No. Your quote does not support your rewording in the slightest. You are interpreting me as angry and offended because it makes dismissing me easier, and because it is mirroring your own feelings, for what it&#x27;s worth. It&#x27;s completely irrelevant, but I am not malcontent at all even despite your downvoting me for a well-argued counterpoint.<p>Perhaps it is not me who should step back and reevaluate.<p>Part of the problem here is a lack of specificity on the industry. Since you invoked analysts, Gartner and the typical HN view of &quot;industry&quot; are wildly different, but I would posit what happens in what we typically call the &quot;industry&quot; is in the pipeline for the Gartner side in about a decade. However, tickers I would normally put in the Gartner&#x2F;CIO bucket are aligning with me on this, more than you&#x27;d expect. Even Manhattan finance.<p>And yes, I am aware of CAGR forecasts for virt, but a big driver of the market&#x27;s growth is expansion of virt deployment footholds thanks in no small part to momentum fueled by opinions like yours. There is also an incentive to sell virt by hardware and procurement vendors, because you need more fleet to do the same work under virt, unconditionally. The market will level off because fewer new projects and companies are reaching for virt as evidenced by, yes, Google, and half the other household names in the valley.<p>Thought exercise: Google published Dataflow out of their work on streaming architecture and said they are moving on from MapReduce (for the most part). If you got research that says the Hadoop market is growing, wouldn&#x27;t you look at it objectively in context since the very organization who defined the technology has moved on from it? Market research and analysis often lacks frontline context, much as it does here.