[Asterisk-Users] Cisco 7960 SIP Images

[Vic Cross]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Brian Cuthie wrote:

> Frankly, this is a horrible policy. It's designed to eliminate the market
> for used gear so that vendors can force people to buy new equipment.

After reading this, I wondered why there are so many eBay vendors selling
used Cisco kit, seemingly with Cisco's blessing (otherwise they'd get shut
down, right?).  Then I realised that Cisco gets a nice extra dividend with
this gear -- as another poster mentioned with an experience of his, a lot
of the gear on the 2nd-hand market probably has paid-up (but
non-transferable) contracts with the original purchaser, but the new
purchaser has to pay up again.  When I went to school that was called
double-dipping.  So, keeping the 2nd-hand market at least a bit active 
makes more money for the software side -- just as I'm sure the hardware 
side makes extra from those who get talked out of going 2nd-hand.

> Frankly, anyone with this business model should be ashamed. And anyone
> buying equipment under such circumstances should beware. The assets they
> think they're purchasing today have substantially less value than they think
> since they can't effectively resell them when they're no longer needed.

Agreed.  I now have a couple of quite expensive Cisco-badged paperweights,
apparently.  How pi$$ed off am I.  Now, do I throw more money at them to 
get use out of them, or give the whole thing up in disgust?  Either way, 
I lose ;(

In another post, Rich Adamson wrote:

> Cisco's approach has been consistent since the early 80's

So?  This was my first (and very likely to be last) experience as a
user/purchaser of Cisco gear.  Am I just supposed to know that something I
buy in good faith is unusable without coughing up more?  Caveat emptor
indeed.  (One thing I did gain from it though: the 7960, as good a phone
it might be, is NOT worth its asking price IMHO.  A$1000?  Get real.)

The software vs hardware argument does not wash with me.  I buy a phone --
an item of hardware.  I expect that device to work.  I do not expect to
have to spend more to get the item to function.  The fact that software is
required to make the device work does not provide a mandate for the vendor
to charge extra or separately for the software (it was the vendor's
decision to choose to implement the phone's function in software rather
than hardware circuitry).  The hardware device cannot perform its function
without the software, so the software is an essential component of the
package and should not be charged separately.

How many mainboard vendors charge you extra for your BIOS?  Instead, they
recognise that the software in the BIOS (along with chipset, layout, funky
colour scheme, etc) represents an opportunity for competitive advantage
and develop (or licence) software which, along with the freely-available
upgrades to it, has been costed into the purchase price of the board.

If it was for a worthwhile amount of money it would be worth fighting, as
the consumer law down here would be on my side I think...

The fact that Cisco has been operating like this "since the early 80's"  
does not make it right.  I think a whole lot of corporates got sucked into
the old mantra of "the more you pay, the better it must be", thereby
creating the Cisco that we have today.

Anyway, sorry, this is only barely on-topic for this list...

Cheers,
Vic Cross