or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Cisco sounds death knell for Cius tablet, blames BYOD movement
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cisco sounds death knell for Cius tablet, blames BYOD movement

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
Senior Vice President of Cisco's TelePresence Technology Group OJ Winge announced that the company's Cius tablet would be killed off due to an increase in so-called "bring your own device" to work programs, but added that the company would continue to develop any-use software.

In a Friday blog post, Winge said that BYOD is quickly becoming a legitimate option as more companies are allowing employees to bring their preferred devices to work, meaning that legacy enterprise solutions are ceding ground to popular consumer electronics.

"We are facing a workplace that is no longer a physical place, but a blend of virtual and physical environments; where employees are bringing their preferences to work and BYOD (?Bring Your Own Device? to work) is the new norm; where collaboration has to happen beyond a walled garden; and any-to-any connectivity is a requirement, not a 'nice to have,'? Winge writes.

Cisco's own IBSG Horizons Study on virtualization and BYOD found that an overwhelming 95 percent of companies let workers bring in their own devices, and 36 percent of the enterprises supplied full support for the personal units. This combined with the overall stagnation of the enterprise tablet market, Cisco has apparently decided to cut its losses in the sector and will refocus its efforts on maintaining and creating software that can be used on a variety of devices rather than compete with enterprise-ready consumer products like Apple's iPad.

Although Cisco is cutting off investment in the Cius form factor and will forego any "further enhancements" to the platform, the company will continue to offer the current iteration of the tablet to select customers. The end-of-life announcement comes a little over one year after the tablet was launched in April 2011.

Cisco Cius
Cisco's Cius tablet with phone dock. | Source: Cisco


Winge notes that while Cius is effectively dead in the water, Cisco is looking to extend the reach of its Jabber messaging and WebEx web conference software to a larger number of platforms, including smartphones and tablets.

"We?re seeing tremendous interest in these software offerings. Customers see the value in how these offerings enable employees to work on their terms in the Post-PC era, while still having access to collaboration experiences," Winge said.

The executive writes that Cisco will put emphasis on "empowering individual collaboration styles" while offering products that can work on the widest variety of devices.

Apple's iPad has been leading the charge in transitioning enterprise to BYOD, and even government agencies have started to adopt the device as consumer demand spills into the workplace. The switch has been accelerated by the downfall of former enterprise giant RIM and its PlayBook tablet flop.
post #2 of 38

It almost sounds like what happened is: so long as Cisco could get corporations to use devices the people didn't want, they were okay; but as soon as people had a choice, they were sunk. I'm sure I must have misread that.

post #3 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

It almost sounds like what happened is: so long as Cisco could get corporations to use devices the people didn't want, they were okay; but as soon as people had a choice, they were sunk. I'm sure I must have misread that.

I think you got it pretty accurate. The various companies that felt they had a "lock" on the enterprise customers are finding it just ain't so any mo'.

 

This goes beyond Cisco and includes RIM and Microsoft. So, by being absent from the smart phone and tablet market for years, I don't think Microsoft can count on their previous dominance to count for much of anything going forward. RIM has already seen themselves kicked to the curb. Even though they weren't absent, like Microsoft, they just didn't have what the market wanted and still haven't got up to speed. 

 

I see RIMM biting the dust in 2013 but MSFT staying very relevant. No one's going to hand them an edge in phones and tablets, Microsoft is going to have to compete with iOS and Android for every corporate sale that comes around... and maybe not even considered up to equal to the competition. 

post #4 of 38

I think that Apple has shown how to make a device that can do what Cisco can't do.  it's obvious that Apple (steve jobs) has shown how to take the lead.  Being that the Government is adopting the use of the iPad shows that software is key.  Leave the device to Apple and make software for it so that employees can use that software on the preferred device.  Basically I think that cisco is better at making networking devices and not video chat hardware.  The video chat software development mentioned in this post is in my opinion a good move on cisco's part.

 

Update.  Wow I just did a search for the Cisco Cius and here it is.

 

 

Cisco Cius 32 GB - Android 2.2 1.6 GHz - Phantom gray $902.00

Apple iPad iOS 5.1.1 32GB $599.00

 

Apple iPad iOS 5.1.1 32GB $729.00 with Cell unit.

