I'm referring to the _vendor's_ support costs - as in, you don't need as many people in the TAC if people don't keep running into IOS bugs; you don't need as large of a RMA pool if the hardware is more reliable, etc. As the vendor would most likley decline to pass these savings along to the customer, I would see this as a profit opportunity for the vendor. -C On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:31:06AM -0800, jerry scharf wrote:
--On 11/26/2001 09:22:01 AM -0500 Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
My first thought in response to this is the vendor's support costs - wouldn't shipping more reliable images bring down those costs signficantly? Or is it just that the extra revenue opportunities gained by adding $WHIZBANG_FEATURE_DU_JOUR outweigh those potential support savings?
-C
What's the upside to $ROUTER_VENDOR in reducing support cost? They already make money on the support but can't make too much, so a reduction in cost would probably imply a reduction in revenue. Also, given that network engineering rarely make support cost a key issue in vendor selection and negotiation, reducing support costs look like they have little payback to $ROUTER_VENDOR in terms of equipment sold. With that, $WHIZBANG_FEATURE_DU_JOUR, sure looks like a good profit decision.
To change this, stop buying gear from vendors that charge too much for support.
just my jaded opinion, jerry
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B