Was IDC's report on virtualization a "sponsored report"?

I have my own doubts and opinions on how IDC came up with that figure and what actually accounts for a "real sell on virtualization" against a "mere add-on" which is barely used by those freebie collectors.

My detailed analysis will come when I'll find that IDC contact and drill him/her on how they came to that figure.

For now Mike did some hardwork to look back at those figures:

As with most analyst reports this one was sponsored. IDC won't give up the name of who actually sponsored it but I can tell you it wasn't VMware and the ones that did sponsor it are a competitor in Redmond. That's just fine that people sponsor reports and I would have no issue with it as long as the information was accurate. When the firm putting out the report just publishes inaccurate or incomplete date then they look as foolish as Forrester did when they wrote about Open Source adoption. I'm actually surprised that Matt Asay didn't pick up on the inaccuracies in this IDC report. I guess we have to give him some time since usually he's spot on.

Recap

Here's the main points you need to know about this report from IDC:

1) This was a small sampling using just the OEM's numbers.
2) How do you count unit shipments for free products not delivered by the OEMs?
3) Microsoft only went up 5% from the previous measure.
4) VMware also went up 2% from the previous measure.
5) Hyper-V was only shipping for 2 business days in Q2 2008. There was no Hyper-V impact to these marketshare numbers.
6) VMware still commands a huge lead in actual product use.
7) There are real factual errors throughout the report.
8) This was a sponsored report with no input on revenue, shipment details, or feedback from VMware.

Expect my analysis on this very soon next Month. (This month I'm totally swamped)