 

The cost of the Cius to me is too much.  I think this is where Cisco lost it.  And from what I have learned of Android tablets is that they are limited to how high an os you can upgrade them too limiting their ability to do certain tasks that may be needed to handle on the job requirements.  Unlike the iPad where you can upgrade to the newest iOS and at a lower cost (iPad 2).  I am sure that the iPad v1 will be limited to its ability to upgrade to a new iOS but maybe not until iOS 6.  Still it will do plenty compared to the Android Cius.


Edited by tylerk36 - 5/25/12 at 11:43pm
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #5 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

I think that Apple has shown how to make a device that can do what Cisco can't do.  it's obvious that Apple (steve jobs) has shown how to take the lead.  Being that the Government is adopting the use of the iPad shows that software is key.  Leave the device to Apple and make software for it so that employees can use that software on the preferred device.  Basically I think that cisco is better at making networking devices and not video chat hardware.  The video chat software development mentioned in this post is in my opinion a good move on cisco's part.

Update.  Wow I just did a search for the Cisco Cius and here it is.


Cisco Cius 32 GB - Android 2.2 1.6 GHz - Phantom gray 
$902.00



Apple iPad iOS
5.1.1
 
32GB
$599.00


Apple iPad iOS 5.1.1 32GB 
$729.00
with Cell unit.


The cost of the Cius to me is too much.  I think this is where Cisco lost it.  And from what I have learned of Android tablets is that they are limited to how high an os you can upgrade them too limiting their ability to do certain tasks that may be needed to handle on the job requirements.  Unlike the iPad where you can upgrade to the newest iOS and at a lower cost (iPad 2).  I am sure that the iPad v1 will be limited to its ability to upgrade to a new iOS but maybe not until iOS 6.  Still it will do plenty compared to the Android Cius.

Your cost analysis doesn't include the fact that the Cius tablet is only 7". Most 7" tablets are in the $300 range.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #6 of 38

Ci-what? this article is the first time I even heard of the Cius. Didn't CISCO have a trademark on iPhone for a video conferencing device that they reached some sort of agreement to let Apple use the name as well - whatever happen to that? 

post #7 of 38
Is that $902 with or without the handset dock?

http://cdn1.afterdawn.fi/v3/news/cisco_cius_with_dock.jpg

I found this article that said it was supposed to be under $750:

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2011/06/30/cisco_prices_its_cius_tablet_for_under_750

I wonder how soon video calling is going to catch on. NPD said something like 63 million people are active video callers, though the reports I saw didn't mention how active. And 63 million active video callers out of billions of phone users doesn't sound like a large proportion.

They do claim the ability to do video conferencing over 3G/4G. Such a feature isn't enabled on a US iPad that I've found.
Edited by JeffDM - 5/26/12 at 6:38am
post #8 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Is that $902 with or without the handset dock?
http://cdn1.afterdawn.fi/v3/news/cisco_cius_with_dock.jpg
I found this article that said it was supposed to be under $750:
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2011/06/30/cisco_prices_its_cius_tablet_for_under_750

From what I'm seeing on Google Shopping the Media Station dock is another $500.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

Ci-what? this article is the first time I even heard of the Cius. Didn't CISCO have a trademark on iPhone for a video conferencing device that they reached some sort of agreement to let Apple use the name as well - whatever happen to that? 
That is part of the problem. Even people in the tech field haven't even heard of this device.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #9 of 38
Cisco has made a number of these marginal products over the years, and this was DOA for sure.

But, I do hope they do a better job integrating webex and telepresence solutions for commodity platforms. It is a huge opportunity for remote-work applications.
post #10 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

From what I'm seeing on Google Shopping the Media Station dock is another $500.

That is part of the problem. Even people in the tech field haven't even heard of this device.

With those prices, it's hard to justify. The top-end iPad costs less than their unit, most docks and accessories cost about a tenth of that.

It looks like their iPad app supports video conferencing on 3G:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cisco-webex-meetings/id298844386?mt=8
post #11 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

...
They do claim the ability to do video conferencing over 3G/4G. Such a feature isn't enabled on a US iPad that I've found.

 

Can't any iPad or iPhone or iPod Skype over 3G/4G?  

post #12 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Can't any iPad or iPhone or iPod Skype over 3G/4G?  

