[Jedd]

Forgive me, but it feels like a lot of contradictions, assumptions (not in evidence), and hand-waving with this and your other comments in this thread.

You've said 'severe churn is 80-100% NRR' in one message, but in another that 'severe churn' would involve only a difference from 13.4b down to 12.8 - 13.0b (vmware / broadcom revenue).

You've said that it's foolish to have two hypervisors in play in an org, because then you're doubling up on SMEs for hypervisor infrastructure.

Computershare's revenue last FY was 3.2b -- and as per TFA they were running 24,000 VMware VMs (one can only speculate on the Nutanix VM count) -- so it seems reasonable that they'd have sufficient baseload of SMEs to split across two technologies without sending the company under. Given their YoY revenue increase from the previous year, it evidently wasn't a constraint.

You've said that multi-cloud is different (more acceptable / forgivable) to multi-hypervisor for three reasons:

   a) different billing mechanisms
   b) migration is baked into cloud services
   c) cloud budgets come under R&D rather than finance / IT

I don't know if (a) and (c) are the same thing worded differently, but I'd vigorously dispute that on-prem has only one billing method, that migration from one SaaS provider to another is 'better built into the industry' (all the players make it monumentally difficult to migrate off their platform), and with (c) I'd once again murmur 'facts not in evidence', especially in the context of TFA (Computershare)

You have not addressed that multi-cloud has the same two problems you accuse multi-hypervisor of suffering - a requirement for multiple sets of differently skilled SMEs, and 2x contract negotiations.