破除思科的神话(四):没有人因为购买思科而被解雇

kevin jennings

6월 03, 2016

But is this the end of the story?

OK, I’ll admit it right out of the gate. 我不知道有谁因为购买了思科的产品而被解雇. But is this the end of the story? 几十年前，人们常说:“没有人会因为购买IBM而被解雇.这是一个普遍的说法，因为IBM基本上统治了计算世界——在某种程度上甚至超过了今天思科对网络世界的统治——人们认为这是事实, at the very least, 与IBM合作意味着无论实现结果如何，都不会受到批评. 请注意，无论是当时的IBM，还是今天的思科，都不意味着系统会无故障. 任何使用过网络基础设施设备的诚实的人都知道，它从来都不是完美的. 任何制造商的发布说明都指出了系统中已知的bug，这是有目共睹的, and Cisco is no more immune from this than anyone else.

So, why is the above statement a myth? It all depends on how one looks at the matter. granted, 通过选择在任何类型的解决方案中使用市场份额领先者，可以继承一种内置屏蔽措施. if troubles occur, 当网络设备制造商拥有思科系统这样的知名品牌时，管理层不太可能立即把矛头指向它. 选择使用思科的决策者也不太可能因为押注于一家产品被选择次数最多的公司而受到训斥. Again, how is the statement a myth, then?

Perhaps in Some Cases They Should Have Been

Cisco’s products on the whole work quite well. 普遍接受的谬论是，该火狐体育手机其他领先制造商的产品不会. And this is the heart of the issue. 而不能说网络交换是一个纯粹的商品火狐体育手机, 因为不同的产品之间存在一些真正的差异, 尽管如此，思科和其他领先厂商的产品相似之处要远远多于不同之处. We all base our products on a defined, 有限的一组硅，承受有限的供应商之间的差异. as a result, 也许有些人应该因为收购思科而被解雇——这样的人很多, in fact! 在绝大多数情况下购买思科设备的理由 ignores the fundamental question of value. 如果思科真的是唯一能完成手头任务的解决方案，我一整天都会承认它是正确的选择. The truth is, however, this is almost never the case. At Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise, 我们很少遇到这样的情况，即我们的产品不能与思科的产品相比, and in some cases they actually perform a superior one. why, then, do otherwise intelligent people routinely spend 20%, 50%, or, believe it or not, 与我们的设备或其他网络基础设施供应商相比，购买思科设备的费用是前者的3倍或5倍? 如果两者都做了足够的，或者更确切地说是令人钦佩的工作，作为需求的解决方案, 我们该如何评价那些选择思科并支付了两倍于他们本应支付的费用的人呢? 是“干得好，你有保险了，不会有人解雇你的?. brilliant move!” Or, should it rather be, “All other things being equal, that was brilliant that you chose Cisco, the market share leader…Except, all other things are not equal. The solutions themselves are both sufficient to meet our needs, 但你付了双倍的钱，浪费了公司的资源. You deserve to be fired!”

How About: “Nobody Ever Got hired for buying cisco "

 I submit that the more accurate saying, which applies to far too many real-world instances, is the following: “Nobody ever got hired for buying cisco." what? you heard me. 在绝大多数情况下，购买思科意味着客户为他们得到的东西付出了大量的超额费用. The exceptions to this rule are those relatively rare, 在真正的竞争环境中，思科不得不降低自己的身价，以提供具有价格竞争力的解决方案, which are few and far between. anyway, 在购买产品时，很少有公司能够足够成熟地设计收购方案，以确保思科的竞争力, because doing so means that 如果思科选择不购买，他们实际上愿意购买替代产品. routinely, 思科提供的设备溢价比我们的解决方案高出20%到30%, 到我们同类设备的5倍，否则将满足该项目的要求. 

Look at it this way. If, 在以300万美元收购思科的交易中，客户本可以以2美元的价格实现阿尔卡特朗讯企业解决方案.1M, what happens to the extra $900K that the customer paid? It goes straight to Cisco’s bottom line. 这90万美元是在思科的口袋里，而不是在客户的口袋里. And how many people could have been hired with that $900K? 我想，这可以说是那些公司无法雇用的人，因为它选择为思科的设备支付过高的价格 have effectively been preemptively fired because of it.

Maybe someone did get “fired” for buying cisco. Maybe it happens every day. 也许你的公司选择在思科上超支，实际上已经解雇了员工.

思科喜欢说，它的产品可能比其他公司的产品贵一点, but it wins when one considers TCO (Total Cost of Ownership). really?在下一部分中，我们将解决“思科在TCO方面领先”的神话.”