The reason is we try to sell solutions, not boxes.
In most cases (excluding if a carrier knows better), we try to analyze customers case and make financial and economical analysis first, showing the customer why our solution is feasible in long term, despite in short term it may seem expensive.
"Buy this because this is cheaper" - is not our approach.
“Should carriers and vendors get beyond categorizing Huawei as the lowest-priced equipment vendor?
Mota: Thinking that Huawei is cheap is a mistake for carriers. In some parts of the network, Huawei gear makes a lot of sense, and in others it doesn’t. A lot of carriers are making the mistake of looking at the short-term capex investment, but they don’t understand the risk of customization and longevity.
When Huawei structures a deal, in some cases, you’ll see it come in 30% to 45% cheaper than anybody else out there. But carriers make the mistake of focusing on the initial price. Huawei does a good job on lack of transparency, so you really don’t know the true cost of certain things because everything’s bundled in. In the second and third year, you realize it’s more expensive than you thought. People make the mistake of thinking Huawei is a low-margin company, and it’s not. That’s the Art of War. Huawei is taking advantage of a certain lack of planning by a small number of carriers that don’t know where they’re going to be in two years. Huawei goes in and says, ‘Why not buy a Huawei network?’ For those guys, that advice makes a lot of sense. But in the long term, they’re getting burned because when you look at how much black-box customization is needed, that network is actually costing you more in a three-to five year cycle.”
For the deals Huawei lost, Huawei was simply late with it's revised, "unsolicited", lowest price offer. Thankfully, there is still integrity in the operators procurement process.
If the criteria would be the quality and reliability of the equipment, good service and innovative technologies, the thought that Huawei could sell anything is simply laughable, which even you couldn't hold back with your :)
I am sorry, but nothing you sent me disputes my assertion – in fact one or two of them kind of backs me up. I also want to make it clear that Huawei is competitive at times in other areas, but price is the leading factor.
How much did Huawei drive the price down from the start? You know better than that – it is really silly to continue to make these arguments. It does not have a positive effect on Huawei’s credibility. Even carriers in the US that have no intention of using Huawei use it to drive down prices. China is probably the only place in which the vendor does not engage in a price war for obvious reasons. I have yet to have somebody tell me outside of your company that price is not your number one weapon. I am not saying that there is necessarily anything unfair about that reality – competitors will need to try to beat you out on other important factors: technology, operations, etc.
Although TeliaSonera did not disclose the financial details, its CTO Lars Klasson said that Huawei is a good partner and it lost finally because the other two offer better commercial terms, which usually means a lower prices in telecom industry parlance.
Whatever Huawei is or is not, their market share and revenue growth speak for itself. Huawei is simply a value play that a majority of operators have not ignored. As a result, the world population as whole, especially in developing countries, have benefitted from.
The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Light Reading. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
To save this item to your list of favorite Light Reading content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
