![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
RE: The Paradox of Commoditization
From: "St. Clair, James" <JStClair () vredenburg com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 06:20:23 -0400
Jack Bates wrote: *I have yet to see someone swear by their own life that the new *technologies will meet the uptimes of the legacy. The fact is, in the *telco world, they don't. Good point, but I think what Gordon *may be* saying is that part of the reason the above is true is the degree monopolies are struggling to keep their legacy systems. I would argue those folks who have paid (handsomely) for *pure* transitions to new technologies have seen benefits; it is the persistent hybrids of new and legacy that complicate service. *Even businesses that require time sensitive, guaranteed communications *don't trust the new technology whole heartedly. Hmm, I would disagree. More and more critical processes (such as RTU controls at utilities) are going to new technologies, with the ROI being less expense of special technicians and remote controls. Dell "bet the farm" on new technologies for e-commerce and helped turn PCs into a commodity. Just a thought... Jim
Current thread:
- The Paradox of Commoditization Gordon Cook (Apr 09)
- Re: The Paradox of Commoditization Jack Bates (Apr 09)
- Re: The Paradox of Commoditization Peter Galbavy (Apr 10)
- Message not available
- Re: The Paradox of Commoditization Gordon Cook (Apr 10)
- Re: The Paradox of Commoditization Peter Galbavy (Apr 10)
- Message not available
- Re: The Paradox of Commoditization Pete Kruckenberg (Apr 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: The Paradox of Commoditization St. Clair, James (Apr 10)
- Hybrids and Chimeras Howard C. Berkowitz (Apr 10)
- Re: The Paradox of Commoditization Curtis Maurand (Apr 10)