Principa68755 6/27/2015 | 12:25:05 AM
Re: Competing Against White Box Switches I really don't see the problem here.  The server/compute industry has been in this model for many years now without much fuss.  The support shops know whom to call when.

Support for the disaggregation model was solved long ago and the network side shouldn't be any different.   For customers, picking a vendor capable of providing full end-to-end support along with the flexibility and cost benefits of open networking should be the key. 

Chambers is doing nothing more than fear mongering.
Gabriel Brown 5/14/2015 | 8:19:41 AM
Competing Against White Box Switches From the article, this is the counter argument to white box in a nutshell:

"We have all seen the nightmare of trying to identify where and who to call translate into billions in lost business and reputational damages."

Chambers added, "When companies and countries go digital, IT becomes a board-level concern; and reliability, security and trust matter more than ever."

White box is an important trend and, for some companies it will make sense. But it's not clear the majority of them, or a even a large proportion, really have the capability to pull it off and sustain it over the long-term. Do they even want this capability in-house?

In this context, the "outcomes strategy" makes sense.