It looks like it does. I haven't used Skype in a long time.
post #13 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It looks like it does. I haven't used Skype in a long time.

I think only FaceTime is unable to work over a cellular connection which seems clear it's because Apple makes deals directly with the carriers while Skype et al. aren't. That said, it does look like FaceTime over cellular network will come in iOS 6.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #14 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I think only FaceTime is unable to work over a cellular connection which seems clear it's because Apple makes deals directly with the carriers while Skype et al. aren't. That said, it does look like FaceTime over cellular network will come in iOS 6.

There's two aspects that people forget when Video and Voice are used

1. Carriers offer these services already, at an expensive premium that they'd like to keep

2. Carriers have to implement proper QoS (aka bandwidth prioritizing, aka throttling) for Voice and Video links to function in a usable manner.

 

So if a carrier wants to force everyone to use their version of Video calling, they just break QoS to only support their own version. Likewise with Voice. This is why Skype is pretty much the only option for people, because Skype doesn't rely on QoS, it just does best-effort connections, and operates closer to something like BitTorrent when you don't make POTS calls. Many SIP implementations assume that it's on it's own private network that it doesn't have to compete with other applications. This is why Cable companies give you a second cable modem to connect a telephone instead of using your existing one (Their implementation of QoS is simply to give you a dedicated 1Mbit connection with a separate device.) 

 

Apple can make FaceTime work over LTE connections, but for it to not be a bad experience, the carriers need to remove the stick from their behinds and have data plans that allow more than 90 seconds of video.

post #15 of 38

What he said: "Customers see the value in how these offerings enable employees to work on their terms in the Post-PC era..."

 

What he meant: "Heck yeah.  Now we don't have to buy our employees any Post-PC devices.  They'll bring their own!"

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #16 of 38

unlike most here, i've actually played with a cius and know the cisco business extremely well

 

from the start i couldn't see it catching on, too little too late, but cisco has never been famous for being the first with the best, it tries many things, sometimes they're little more than a rebadge of the spoils of acquisition, sometimes you just think wtf, but what succeeds is developed, what flounders is changed or deleted

 

but if you mock the price it's because you do not understand the business, cisco list price is meaningless, depending on circumstances an enterprise customer is unlikely to pay much more than half, even for a one-off order, with volume, promotions and other incentives it can go a lot lower

 

then cisco has a global support service that makes apple's look like a bad joke, it's geared towards extremely high service levels and rigourously monitored, if you want 24x7x4 replacement to your site (optionally with a certified engineer in attendance), you can have it pretty much anywhere (oil platforms in the sea or out in the desert can take a bit longer), in some areas 24x7x2 is available, you can even have dedicated spares on site if you want, all managed for you, web-based call placement, no being jerked around by a call centre agent, immediate availability of serious engineering support for p1 incidents, published bug lists, etc. etc.

 

for enterprise/telco/government/etc. customers relying on device availability and support services across hundreds or thousands of locations, services often matter more than the latest bells and whistles, there may well be some very happy cius-using organizations out there, and they'll be able to use them for years to come because the end of support date will be a long time after the end of sale date, so security updates and bug fixes will keep on coming until that time

 

but, like i said, the cius was too little, too late

post #17 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

There's two aspects that people forget when Video and Voice are used
1. Carriers offer these services already, at an expensive premium that they'd like to keep
2. Carriers have to implement proper QoS (aka bandwidth prioritizing, aka throttling) for Voice and Video links to function in a usable manner.

So if a carrier wants to force everyone to use their version of Video calling, they just break QoS to only support their own version. Likewise with Voice. This is why Skype is pretty much the only option for people, because Skype doesn't rely on QoS, it just does best-effort connections, and operates closer to something like BitTorrent when you don't make POTS calls. Many SIP implementations assume that it's on it's own private network that it doesn't have to compete with other applications. This is why Cable companies give you a second cable modem to connect a telephone instead of using your existing one (Their implementation of QoS is simply to give you a dedicated 1Mbit connection with a separate device.) 

Apple can make FaceTime work over LTE connections, but for it to not be a bad experience, the carriers need to remove the stick from their behinds and have data plans that allow more than 90 seconds of video.

