Changing the rules in the middle of the game?!

The double standards of the West have always been a subject of my writings. Of course, there will be those who ask, “Isn’t there any in the East?” My answer is this: There is a distinction between lacking of rules and double standards. In the East, there is an approach that is left to the flow, while in the West, there is a focus on rule-making. However, when some become successful under the rules set by the West and this becomes consistent, the rules are immediately changed. Before explaining a very current case, let me recount a well-known event.

Michael Schumacher's superior success and continuous championships in Formula 1 have led to constant rule changes by the F1 administration, making him a target of criticism from racing fans. Let’s not forget the sports media that, without any shame, focused on the need to change the rules every year or to take some measures to break Schumacher's superiority.

Especially during the early 2000s, amid the dominance of Ferrari and Schumacher, some rival teams and drivers argued that the rules needed to be changed to balance Schumacher's and Ferrari's advantages. Instead of improving themselves, they constantly put pressure on the F1 administration. They attempted to prevent Schumacher and Ferrari from quickly gaining an advantage, especially with restrictions on engines and tires. But Schumacher kept winning. Changes were immediately made in the points system, along with more performance restrictions and technical regulations. This continued until another driver outside of him managed to win.

The latest example comes from the rising front of digitization. Unfortunately, as with every event, geopolitics has seeped in here as well. As you may recall, during Trump’s presidency, a war was declared against technology companies in China and Asia-Pacific Countries, and some other joined this meaningless struggle alongside EU countries.

After the pandemic, with the understanding of how important those producing processors, CPUs, storage, and other significant technologies are, competition continued relatively within fair play. However, in the new environment where hot conflicts increased, the impression began to emerge that the West had reverted to a double standard. Let me give you the latest example:

For the last ten years, the parameters referred to as Gartner’s Magic Quadrant (MQ) for Primary Storage have become a critical measurement in the data storage industry. Most businesses look at these metrics in their decision-making processes; of course, competition in this sector is shaped accordingly. In short, I wouldn’t be wrong to say it is the most important guide for those seeking “the best, the most efficient, the most cost-effective and the accurate” in the global data storage race. It would be inconceivable that these criteria, which are accepted to be objective, could be bent or changed in favor of some companies or countries. Because the results of such a double standard could lead to some companies dominating the sector, even abusing this dominance and exploiting other firms and customers.

To prevent what we fear from happening, I decided to write a warning note: According to information coming from within the sector, Gartner is changing its evaluation criteria in favor of data storage service providers, by strengthening the importance of connections with hyperscalers like Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud in the eco-system. This change not only demonstrates the increasing importance of cloud storage but also brings with it significant concerns about market distortion, reduced competition, oligopolization, stifling innovation, increasing operational costs, and dependence on “selected” service providers.

According to news that have leaked to the media from the sector, a professional who wishes to remain anonymous stated that Gartner's change aims to lower the rankings of service providers in the Asia-Pacific region and China under the pressure of the U.S. Such a decision seems to be taken to undermine the prestige of the Far East, which is constantly improving itself and surpassing the U.S. in artificial intelligence and digitization.

Of course, service providers in the Asia-Pacific region are not sitting idly by. They are taking measures to comply with Gartner's new evaluation criteria and requirements.
Still, the rumors are nauseating, and if these are indeed true, Gartner may be seen in the near future not as a neutral evaluator of global standards, but more as a pawn working for someone else's interests.

Prof. Alkin