enterprise file synchronization and share

At most, we’ll be able to make some guesses as to which vendors will survive intact for the next few years and which won’t.

Some of the vendors have been more successful than others, but I don’t think it’s germane to come up with a list of winners and losers, as the market (whatever its true name ought to be), is still fairly nascent. I find it insulting to the vendors as well as the customers. Being categorized as a File Sync and Share provider is frankly insulting. These solutions allow organizations to impose various levels of automation, governance, and security to critical content. Most of the vendors have invested heavily– organically or via acquisitions (sometimes both) - to come up with some pretty cool and innovative solutions (not products) that allow people on both sides of the firewall to work together. If I were Box, EMC, Alfresco and most of the other vendors on the MQ I’d be more than a little irked. As for what’s coming up from OpenText, I look forward to seeing what OpenText Core is all about.) Note: For what it’s worth, OpenText should have been included in the MQ, based on Tempo Box. (The Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise File Synchronization and Sharing is available from Gartner as well as from some of the mentioned vendors including Syncplicity, Box, Alfresco, and Citrix. Let’s face it EFSS is little more than email and consumer grade cloud storage. Yes, I know they put in a whole bunch of stuff about what could or should be part of the market, but boiled down, it seemed to me that EFSS per Gartner is little more than the old Microsoft Briefcase, i.e., a feature of a larger solution. When Gartner came out with its Magic Quadrant for Enterprise File Sync and Share (EFSS) back in July 2014 I laughed a little because I find the idea of an EFSS market, well, laughable.

Enterprise file synchronization and share