The best analysis money can buy
Daniel Eran Dilger finds anti-Apple bias in Gartner's research
"Looking into its crystal ball, Gartner Group has predicted that Google’s Android will become the second largest smartphone platform by 2012," writes Daniel Eran Dilger in the one-man blog he grandly calls Roughly Drafted Magazine. "Problem is, nobody’s talking about how terrible Gartner is at predicting things, or that Gartner’s 'research' has historically been paid for by special interests."
So begins Dilger's reaction to an interview with Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney that appeared Tuesday in Computerworld and was picked up uncritically by more than half a dozen tech websites.
Drawing on historical records and making generous use of internal Microsoft documents made public during antitrust proceedings, Dilger attacks not only Dulaney's numbers, but the credibility of the entire Gartner research group.
The result is a 1,700-word screed that may be the most thorough take-down of a tech industry analyst — and his employer — since Eliot Spitzer went after Henry Blodget.
At issue is Dulaney's forecast that has the major smartphone operating systems divvying up the 2012 market as follows:
- Nokia's (NOK) Symbian: 203 million devices (39% market share)
- Google's (GOOG) Android: 76 million (14.5%)
- Apple's (AAPL) iPhone: 71.5 million (13.7%)
- Microsoft's (MSFT) Windows Mobile: 66.8 million (12.8%)
- Research in Motion (RIMM) BlackBerry: 65.25 million (12.58%)
- Miscellaneous Linux devices: 28 million (5.4%)
- Palm's (PALM) WebOS: 11 million (2.1%)
Dilger finds it hard to believe that Android market share will grow 400% while the iPhone's stands still, but he is hardly a disinterested observer. He pens a pseudonymous column for AppleInsider and has written a book about Mac OS X Snow Leopard to be published next month by Wiley. His blood runs Apple red.
But he knows his stuff, and he has mined those Microsoft documents for some pure gold. He points to evidence, for example, that Microsoft paid Gartner — along with IDC and Forrester — to tilt results and publish reports putting Microsoft products in a favorable light.
One document, according to Dilger, shows that Microsoft spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort that “successfully lobbied and changed the Gartner Group TCO [Total Cost of Ownership] model to show Windows as providing the lowest overall TCO [in comparison to so-called Network Computers].”
Now, Dilger claims, Microsoft's support for Windows Mobile is running dry and Gartner is looking for a new customer with equally deep pockets. Someone like Google.
The best quote in the piece, taken from Microsoft’s manuals on evangelism (and not necessarily directed at Gartner in particular):
"Analysts sell out – that’s their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with."
You can read the Roughly Drafted piece in its entirety here.
Gartner has not yet returned a request for comment.
[Follow Philip Elmer-DeWitt on Twitter @ philiped]
Dear Mr. Elmer-DeWitt.
I just read Dilger's article, and saw the following in paragraph 5: "iSuppli … has decided that Windows Mobile will rise like a phoenix to become a 67.9 million unit per year business by 2013, putting it in second place instead."
You say, however, in paragraph 6, "Dilger finds it hard to believe that Android will 'rise like a Phoenix' and overtake the iPhone's strong early lead…."
Why the discrepancy?
Also, I no longer believe anything any of these "analysts" say anyway. All they really appear to be doing is pulling quite ridiculous predictions out of their clearly fake magic hats in order to set the market/stock market up for some hoped-for future reaction. They might not be out-and-out paid to tilt results one way of the other, but just having the status of "analyst" and their making of often quite ridiculous predictions makes people pay for their "reports", making them money.
For example, in the case of Gartner (and iSuppli) here, how on earth could they both say that Windows Mobile will increase in market share, when the whole trend of Microsoft's mobile platform is on the decline, and its track record for coming up with great new OS improvements in a timely manner is so poor? Other platforms are copying iPhone OS as quickly as possible (I include Android here) and this will most likely squeeze Windows Mobile even more in 2010.
Meanwhile, I am guessing that Apple and others will be coming out with products that split the market into even more segments, further reducing the non-innovating MS platform. No analyst can take any of that into account, because those products have not yet been released or even spoken of.
As a techie and investor, I just wish people were smarter than to believe anything these analysts say when predicting the future.
ex ped: Yikes. Thanks for the catch. Fixed now.
Philip, did you actually read Dilger's post, or did you just scan it and assume there were some arguments there?
I'm not surprised that Dilger, who has recently been called out by John Gruber for his poor grasp of facts, doesn't understand the difference between Microsoft spending money on lobbying someone and out-and-out paying them to change their mind. I am surprised that a journalist with your experience, at a title like Fortune, doesn't understand it.
When a Microsoft PR person calls you up to ask you if you would like a copy of Office to review, that's the company spending money on lobbying you. Does that mean you've been paid?
The Gartner Ombudsman, who deals with complaints of bias from customers, users and I presume journalists has left a comment on Dilger's blog. Go to the linked article, and you'll find a number. I suggest you do the job of a real journalist, and call it. Perhaps then you'll get a real story, instead of a half-baked blog post "reporting" on a 1700 word incoherent rant.
ex ped: Yes, I read Dilger's post. And I've read the Gartner ombudsperson's response, which boils down to this: "It’s obvious from the fact that Gartner even has an Office of the Ombudsman that we take integrity and independence very seriously. The Office was put in place to help ensure that Gartner associates play by the rules – but also are able to act free of undue influence." Meanwhile, Gartner has not responded to either my request for comment or the details in the Microsoft documents Dilger cites.
if you have ever went to a conference or event where dulaney has spoken, you will not find a more pompous person who does not deserve such pompousness since he knows so little. the guy thrives off of talking to people that know absolutely nothing so he can be the smartest guy in the room. once he actually talks to someone that knows something, its pretty evident that he knows only the basics. sad really.
It's always been a matter of who has deeper pockets :/
microsoft, exxon, lobbyists for big corporations and the republican party knows it.
"Lisa is going to be incredibly great. It will sell twelve thousand units in the first six months and fifty thousand in the first year." -Steve Jobs
I remember similar accusations being thrown about during the height of the OS wars, when the battle was still in doubt between Windows NT and IBM's OS/2.
I responded to Dilger's post last Friday and linked to this post on my blog: http://tinyurl.com/yhh2u2b
As ombudsman at Gartner it's my job to ensure that any credible challenge to the objectivity and integrity of Gartner's research is addressed. Anyone with a credible claim — client or not — should contact me at ombudsman@gartner.com.
Nancy Erskine, Ombudsman, Gartner