Hagar, talking about technical aspects of ASND boxes:
Let me provide someone arguments, someone who knows the filed very well(Btw, how everything is going on in ASND.):
To: Mr.Fun who wrote (10909)
From: Tera Bit
Wednesday, Apr 21 1999 12:06PM ET
Reply # of 14843
> If Ascend's products are so patently inferior, why do they have
> higher revenues from these products, and why have these apparently
> technically competent organizations purchased their equipment?
I would not say their product is "inferior". It was designed with a different set of goals in mind. Some obviously believe they
make a "better" box. Proponents of that view invariably point to price per port. That is the primary reason why ASND has
done so well with CLECs and alternates. IMO, it is also why they have done well at the incumbants. Most of the carriers you
listed have equipment from each vendor deployed. Finally, don't fool yourself into believing deployment plans are made by
"technically competent" beings. For example, I have heard these technically competent folks talk about the "incredible" port
densities of ASND's swithces. They point to the fact things like their 4 port OC3 card and say "amazing". Many of those
idiots never stop to consider why you only ever see one of those cards in a C5. They don't realize that none of those other
slots can be used.
>Furthermore, Ascend's gross margins were 63.3% over that time, while
>NN's were 58.3%. Why is NN not earning a substantial price premium,
>given its superior technology?
IMO, past managment at NN did a poor job, especially on containing costs. I also believe (perhaps incorrectly) that NN's
product is far more complex than ASND's. That complexity is double edge sword as complexity makes for a harder product
to support. If true, that would be reflected in margins.
>More questions: Why did LU pay $20 billion for ASND when it clearly
>could have had NN for far less money?
Location, location, location.
ASND makes a nice, relatively simple set of switches. Their positioning and marketing of the 9000/500 has been superb. They
have been designed and positioned as "no frills" data switches. They have been marketed as if they are several orders of
magnitude denser than the competition. (SVC marketing was nice and sly too) That has played well, especially to the
CLEC/alternate space. (i.e. carriers that deploy far more aggressivley than RBOCs)
Traditionally, things like "multi service" has meant FR on one box (9000) and ATM (500) to ASND. With the new switch
announced earlier this week they have put some adaptation cards for CE service on a 3rd box and can now offer FR (9000)
ATM (500), CE (250) and of course the 550 is their core ATM. IMO, it's fair to say that multi-service means multi boxes.
But I ramble, ASND & NN are the leaders in this space. My gut tells me NN leads carrier ATM and ASND leads carrier FR. |
