FE vs GbE justifications...

[Brian Bergin]

I'm bringing this over from DNS Servers - Active/Passive, Priorities, Admin Guide....(https://supportforums.cisco.com/post!reply.jspa?message=3141240) to keep the posts clean.

Dave,

If I might expand, I'm also not sure I buy the "if Cisco wasn't selling them or if demand was slow,  wouldn't be worth making them" statement.  Exactly how many RV016s does Cisco sell per year vs. RV042/RV082 and of those RV016's actually sold, how many are used for more than 2 WAN ports?  I'm betting the answer is 1 RV016 for every 1,000 RV042/82's sold and then 1 RV016 for ever 100 is used for more than 2 WAN connections.  I, of course, could be way off, but Cisco has decided to continue to sell, service, and support RV016's and yet they can't possibly even pay for the cost to stock them in a warehouse let alone continue to support them.  10/100 phones will run just fine on a 10/100/1000 switch so if the money crunchers would take into account the other costs involved with making both FE and GbE switches, stocking them, handling support calls, training support and sales reps, the paltry cost difference goes away quickly.

Also, I have no problem with PoE, but why does Cisco need multiple small business PoE switches?  Have your Small Biz Pro division make PoE switches and have the Small Biz division make managed switches without PoE.  ESWs are already available, though they are HORRIBLE switches in their default config for most smal biz's, so why does Cisco need to muddy the water with yet another set of switches that compete internally for in the same market segment?  Is this a case of too many chefs in the kitchenwith each division thinking it must both compete not only with external sources like Dell, HP, D-Link, etc.. as well as with internal divisions?

All this being said, I'm certainly open to hearing other reasons why Cisco should even consider going to market with yet another FE switch when GbE has become the standard even on $300 desktops.  IP phones certainly aren't the reason as they'll run just fine on a 10/100/1000 switch.  Maybe I'm missing something, but this just looks like more SKUs for Cisco to say they have that creates problems for VARs having to decide which product is right while wading through a product line that if cut by 75% would be cleaner and better supported (when I call support I often know more about the unit than the rep does, I'm sure because they have to learn way too many products).

[thomson77840]

Thanks for pulling this over here.  I can't really make a comment as to why Small Business wants to continue FE.  Maybe it has something to do with not dropping switches from the lineup?

I do agree that I'd like to see a lot less choices in this area, all pretty much the same with just variations in POE or number of ports.  Every business has slightly different needs, and budgets are tight.  I could see myself buying the minimum that I would need to get the networking done in my office, not considering the upgrade costs in the future.

[Brian Bergin]

The kicker is I'm betting if they drop FE totally their overall cost for GbE goes down signifcantly becuase they don't have to R&D, Q&A, manufacture, ship, stock, market, train, etc... the FE devices.  Yes, hardware initially may be slightly more expensive, but if Cisco were to calculate in the "human" factor other than just the parts' cost they'd be much better off.

Then theres the consumer satisfaction factor that Cisco continually fails to see.  If a customer buys a SF-300 now and doesn't have a wealth of IT knowledge they may be buying it on the false assumption that becuase Cisco makes it it must be top of the line both in quality, which I'm sure these will be, but also in technology, which FE clearly is not.  This customer will eventually realize their LAN is running at 1/3 or slower the speed it could be if they had forked out a paultry bit more for a GbE switch and if they have to replace it for speed reasons only they're much more likely not to come back to Cisco.

As a consultant we only use FE swtiches for runs that serve printers, fax, alarm systems, or credit card machines and then only when there are insufficent wires to connect each to the central switch(es).  The need is never more than 5 ports at one drop.  For PCs and servers we simply do not suport FE devices and won't sell, recommend, or support them becuase almost 100% of our business is based on our ability to recommend the right equipment not only for today but tomorrow.

What Cisco needs are more consultants working for them and less sales reps worried about the initial profit margin.  The sale of one product might net you a decent profit on that item, but if the customer goes to a competitor becuase Cisco is preceived to have sold them the wrong device and that profit might as well be flushed.