Analysts get bloggy

February 25, 2003 1:08 PM

Emerging Storm WeblogThe Gartner Group has put together a formidable weblog of sorts to discuss hot topics in workplace security, crises, and other happenings. The best part is that you can comment along with the "best" of the industry. check out the comments about Social Security. We knew blogging was mainstreaming, but this is a significant use of the application outside of the general media. I don't believe registration is required to view the weblog.
posted by djspicerack (6 comments total)

Under the guise, I am sure well meant, of offering an important service to the public, Garnter clearly using this site for lots of ads for their servies..
posted by Postroad at 1:55 PM on February 25, 2003

Emerging Storm? What You Need To Know During This Time of Global Unrest?

Nothing like jumping on two bandwagons at the same time -- weblogs and war hype (including ominous titles, muted colors, and vague warnings about being prepared).
posted by RKB at 2:09 PM on February 25, 2003

Interesting move on Gartner's part -- they've been having a hard time, and it seems to be shaking them up a little. Amazingly laughable title, though. Thanks for the link!
posted by blissbat at 2:21 PM on February 25, 2003

I've been an admin/ IT manager long enough to know that Gartner is incorrect or late with recommendations more often than timely or correct. That being said, what a terrific way for them to augment their knowledge base, by leaching the ideas and forethought of the admin communities that Gartner is supposed to advise!
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:35 PM on February 25, 2003

Anyone else remember Gartner's 1999 report that "all but put the kiss of death on Linux"? The report that seems to have been authored by Microsoft itself?:

Far be it from us to suggest that the Gartner Group has fraudulently colluded with Microsoft, however suggestive the evidence. Could it all have been some horrible mistake?...Whatever occurred, I'm sure the large amounts of money that Gartner admits to having received from Microsoft before and after this incident have done much to soothe their upset at looking like patsies.

Others - going back to 1997 - have also claimed Gartner skews its analysis to benefit its clients.

Then there was Gartner's "ludicrous" claim about a plague of millenium viruses that would overwhelm security companies on Jan 1, 2000:

This renders the Y2K virus advice of the Gartner Group's Lou Marcoccio ludicrous, at best. Marcoccio seemed to be working under the assumption that anti-virus companies might be swamped if "just five or ten viruses are released at the same time . . ."

Even though Marcoccio's advice has been roundly criticized, Gartner Group continued to issue it.

I know Gartner's a huge company with lots of analysts, but when I think of its particular line of business, I also think of the stock analysts who were recommending Enron as a strong buy because their firms stood to gain money as long as the house of cards stayed afloat. Exactly how much does Gartner's own financial interest color its reports? I don't know, but my suspicion is that the game is rigged more often than the folks who read the Gartner weblog know.
posted by mediareport at 1:30 PM on March 1, 2003

I have to add more here. Gartner's got a lucrative game going - con$ulting (ka-ching!) - and has managed to carve out a niche for itself as an authoritative voice in the IT press. But its public record sure doesn't look great. Anyone remember portals?

From 1998: "The top five portal sites will be as embedded into the public consciousness by the year 2000 as television broadcast networks are today, says new research conducted by the Gartner Group..."What the Web needs--and what it will have within two years--is a handful of sites that serve the same purpose as today's major TV networks," said Patrick Meehan, research director at Gartner Group, in a statement. "Users of the Web will migrate toward these sites, known today as portals."

At the time, Jorn at Robotwisdom called that the most clueless quote of 1998. A year later, he explained why this new thing called weblogs were replacing portals.

It's hilarious to see Gartner now jumping on the blogwagon. Here's another damning piece from the Open Office Documentation Project, in response to yet another piece of Microsoft FUD coming from the allegedly impartial Gartner. The scathing indictment is worth quoting at length:

Shamelessly running indefensible interference for a concerned Microsoft, Gartner in this article tries to raise with universally free open source software the spectre of "hidden cost". They argue that the hidden cost of retraining and transitioning staff over to either of the open source twins, SO and OOo, is so enormous as to balance out the cost of continuing to pay the increasingly onerous and controlling Microsoft tax. What the?

The Gartner gang for sure can't do the math here. Especially when calculating TCO, the Total Cost of Ownership...The Gartner arguments are shallow and spurious, as if from another age, another time...All of which causes any sane person to ask not about Open Office.org, but rather, "What's up with Gartner?"

Veteran OOo community defender Sam Hiser said it best, "Those TCO numbers are clearly spurious and Gartner knows it. The numbers [not to mention Gartner] have no credibility because to raise the issue of TCO without stating assumptions is disingenuous.

Here's my favorite part:

Enron collapsed because the investors (users) discovered the scam. Andersen kept the scam going long after the jig was up. Will someone please explain to me how what Gartner does is any different?

...It's sad that a totally free product can be so reprehensibly raked, even to the extent that a shameless shill had to be hired to dream up accusations of some dastardly secret "hidden cost of ownership". Obviously Gartner has no shame. But then, neither did Enron. This is laughable. But clearly desperate times call for desperate measures. Even those beyond dignity and self respect.

It should be clear to anyone paying attention that Gartner's particular game is as riddled with inherent conflicts of interest as the one Enron was playing. Thank goodness the news is spreading.
posted by mediareport at 6:44 PM on March 1, 2003