4 ms·

Twice in my career I have been involved in evaluating enterprise products for a large corporation - and part of that process was looking at Gartner reports. Th

Twice in my career I have been involved in evaluating enterprise products for a large corporation - and part of that process was looking at Gartner reports. The Gartner reports were complete and utter garbage, filled with factual errors. Looks like they were written by interns, regurgitating marketing material - completely removed from reality. Since then, whenever I see somebody mention a Gartner report, I immediately dismiss that part of the argument.

bsenftner 5y ago
Can confirm. Was a developer for 20 years, got an MBA 20 years ago and have been dismayed by the quality of Gartner reports. Worthless for anyone with experience, and dangerous when used to guide the non-technologist. (Yes, I've been developing for 40+ years.)
- greedo 5y ago
  But mgmt LOVES Gartner reports. It helps them avoid/shift blame when a purchasing decision goes awry. The first question our VPs ask about a new technology is "Is this %VENDOR% in the Magic Quadrant?"
TheRealDunkirk 5y ago
I am convinced that Microsoft underwrote them to boost Windows and cast FUD at everything else in the 90's, and they've never recovered their disingenuous ways. What annoys me most are the market share reports, implying that Microsoft owns the entire computing world. They don't. For personal use, I'd say Apple has broken into the majority. I'd pay money out of my own pocket to see PC vs Mac sales numbers with corporate purchases removed, rather than the same report they've published every quarter for 20 years now.
bachmeier 5y ago
Gartner has a long history of putting out garbage. Some called them anti-Linux, but I was always in the camp that they were just writing crap for large quantities of money and the people paying wouldn't know the difference. This story from 1999 is surprisingly still up: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9910/22/gartner.linux.idg/index.html http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9910/22/gartner.linux.idg/... > The second report ("1999 OS forecast: The Linux face-off") projects market share in server dollars for the next few years. This one even contains a pretty graphic. The Gartner Group finding is that Linux will fade from the scene following the release of the first service pack for Windows 2000. > The third report ("Red Hat's future: Boxed in") concludes that Red Hat will fail to overthrow Microsoft by 2004, and suggests that Red Hat needs to find a more viable business model.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  They write what their partners ask them to. If you get a report from them on how the pitfals of setting Oracle's Spatial, it's probably good. If you get a cost benefit comparison of Oracle and Postgres, it's certainly trash. (Who am I kidding? They still insist Postgres doesn't exist.) That said, none of the documents are worth the price you pay and the hassle of interacting with them.

bsenftner 5y ago

Can confirm. Was a developer for 20 years, got an MBA 20 years ago and have been dismayed by the quality of Gartner reports. Worthless for anyone with experience, and dangerous when used to guide the non-technologist. (Yes, I've been developing for 40+ years.)

greedo 5y ago
But mgmt LOVES Gartner reports. It helps them avoid/shift blame when a purchasing decision goes awry. The first question our VPs ask about a new technology is "Is this %VENDOR% in the Magic Quadrant?"

TheRealDunkirk 5y ago

I am convinced that Microsoft underwrote them to boost Windows and cast FUD at everything else in the 90's, and they've never recovered their disingenuous ways. What annoys me most are the market share reports, implying that Microsoft owns the entire computing world. They don't. For personal use, I'd say Apple has broken into the majority. I'd pay money out of my own pocket to see PC vs Mac sales numbers with corporate purchases removed, rather than the same report they've published every quarter for 20 years now.

bachmeier 5y ago

Gartner has a long history of putting out garbage. Some called them anti-Linux, but I was always in the camp that they were just writing crap for large quantities of money and the people paying wouldn't know the difference. This story from 1999 is surprisingly still up: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9910/22/gartner.linux.idg/index.html http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9910/22/gartner.linux.idg/... > The second report ("1999 OS forecast: The Linux face-off") projects market share in server dollars for the next few years. This one even contains a pretty graphic. The Gartner Group finding is that Linux will fade from the scene following the release of the first service pack for Windows 2000. > The third report ("Red Hat's future: Boxed in") concludes that Red Hat will fail to overthrow Microsoft by 2004, and suggests that Red Hat needs to find a more viable business model.

marcosdumay 5y ago
They write what their partners ask them to. If you get a report from them on how the pitfals of setting Oracle's Spatial, it's probably good. If you get a cost benefit comparison of Oracle and Postgres, it's certainly trash. (Who am I kidding? They still insist Postgres doesn't exist.) That said, none of the documents are worth the price you pay and the hassle of interacting with them.