Here's what he has to say:
It seems I have a different perception re competition, both in general and specifically re Microsoft. To wit...
1) I consider competition to be good. Healthy competition generates imagination, creativity, and innovation. Consumers benefit from better products at less expensive prices. Of course, and as we each note, the perception by investors of potential shriveling profit margins and thus a possible declining share price is a legitimate concern. Nonetheless, I cling to the notion that Microsoft's entry into the virtualization space will improve VMWare's products. Whether VMWare proves successful at branding its product remains an unknown. Should this come to be, the company's success will endure for more than a mere season or two.
So my quick take on your take:
1. VMware's product is already improved, Microsoft has yet to do something better. We are obviously waiting for a good competitor, but I doubt that it will be the "primary" drive to push VMware to innovate. On the contrary, VMware will have to strenthen everything else besides its product because that is where the danger lies. verdict: lame
2. Please, some reason this
3. Yeah, they carried the glass ball
4. another lamesly reason
Read the post yourself and judge yourself. I see many blogs, including that of ZDnet really chanting gibberish at many occasions, that unspreads this whole virtualization thing, it undoes it all.