Interesting, except that carriers can't favor their own services by providing them with better QoS to the detriment of competing products.

I'm not sure exactly what "doesn't rely on QoS" is intended to convey -- do you mean to say that Skype doesn't rely on a specific minimum latency, maximum dropped packets, etc. from the bandwidth providers involved from end-to-end? Given that Skype is packet-based and has nothing to do with POTS, it's a misnomer and/or misrepresentation to suggest that the packets are routed or switched by a single "carrier" even if both ends of the Skype conversation terminate on handsets on the same wireless carrier's network.

I haven't checked recently but it used to be the case that you could effectively use FaceTime on an iPad over 3G IF the iPad was actually connecting to the Personal Hotspot (via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or USB) of an iPhone.

My single Comcast modem provides two voice lines, HD video, and 4MB/s (i.e., ~32Mb/s) data.

Lastly, there are competitors to FaceTime and Skype that also work over 3G, for example Tango.
post #18 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

It almost sounds like what happened is: so long as Cisco could get corporations to use devices the people didn't want, they were okay; but as soon as people had a choice, they were sunk. I'm sure I must have misread that.

You are correct and I think we should also add Windows to that list of things corporations force their people to use. The IT luddites are losing their grip and their traditional hatred of all things Apple has ceased to ensure their continued employment. One of my son's childhood friends went to one of those for-profit technical schools and received his MCSE certificate. He is now the "IT" guy at a small company and never fails to launch a vitriolic attack on any Apple product. There are thousands and thousands of these types still out there trying to protect their dwindling turfs. 

post #19 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


It looks like it does. I haven't used Skype in a long time.

Skype on iOS is pretty bad. It can't keep a voice connection open on Wifi or cellular. Invariably it drops calls within a minute and the more often you reestablish the connection the faster it drops again. I have no idea what causes the problem but it exhibits the same exact behavior no matter where your are, or what network you are using, making it almost unusable. On the desktop, Skype works fantastic. I use it all the time.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #20 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Skype on iOS is pretty bad. It can't keep a voice connection open on Wifi or cellular. Invariably it drops calls within a minute and the more often you reestablish the connection the faster it drops again. I have no idea what causes the problem but it exhibits the same exact behavior no matter where your are, or what network you are using, making it almost unusable. On the desktop, Skype works fantastic. I use it all the time.

I guess that my experience of using Skype with few problems on my iPhone while traveling in multiple countries, including ones known to have shoddy telecom infrastructure such as India, is unique. And that includes inbound calls on my US SkypeIn number ringing through flawlessly.

To clarify, my experience outside the US is predominantly on WiFi. However, voice and video in the US over 3G generally work really well for me.
post #21 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmhisey View Post


I guess that my experience of using Skype with few problems on my iPhone while traveling in multiple countries, including ones known to have shoddy telecom infrastructure such as India, is unique. And that includes inbound calls on my US SkypeIn number ringing through flawlessly.
To clarify, my experience outside the US is predominantly on WiFi. However, voice and video in the US over 3G generally work really well for me.

I have the exact opposite experience with my Skype number while I'm using my iPhone, traveling abroad. People call me and it rings on their end only twice before going to voice mail. On my end it never rings. Later I see a missed call in the Skype log. That is on Wifi and 3G.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #22 of 38

The very thought that CISCO got it into their empty heads that this was somehow a good idea - and in April 2011, no less, when Apple had long-ago shown the way in this area - is positively frightening, not to mention pathetic. 

 

This turkey of an industry *really does* need Apple to light the way forward. Desperately. 

post #23 of 38

They could blame BYOD movement, or they could blame themselves for getting on the wrong end of that movement. BYOD is like a bulldozer: it's quite safe as long as you're not in its path.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #24 of 38

I know it's obvious to most on these boards....but there are basically two business models...Apple's-make superior products, offer great value and make money or the Walmart model....sell crap, cheaply, but sell a lot of it to make money. It amazes me that CEO's always opt for the Walmart model, e.g., Dell, HP, motorola, Google, etc., etc.

 

It's "predatory!" 

post #25 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

It almost sounds like what happened is: so long as Cisco could get corporations to use devices the people didn't want, they were okay; but as soon as people had a choice, they were sunk. I'm sure I must have misread that.

