Market Leader Programs
5G Transport - A 2023 Heavy Reading Survey 2023 Open RAN Operator Survey Coherent Optics at 100G, 400G, and Beyond Open RAN Platforms and Architectures Operator Survey Cloud Native 5G Core Operator Survey Bridging the Digital Divide 5G Network Slicing Operator Survey Open, Automated & Programmable Transport The Journey to Cloud Native
2) Did you wash your hands after the call, Dan?
Ray 'Hygeine' Le Maistre
Woman in bath -- absolutely fine, though potentially distracting.
Man on the cludgie -- EEEEEUUUUURRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
FMC has way more upside than downside regardless. And location-based services can forward the call to voice mail (at the user's option, of course) when one is in what should be an undisclosed location.
Finally, it truly is disgusting to hear some guy talking on his cell phone while using the men's room. Show a little class, guys. The true test will come when the phone falls into the unirnal - a true gentleman wouldn't be on the phone in the first place, so only a clod would fish it out.
This one CMP story makes them out to be quite misleading .. or at least very disorganized with very buggy product:
also -- Aruba kicks Meru's tail in this test ... Meru can't even finish it
Two very different types of articles, I sure admit, but neither one must be making them jolly.
The first one, the Network Computing story, seems really heavily biased, though. We have deployed WMM before, and I know all about these TXOPs. They are completely legitimate, and I give Meru Networks lots of credit for implementing them. They are really useful. I am not sure why the author of that article thinks that they violate the standard. And I know that Cisco APs implement them too and I tend to think that what Cisco is saying in that article is a bunch of hogwash. I've had some dealings with one of their sales reps, and they have become very pushy, trying to threaten to take away discounts on their Catalyst switches unless our guys buy their wireless gear also. Also, have you noticed that the print and on-line versions are different?
The Network World article, though, I tell you! They had to pull out because they had a buggy product. Now, these APs, I think they are the AP-150 models, are not their main AP line. I know they sell AP-200's as their main product, and I had never even heard of the AP-150's until this article. And I don't suppose I'll hear about them again for a while, until they knock the pests out of them. I'm sure that taught 'em a lesson.
Don't know if Aruba kicked Meru's tail in that test, though, because they tuned their APs for PCF, which is really cheating and all.
Cisco guys throw a lot of FUD, that is true, but violation of the standards are pretty clear cut and it would seem from this latest article that Meru is not even willing to properly defend itself - which is a telling sign.
Why is it that in three different tests Meru is bringing three different APs?
Why is it that in three different tests the Meru gear seems to be plagued by this or that bug, beta hardware/software, or lack of QA, support, or plain old time and attention? Are customers experiencing the same problems?
Why is it that Meru can't produce any referenceable large scale customer deployments?
Maybe we are seeing the real reasons why they never showed up for any tests in the past?
Emperor, clothing, winter is coming... draw your own conclusions.
Sounds like a familiar argument that I have heard over the years concerning Meru.
What to do?
Lesson: Never walk into a competitive test where you cannot influence the testing from beginning to end. Create a customer response that adequately explains your position and give it to key customers. Don't sweat it too much, remember the IT industry has the memory of a gold fish (in 6 months no one will remember).
Don't do it again... this is Technical Marketing 101, just a basic set up and a very old trick. Chill out and focus. Remember, folks have been throwing darts at Meru's architecture for years and the company is still around.