Page 1 / 3   >   >>
opticaldude 12/4/2012 | 10:21:25 PM
re: What's to Save Sycamore? BB,
Love your thoughts on this. I think that all these start ups are still living in the past and dreaming of days when getting money was like it was growing on a tree in your back yard. It also still looks like a few of them are actualy making people think that it is just a matter of time until we get back to those days. I for one am not holding my breath.
Optical_kleenex 12/4/2012 | 10:21:25 PM
re: What's to Save Sycamore? Was there any explination on why Jeff Kiel bolted (besides the obvious)?
BB 12/4/2012 | 10:21:25 PM
re: What's to Save Sycamore? all these optical switching companies believed they had "disruptive technology" but they only had "sustaining technology" and they bet big on conquering the market as a result. For a technology to be really disruptive it chases undefined market.....does not go head to head against the heavyweight... (for more read "the innovator's dilemma"). they may have enough cash to survive but only at a shadow of their expectations. learn this now and learn this well...optical switching is "sustaining technology" and thus isn't replacing any of the incumbents anytime soon. hope may be to find use for optical networking outside of data Xport.


enigmata9 12/4/2012 | 10:21:25 PM
re: What's to Save Sycamore? Somebody say amen!
Kangaroo 12/4/2012 | 10:21:22 PM
re: What's to Save Sycamore? Hey, give these new companies (Sycamore, Corvis, Ciena,..) a break, they have great innovative products.

What they do not have is a Sales and Support infrastructure that the big Carriers around the world are comfortable with, they are often excluded from bidding for lack of Support.

Given that there is a lack of pressure to build out networks, Carriers are now taking more conservative approach and going with incumbent Vendors rather than take a risk with an innovative new Vendor with no local Support infrastructure.

Sycamore, Corvis, Ciena... need a "big daddy channel to market", and I think in the case of Sycamore Siemens would be the logical choice.

If you look at the Unisphere/Juniper deal it delivers for a Juniper a "big daddy channel to market" and a support Infrastructure -in Siemens, that large Carries around the globe expect. So not surprising that Juniper went with Unisphere rather than Redback.

Dan Smith CEO of Sycamore and Craig Benson (Ex-Cabletron and a relative of Riverstone ) is on the Board of Unisphere. Having just sold Unisphere and delivered Siemens some cash it will be interesting to see what Siemens does with this cash.

It looks like a bit of a "love triangle" forming between Siemens---Juniper/Unisphere----Sycamore. Don't be surprised if Riverstone join in.

sroy 12/4/2012 | 10:21:22 PM
re: What's to Save Sycamore? Based on spending priorities in the core space DWDM was a disruptive technology, the cost structure being attacked was that of deploying fiber and the associated cost structure with lighting it. No IXC/LEC talks about how many new miles of fiber they will lay out in the coming year, they know use DWDM on any near-capacity lit strand.

The problem that they, Corvis, Ciena, and of course the optical units of Nortel, Lucent, Alcatel, Siemens, etc. have run into is the need for the new bandwidth at the core is almost non-existant now without drivers to push data at the access/metro. Until something fundamentally changes this, there will not be demand in the core.

optical 12/4/2012 | 10:21:19 PM
re: What's to Save Sycamore? Does anyone find it odd that Sycamore doesn't have a VP Sales for North America? Does anyone know what kind of a sales force is left for NA? Just curious.
Mad Max 12/4/2012 | 10:21:15 PM
re: What's to Save Sycamore? Sycamore has over 100 in their outside sales and sales support roles.... which is substantial given A) the market opportunity and B) their minimal market traction. Desh and Dan have delayed filling the VP Sales position because their current strategy is hibernation. Nobody can say they donG«÷t have market coverage like the big guys!

Couple of comments:
- Sycamore based their entire (original) strategy on the belief that the RBOC business model was dead. That the telcom people and culture were old and tired and clueless, that IP mentality would dominate because it was inherently smarter. But even he under estimated exactly how slow and stoggy the "RBOC's" were (are). He also missed WHY it was so important to be slow and stoggy when your margins are razor thin. And by the way, just like Apple found out, the smarter choice doesn't mean squat.

- Understanding the feeding frenzy of the 90's, Desh choose to offer smoke and mirrors. Hey....Life is so much easier when you can avoid providing actual value and just bribe the likes of Enron.... I mean Williams instead....but, they all got rich.

- Desh extended his contempt for telcom to his hiring practices, opting for router people rather than telcom people. They executed well on an innovative strategy, only neglecting the small issue of how the market (the real market) would adopt it.

Even so, they have ~$1B in the bank and some good optical assets. They consider themselves a public startup without funding issues. There is no reason why they can retrench and come out strong... but only if they can pull their collective heads out of their router asses.

Tom Yumsoop 12/4/2012 | 10:21:11 PM
re: What's to Save Sycamore? Friends,

Very interesting (and enlightening) discussion on Sycamore's strategy.

But, what about Sycamore's products.

Will an "alignment" with an "established vendor" like Siemens be enough to gain ILEC mindshare (and hopefully deployment)?

Or, has Sycamore designed something "odd" into its product line that would "spook" the "stodgy" ILECs (e.g., a packet-based switch fabric for a SONET system)?

A commnet by "Mad Max" ("Desh extended his contempt for telcom to his hiring practices, opting for router people rather than telcom people.") prompted this question.

Serenity now,
Mad Max 12/4/2012 | 10:21:09 PM
re: What's to Save Sycamore? IMHO, they have some excellent optical technology formed in conjunction with several of their component vendors. But their fundamental premise is untenable to the ILEC market. Their architecture espouses an optical mesh topology with intelligent optical switching to route signals (OEO).... an optical IP network if you will. In their mind, the "wasted" bandwidth of dedicated protection (associated with SONET rings) made their solution more economical. I believe they were saying 20% to 30% more economical.

In reality however, the complexity of associations between terminals ((n^2)/2) quickly limited the size of the network. More importantly however (to the ILEC market), it provided no migration path from today's SONET ring based topology to this mesh. So they ended up with great products which were only slightly more bandwidth efficient than what ILECG«÷s have todayG«™. And required a complete reforming of the existing OAM&P processes. Of course, CLEC's were less encumbered by a significant embedded base.

One other problem they had is that they focused on a Ultra-long haul transport product rather than a IOF version. Besides the collapse of the ULH market, the IOF transport market represented 90% of all applications.

The GREAT strategy they did spearhead is the focus on system integration and de-focus on in-house development. ItG«÷s too bad Lucent and NOTEL couldnG«÷t get past their NIH behavior to learn from Sycamore in this regard.

Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Sign In