Are Large Tech Vendors Losing Their Grip On Customers?
from the going-elsewhere dept
The last tech bust hurt established tech vendors like Cisco and Sun, but many small companies were wiped out entirely, leaving the big guys as the only game int town for companies looking to buy gear. Once again, however, businesses are starting to dabble in offerings from less-established firms. As is often the case, newer upstarts offer more advanced solutions, whose appeal has to be balanced against the fact that the company may not even be around in a couple years. So while large firms may move a little slower, companies can at least be confident that the vendor will stick around and support the offering for as long they need. This best-of-breed vs. incumbent vendor story is really common throughout a range of tech areas. In recent years, major tech firms have been snapping up small companies to expand their offerings, under the assumption that companies wanted to buy as much technology as they could from the fewest number of vendors. The fact that companies are once again expanding their vendor list to include smaller companies may be a sign that these types of things are cyclical. Another factor may be the emergence of more open standards in technology. As it becomes easier for customers to plug together technology from different companies, the lock-in effect that benefits large vendors will start to disappear.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I still believe the saying is true, "You get what you pay for".
It's not so much that the product itself is bad, just support after the fact is dismal at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With technology being what it is and big companies being what they are, the concept of pay more get more is flawed.
Norton vs. AVG for example. (Norton being expensive garbage and AVG being inexpensive goodness.)
Win vs. Linux as another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For developers think Genuitec's MyEclipse at $30 annually versus IBM's Rational at a few thousand dollars - MyEclipse has been noted time and again to be the top choice (I believe it's called disruptive innovation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not agree with the final sentence in your statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two-cents
However, I've found a more reliable constant-- Specific Software implementation depends on the size of the company. As a company grows, IT requirements mature, and theories involving organizational maturity are put in place, a company is more inclined to go down the direction of the larger company (usually de-facto standards) for support. When it comes to deadlines, understanding upstream and downstream needs, the value is in delivery and execution.
Ambiguity just adds another unknown to the equation, and because larger companies are risk-adverse, it makes more sense to go with the company's technology that will be around in 5 to 10 years, and support will be available. So finding solutions that are adopted at other Fortune companies typically win outside of OSS or
Personally, I really like OSS; I think there are a lot of winners out there. But companies such as Oracle, Google, and Microsoft are generally pretty quick to add differentiating features usually only found in a startup, and sadly, many startups don't take the steps to protect their intellectual property.
A simplistic example- it's a lot easier (and cheaper) to find an Advanced-Excel person than a Advanced-OpenOffice person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The smaller companies may not survive, but the technology they bring to market lifts the boat for everyone else.
It may be one of the few cases where a small company with a technology patent is a good thing. Even if they can't make it in the market-place, at least they could license the R&D work to other companies who make use of it.
(All of TechDirt's arguments on how screwed up the patent system noted, of course.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]