Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!ll-xn!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: net.dcom
Subject: Re: Cisco Systems and dealing with small companies
Message-ID: <12721@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Aug-86 21:16:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdcad.12721
Posted: Fri Aug 15 21:16:13 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Aug-86 07:24:18 EDT
References: <890@bu-cs.UUCP> <485@hplabsc.UUCP> <58@rpics.uucp> <838@usl.UUCP> <12538@amdcad.UUCP> <857@usl.UUCP>
Reply-To: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 85

In article <857@usl.UUCP> elg@usl.UUCP (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>Some small startups never make the transition needed between small
>sales/small volume and large sales/large volume, i.e. setting up the
>management infrastructure necessary. However, there's many examples of
>companies that have a good product, that have the funds, that have the
>service personel, who don't make it because they aren't "IBM
>compatible" (if you're talking PCs) or "It's not a VAX" (if you're
>talking super-minis) etc.

Well, I happen to believe the marketplace is where a product proves
how good it is. If it doesn't sell, then by definition it is not a
good product because it does not meet the needs of the customer.  If a
customer wants to run Lotus and buys a PC instead of a Mac then the
Mac maker blew it in his market research.

>USL has three Pyramid 90x's, bought when Pyramid Technologies was a
>small startup. They have provided good service in their intended duty.
>If we had bought equivalent Vaxen of that era, they would have been
>severely overloaded and slower than mollasses under a load of about 25
>students average per computer. Should we have bought three Vaxen
>because "Pyramid is just a little startup that could go out of
>business tommorrow"?

It's nice that your decision worked out for you but if Pyramid had
failed I think you wouldn't have been so happy about it.

>Perhaps I'm confusing a university environment with a commercial
>environment... when something breaks here, generally the answer is to
>look around among us for an expert to fix it, rather than call in the
>serviceman and wait for him to fly in from Massachusetts or
>California. Do corporations lack this large body of talent?

First of all, we think the manufacturer should design it to reduce the
chance of it failing. Quality should be designed and manufactured in,
and I expect small companies to be less likely to have the expertise
to do this properly. Not that they can't, but that they are less
likely and therefore it is a valid question as to how large a vendor is.

As for fixing the machines we have better things to do than play field
service drone. Maybe if we had a large pool of slave labor (students)
we might do what you do. But if you had to pay for your manpower
perhaps you would do what we do.

>And if so, how do American corporations intend to compete with
>Japanese corporations, which place great emphasis upon hiring talent
>and conducting large amounts of research? Your average Japanese auto
>executive started out assembling cars on the floor. If his car breaks,
>he can fix it. The average American auto executive started out in
>Harvard Business School. If his car breaks, he must call a mechanic.
>Maybe that's why the Japanese build better cars!

Why should a semiconductor designer know how to fix a car? Or a computer?

>In other words, I still find that people overlooking a company merely
>because of its size is pretty nasty... but then again, as a proud
>co-partner of a small telecommunications firm running out of a back
>bedroom, I'd naturally think that :-). (our primary strategy is to
>provide both a better program and better service than our big
>competitor, which is sort of cocky and snaps at the users).

If you can't figure out what (rightful) disadvantages you have as a
small company, you may never become a big company. Stop complaining
the world isn't the way you want it and try to understand how it
really works.

I'd like to point out that we seem to be talking about two different
levels, software and hardware. It takes a lot of work to build high
quality hardware. Parts qualification is one thing I'm thinking of.
You have to test a large sample of each chip from each vendor.  How
can a small company afford to buy a thousand 68020s just to bake them
in an oven and see how long they work?

Quality in software is a little different. If you burn enough midnight
oil you can probably produce as good a product as a big company.
Although I don't know if your manuals will be as good. Or if you will
offer training and system engineers to help customers. Maybe you can.
But that's the kind of thing big customers (you know, the kind with
lots of money) want.

-- 
 Rain follows the plow.

 Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com