gartner and Enderle Lied to the Whole World
- IDC, Gartner and Yankee Group’s Latest Press Attack on Customer’s Competitors
- Analyst Firms, Including IDC and Gartner, Named and Shamed for Serving as Microsoft Mouthpieces
- Another Hopeful ‘Prophecy’ From the Gartner Group(’s Paying Clients)
- Microsoft ‘Bribes’ Mac Bloggers to Slam Apple, Gartner Hosts Google FUD
“Analysts sell out – that’s their business model… But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.”
–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]
AlexH said,
November 28, 2008 at 5:41 am
Roy, do you want to expand on what “banned” mean?
Presumably it doesn’t mean that Gartner’s next pronouncements on “open source” isn’t going to be ignored?
AlexH said,
November 28, 2008 at 5:42 am
.. that should be “doesn’t mean [it] _is_ going to be ignored?”, for clarity…
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 28, 2008 at 5:51 am
No matter their remarks on anything, this legion of marketing people will be disregarded.
AlexH said,
November 28, 2008 at 6:02 am
Sorry, but just to be clear: that means you’re not going to cover anything that they write in the future?
(I’m not struggling with your criticism of them, but what action you’re proposing, that’s all).
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 28, 2008 at 6:33 am
Firms like Gartner earn their undeserved ‘validity’ because they are cited in IDG-type publications (or so-called “Wintel press”) extensively. People who read trade journals/magazines are peer pressured — so to speak — to perceive Gartner as an authority. Some conduct business with the group as a result.
As for myself, I will dismiss Gartner no matter what they say and tune in to sources that can be trusted because there is no money on the table.
This does not indicate that I will abstain from mentioning Gartner’s shilling-du-jour. Vigilance is crucial.
AlexH said,
November 28, 2008 at 7:23 am
I’m not arguing with you about Gartner’s “credibility”, we agree on that matter.
I’m just asking what you meant by the word “banned”, which is implying that you’re not going to write about them (to me, at least).
You say “we invite others to do the same” – do you just mean you want others to dismiss what they write, or is there some broader action you’re asking for?
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 28, 2008 at 7:51 am
It’s similar to the goal of Boycott Novell, which is to encourage people not to buy from Novell (feeding them, so to speak). The same goes for Gartner, whose output needs to be constantly questioned or altogether ignored.
Academic studies (before the increased commercialisation of universities) and industrial analysis are two totally separate animals because one strives to inform for fixed income, e.g. state funding, whereas the latter typically relies on relationships with companies (recent example that had us cited by ComputerWorld and InformationWeek). That’s why many analysts have begun putting disclosures online, in attempt to defend their integrity in advance.
AlexH said,
November 28, 2008 at 8:06 am
Ok, that makes more sense. I would think about changing the subject, though – you’re not really banning them from anything.