Page 1 / 4   >   >>
Peter Heywood 12/4/2012 | 8:50:38 PM
re: Optical Taxonomy We're planning on using the positioning matrix described in this report in other Light Reading articles where it would help to identify the target market of a company or a product.

We think it'll aid more effective competitive analysis.

I've experimented with the idea in the Wavesmith story, by adding a graphic. on http://www.lightreading.com/do....

What you think?

[email protected]
Rugger 12/4/2012 | 8:50:36 PM
re: Optical Taxonomy Where's Corvis in your listing of optical switch vendors??? Corvis is the only one delivering today. What's up with that?
light_on_dude 12/4/2012 | 8:50:34 PM
re: Optical Taxonomy WOW! This article/story just sucks. Was this written by a high school student working on a mid term paper? I usually defend lightreading on these boards, but damn...you guys really just don't know what you are talking about. This report reminds me of the cheesey analysts that come by my booth at a trade show..."what bucket do you fit in? ok thank you , buh bye...no info just qucik hit...I'm sad to say but the blokes who call you the "Optical rumor rag" are right
arojas3 12/4/2012 | 8:50:33 PM
re: Optical Taxonomy Did you forget to research Lucent until halfway through the report? We invented optical networking - show some respect.
marcy281 12/4/2012 | 8:50:33 PM
re: Optical Taxonomy I think you have to realize that the bulk of your readers already know an awful lot about telecom, networks, switches etc. I realize you have to reach a wide audience, but it's depressing to read something like this--a telecom for dummies thing.
optinuts 12/4/2012 | 8:50:32 PM
re: Optical Taxonomy peter, its a good idea if you know enough about the product and its feature set. however, on reading the taxonomy report, you made so many errors (eg missing both corvis and lucent from the photonics switch list and a whole list of vendors from the other categories) that you will be generating hate mail more than constructive commentary.

you wrote a good report, you covered a lot of territory, but you should know there are limits to an idea.
Heater 12/4/2012 | 8:50:32 PM
re: Optical Taxonomy Granted, there are plenty of engineers who read Lightreading, but most of the folks who influence and/or control the purse strings are NOT engineers. Hence, if equipment vendors want to make sure their buyers are informed about what's going on in the optical market, they'd better be supportive of any efforts to educate those buyers.

Moreover, I don't think anyone has really done a good job of organizing/cataloging the optical market. This document looks like a very good start in that direction. Nice job guys.
Peter Heywood 12/4/2012 | 8:50:31 PM
re: Optical Taxonomy Ok, OK...I had a feeling we'd missed some obvious names. Just let us know and we'll update things.
pablo 12/4/2012 | 8:50:26 PM
re: Optical Taxonomy I just got to say that Scott Clavenna is a great analyst, with a keen eye for the essentials of the business.

This is an excellent piece.

Thanks LightReading!
Peter Heywood 12/4/2012 | 8:50:22 PM
re: Optical Taxonomy Light Reading got a private note from someone questioning our adoption of Tenor's analysis of the market - saying that we'd fallen into the trap of seeing the world through Tenor's eyes.

Just wanted to address this publicly:

We adopted the functional framwork put forward by Tenor, but this really only reflects widely accepted dividing lines in the market - between transport and services and between access, metro and core. I can't see how this could skew our vision.

When it came to selecting product catgories, positioning them in the functional framework and assembling lists of vendors, this was all our own work.

Page 1 / 4   >   >>
Sign In