a measured and professional example.
If there is an upside to this, maybe some of the
"cisco bigots" of the world will get a glimpse of how
cisco is viewed by the rest of the industry. This
nonsense goes on all the time. As a cisco stockholder
since summer 1995, I think it is time for them to
change their style; before they lose the respect of
those who don't yet have a clue how rotten their
"apple" (to paraphrase Howard) is.
Note that I was as gung-ho cisco as anybody else
before I saw the larger picture of how much their
marketing hype and fud covers up for the mediocrity of
some of their gear.
Obviously since I am still holding onto the stock I
believe this company is so huge it will be very hard
to kill and will see significant gains before I am
ready to cash out. But they are losing market share on
several fronts, and this (losing core to Juniper) is
just one, but the one with the fattest margins.
Bottom line there is plenty of room in this industry
for good companies with good products.Just look at all
the optical startups. Engineers should be scientists
first and foremost, and scientists who expect to have
their word and opinions respected don't lie.
I ask you all this: If it was once true that "No one
ever got fired for buying IBM" why is that no longer
true ?
--- Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's sad. As a big Cisco fan (and stockholder), I
> hope Cisco fires the
> marketing jerk that made them look so foolish. There
> was no need to
> misrepresent the results.
>
> Priscilla
>
> At 02:14 PM 3/16/01, Ian Gomeche wrote:
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/5/17635.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Cisco misrepresents test results
> >By: John Leyden
> >Posted: 15/03/2001 at 19:17 GMT
> >
> >
> >A publishing firm has slammed Cisco for
> misrepresenting the results of its
> >tests on high-end optical networking kit.
> >
> >Cisco claimed in a press release issued Tuesday
> evening that it, rather than
> >Juniper Networks came out on top in publisher Light
> Reading's tests of
> >Internet core routers.
> >
> >After Light Reading issued a press release
> complaining about what Cisco had
> >done, the networking giant revised partially
> revised its statement but the
> >affair has angered those involved in the testing,
> which took six months to
> >put together.
> >
> >Peter Heywood, founding editor of Light Reading,
> told The Register: "Cisco
> >has taken out factual inaccuracies in the original
> press release but we
> >still feel what it did originally was underhand."
> >
> >Light Reading commissioned tests which were carried
> out by benchmarking
> >design consultancy Network Test using Spirent
> Communications performance
> >analysis systems.
> >
> >The tests looked at Cisco's flagship 12416 router,
> the M160 from Juniper and
> >kit from Foundry Networks and Charlotte's Networks,
> and found that Cisco and
> >Juniper were far superior to the competition.
> >
> >However being rated a close second wasn't good
> enough for Cisco, which has
> >60 per cent of the high-end routing market to
> Juniper's 30 per cent, and it
> >decided to spin the results in its favour.
> >
> >"I'm very disappointed in this misrepresentation,"
> said David Newman,
> >president of Network Test. "Cisco's 12416 put up
> some very, very good
> >numbers in this test, so the company had no need to
> spin it the way they
> >did."
> >
> >Among the points on which Light Reading believes
> Cisco's spin went into
> >overdrive are claims that it did better overall
> when it won four of 16
> >tests, compared to the 12 won by Juniper.
> >
> >Cisco's original release claimed it had won nine
> tests and also boasted that
> >it was the only kit to demonstrate Line Rate IP and
> MPLS (Multi Protocol
> >Label Switching) performance with 2.5Gbps and
> 10Gbps throughput. According
> >to Light Reading throughput on one of these tests
> was just 52 percent.
> >
> >High end optical routers will sit at the core of
> service provider networks
> >and present a huge marketing opportunity for
> vendors selling next generation
> >networking technology to telcos. Success in selling
> such kit will be
> >fundamental to the fortunes of firms like Cisco and
> Juniper, so it's not
> >entirely surprising that the results of one of the
> first tests on suck kit
> >has been so bitterly contested. .
> >
> >External links:
> >Network Test's results
> >Cisco's spin
> >...and the rebuttal
> >Light Reading
> >
> >Related stories:
> >Cisco pushes optical router
> >Cisco ships 10Gbps router
> >Juniper gets edgy with latest boxes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________
> >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ________________________
>
> Priscilla Oppenheimer
> http://www.priscilla.com
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
