Eric, You are welcome to your opinion. CSCO does not have the technology or size to compete with LU in the carrier space. There was an interesting article out earlier in the week titled "nobody ever got fired for choosing CSCO". In the article, it is cited that CSCO wins in the enterprise even with inferior product. This will never happen in the carrier space. Product and technology strength win in that environment. As a result, LU and NT are better positioned to take advantage of the carrier buildout.
Marketing hype works well in the smaller environments but is not nearly as successful in the carrier space (Sprint, for example). CSCO will get some deals (the European deal this week for example). Overall, CSCO will benefit tremendously in the continued enterprise buildout where LU is not really a player. I have stated several times that LU will not be competing with CSCO for most deals in the carrier space and that CSCO's biggest concern should be NT. Time will tell. Good luck with your investment. Brian
By Kevin Tolly
Network World, 11/29/99
State what you think is a simple truth about Cisco and readers respond by branding you a minion
of Cisco. That is what happened in response to an off-handed remark I made some weeks back
in a column (NW, Oct. 18, page 28). Ironically, when I explained my point to several readers,
they wrote back concurring and providing further proof for my statement.
This is what I wrote: "Because Cisco has its own allure and is not governed by the rules that
govern other vendors, I'll leave it out of the discussion."
I was roundly chastised for making an egregiously "pro-Cisco" comment and "elevating" Cisco
to some higher plane of existence. I was just reporting what I thought everybody already knew
-when it comes to Cisco, normal rules need not apply.
What I mean is, Cisco's customers often let the company "get away" with things that other
vendors would never be allowed to get away with. For example, if the Accelar did not perform
at wire-speed at Layer 2 and 3, for all ports, with quality of service disabled or enabled -
Nortel Networks would have a tough time trying to sell it in the marketplace. Cisco's customers,
however, don't seem to mind a bit that the Catalyst cannot perform anywhere nearwire-speed.
That said, I've given up trying to apply logic to the Cisco customer "buy" - hence my use of the
term "allure." I try to deal with facts, and the fact is that customers and prospects treat Cisco
differently than they treat its competitors. Right or wrong, that is what I observe.
I sent this explanation to two correspondents. This excerpt is from a major competitor:
" ... your point is right on. That is exactly what we experience in the marketplace. Cisco has
done a masterful job of marketing themselves by telling customers, 'No one ever got fired for
choosing Cisco.' Technically, Cisco doesn't stand up to a lot of other products in the
marketplace. Unfortunately, this simply doesn't matter to a lot of customers."
This came from a systems integrator:
"I can actually relate very well to the Accelar/Catalyst example. Six months ago, I did a
Bay/Nortel installation with Accelar boxes at the core, and when some equipment did not work
as advertised, Nortel was raked across the coals. Just last week, I finished an all-Cisco
installation where we had serious issues with trunking on 5500 and 6500 series switches and
software problems on the 7200VXR routers. The customer didn't mind because they had Cisco.
Microsoft has the same leash. Sad but true."
This is not to say that all Cisco customers are sheep-like. A major office retailer contacted us
recently requesting additional information about a Nortel vs. Cisco router test (commissioned by
Nortel) that we published a year ago.
The retailer declared itself a happy Cisco customer - contemplating a major migration to Nortel.
The reason? The Nortel gear was perfectly matched to its need, and with it, the company
calculated WAN link savings over the Cisco products that was measured in millions of dollars
annually. |
