Well, I have my doubts about packetized voice becoming a big cost saver and getting deployed everywhere too..... But that's just one thing Cisco talked about. Where they are right is that there's a big focus on security and mobility. VPNs are the most popular new technology. Too bad they still have so many problems.
Regarding "killer apps," there aren't any right now, it's true. The most used application is disappointly boring and doesn't need many QoS features and doesn't use much bandwidth. It's e-mail. Sigh. There's going to be a real need to focus on anti-spam and anti-virus measures. I'm not sure if Cisco mentioned that, but when I look into my crystal ball, I see more focus on those issues and a continued focus on security. Getting outside the Cisco realm, there's a big need to make computers eaiser to use too. The biggest growth in Internet use is with the older folks. That friendly "intuitive" user interface that some of us worked hard on developing back in the 80s, simply doesn't work very well for that age group. It's not intuitive for them. I haven't really figured out why. It's intuitive for our ages and younger! But even the younger folks get easily confused with the poor interfaces out there and lack of reliable software. _______________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer www.troubleshootingnetworks.com www.priscilla.com The Long and Winding Road wrote: > > ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in > message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Nathan Chessin wrote: > > > > > > 1) Since when is VoIP a "bandwidth-hungry app" > > > > Good point. VoIP isn't usually a bandwidth hog, although I > guess it could > be > > with tons of users all using their phones at once. > > > > I had a few other comments on ExecNet. I was quite impressed! > I'm easily > > impressed though. I once bought a used car when I wasn't in > the market for > a > > car at all. ;-) > > > > I think Cisco's vision is accurate and that they have proof > that it's on > the > > mark since they use their own technology to increase > productivy and > decrease > > expenses. nrf should check it out. They are saying a lot of > the same > things > > he says about technology being useful only in as far as it > can help > > customers achieve their business goals. > > > CL: in the case of Cisco, the goal is to get people to buy > Cisco's vision of > technology, and all the Cisco products that support it. In as > Cisco's > deployment of AVVID throughout their own organization supports > that goal ( > and quite well, I might add, from what my direct experience has > been ) of > course Cisco can make such a case. Remember that Cisco has the > horses to > support the application, and they don't pay anywhere near what > their > customers pay for the equipment. So maybe the Cisco experience > is not the > best proof. > > CL: Novell and Microsoft have long made the argument that "see > - we use it, > and look how great we are" > > CL: in these days when large corporations can pay a penny a > minute for long > distance, where are the economic benefits of packetized voice? > one last > thing - what is the "killer app" for packetized voice? > > CL: just being my usual cynical self > > > > > > How did they do those little video people? That's very cool. > I guess it's > > just Windows Media Player?? > > > > John Chambers sure looks good. He must work out. ;-) > > > > _______________________________ > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > www.troubleshootingnetworks.com > > www.priscilla.com > > > > > > > > Nate > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > > Behalf Of > > > > Joe > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:42 PM > > > > To: 'Albert Lu'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: Cisco ExecNet > > > > > > > > > > > > Technology isn't necessarily heading in that direction - > > > Cisco is > > > > driving it there. Bottom line is this: Cisco is > > > > traditionally a router > > > > and switch manufacturer, and no one buys routers and > switches > > > these > > > > days, at least not enough to provide continued growth for > > > Cisco. > > > > Company infrastructures are already built, have been for > > > > years, and are > > > > running for the most part nowhere near capacity. These > > > technology > > > > applications, besides generating hardware sales directly, > > > will also > > > > increase bandwidth consumption, thereby causing indirect > > > > hardware sales > > > > when customers upgrade their routers and switches to > support > > > the new > > > > bandwidth-hungry apps like VoIP. If Cisco can drive the > > > customers' > > > > purchases in that direction, they win. > > > > > > > > My two cents. > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > > > > Behalf Of > > > > Albert Lu > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:16 AM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: OT: Cisco ExecNet > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Group, > > > > > > > > Has anyone checked out the Cisco ExecNet, which is > basically > > > thoughts > > > > about where technology is heading in the future from the > VPs > > > at Cisco. > > > > > > > > http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/tln/execnet/ > > > > > > > > >From what they are saying (specifically Mike Volpi), the > > > > direction for > > > > technology is heading towards: CDN, Security, Wireless, IP > > > Telephony, > > > > VPN. Reegineering business processes to best utilise these > > > > technologies > > > > in order to improve productivity and reduce cost for > > > enterprises. > > > > > > > > Does anyone have any comments about this, and where money > > > > will be spent > > > > in the future for technologies? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Albert Lu > > > > CCIE #8705 > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55410&t=55344 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
