> Their products are consistently medium good

Oddly enough, this can be a sign of an excellent business. Microsoft originally provided some very mediocre products, but in a world fulled with absolutely shit products, being predictably mediocre was astonishing! Before 2000, when Microsoft produced a lemon, they always seemed to recognise the problem and then replace it with something that was crappily useable (and they also had a few products that were actually good).

Your comment makes me think that products and services are higher quality now, so it is harder to compete by being merely mediocre or even “medium good” (as you point out).

> Oddly enough, this can be a sign of an excellent business. Microsoft originally provided some very mediocre products, but in a world fulled with absolutely shit products, being predictably mediocre was astonishing! Before 2000, when Microsoft produced a lemon, they always seemed to recognise the problem and then replace it with something that was crappily useable (and they also had a few products that were actually good).

People in here including me dream of living in an era where there is such a giant leap such as the leap to GUI provided by Win95, or even the revolution of the chip.

If you didn't like being around when Win95 was coming out, I guess living in today's timeline where innovation has reached stagnation must be pure hell! /s

Nutanix's website gives absolutely 0 real information about what they do. There's some fluff about apps, cloud, and transformation - are they a body shop? AWS competitor?

Their core product is very comparable to VMware vSphere -- a system for managing virtual machines on a cluster of on-prem hardware. Nutanix was one of the first to do storage virtualisation, whereby each node provides some local storage that is shared across the whole pool. I believe they were one of the first (if not the first) to offer this as a turnkey product. The initial version was just an add-on to vSphere, but they now have their own hypervisor as well to make it a more complete offering.

These days you can achieve the same thing with VMware vSAN or Hyper-V on a Windows cluster using Storage Spaces Direct. The latter is practically free for organisations that use mostly Windows Server workloads, because those orgs typically license Windows Server Data Center Edition for every physical host anyway. In my experience Storage Spaces Direct was also much faster, especially when used with SSD disks. The protocols used by Nutanix were very inefficient compared to the RDMA and Infiniband capabilities in SMB3. Think millions of IOPS instead of tens of thousands.

In some sense, the cloud provides a similarly abstract view of storage. You ask for a 1 TB disk, you get a 1 TB disk. You don't have to worry about formatting a disk array or securing a fibre channel fabric. There's no "maintenance" tasks to be performed on cloud storage. It's just... there. All the time, with zero effort.

This is why I think Nutanix is in trouble. They provide a partial but good solution to a problem that the public cloud providers eliminated entirely.

Back when I first looked at them 5 years or so ago, they were trying to sell me "hyperconverged infrastructure" which was basically just a thoughtfully designed blade chassis. Their software seemed very nice, kind of a software-defined-storage type thing that Just Worked and by all accounts it did work very nicely.

BUT, and this was a big but back then - their prices were obscene. Vaguely equivalent hardware from Dell was less than half the price and was readily available (Nutanix in my region had long lead times on gear at the time).