 

No I think you actually kind of have it. 

 

Basically we are in the midst of a move from the one device for each task to one device for each person movement. Going going soon to be gone are the days of buying this machine to be your cash register, this to be your bar code scanner. this to be your computer, your tv, your game machine. Instead you have one device that can be all and more. 

 

its like back in the days of the 80s and 90s when you needed an assistive communication device. the insurance companies insisted that the device be nothing more. They wouldn't pay for you to get a computer because you could use it for other things and they weren't about to shell out $20k for you to play pacman etc. so you ended up with this big bulky custom machine that was slow and expensive to update. But parents put up with it because of the benefits and they couldn't afford the time and money for anything else. now you can get a $500 iPad or even a $200 iPod touch with an app that runs between $10-100 depending on the library and other features you want. Or you could go simple and just snap shots of what the child needs to be able to 'say' and keep them in the photo library. This is basically what a cousin did with his son. Kade wants to go to the park he just pulls up the photo they took at the park. He wants a snack, he can pull up the photo of what he wants and so on. he's even got a photo of his bed to say he's tired. 

 

in another decade the notion of buying a machine just to pay games will seem like 'the old days' same as the telegraph and manual typewriters. We'll all have our whatever that does more or less everything we need from making calls (video of course, why settle just for a voice) to watching tv to reading books etc

post #26 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

Ci-what? this article is the first time I even heard of the Cius. Didn't CISCO have a trademark on iPhone for a video conferencing device that they reached some sort of agreement to let Apple use the name as well - whatever happen to that? 

ah yes that's a fun bit of history

 

Cisco bought that device from another party and then mothballed it. Cisco let the trademark run out including their renewal grace period. Then they found out that Apple was about to buy the expired trademark so literally a couple of days before the end of the grace period they announced they were bring back their iPhone, to come out some 8 months laters. Apple filed a suit saying that Cisco had only announced their phone to stop Apple. The judge agreed and ordered that they share the trademark each for their own thing. But if either stopped making said device they gave up all rights to the trademark for good (which as I recall is what Cisco did after perhaps a year at most of making their new iPhone)

post #27 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Can't any iPad or iPhone or iPod Skype over 3G/4G?  

 

sure can. although not always that well (depends on the strength and stability of the signal)

post #28 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I think only FaceTime is unable to work over a cellular connection which seems clear it's because Apple makes deals directly with the carriers while Skype et al. aren't. That said, it does look like FaceTime over cellular network will come in iOS 6.

 

That's sort of correct. It's more like Apple MUST deal with the carriers whereas the 3rd party apps aren't forced into such a thing. 

post #29 of 38

Cisco blames the fact that no one would willingly use their POS tablet.  Interesting.

post #30 of 38

Lol. We couldn't sell them because those darn IT managers wouldn't force people to use them. They've always done it in the past. We just don't understand.

post #31 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"We are facing a workplace that is no longer a physical place, but a blend of virtual and physical environments; where employees are bringing their preferences to work and BYOD ("Bring Your Own Device" to work) is the new norm; where collaboration has to happen beyond a walled garden; and any-to-any connectivity is a requirement, not a 'nice to have,' " Winge writes.

 

There is so much tip-toeing and euphemistic phrasing there that I may need to vomit.

post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

That's sort of correct. It's more like Apple MUST deal with the carriers whereas the 3rd party apps aren't forced into such a thing. 
I didn't get into the specifics as to why Apple is making deals with carriers. I'm sure we'll have plenty of articles that revolve around carriers that we can discuss the pros and cons of working so closely with carriers. Short answer: profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PotatoLeekSoup View Post

There is so much tip-toeing and euphemistic phrasing there that I may need to vomit.
I don't see your point. Everything stated seemed quite clear and accurate to me. In that sentence Winge isn't addressing that the Cius and dock are too little too late and too expensive, but he is accurately acknowledging the root of the issue that is making consumer devices more popular and less costly for the enterprise. But for all the wasted investments Cisco has made they still have a very profitable core business that I don't see being affected anytime soon.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #33 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

 But for all the wasted investments Cisco has made they still have a very profitable core business that I don't see being affected anytime soon.

They are about to make some serious bank on all the IPv6 router upgrade requirements. I just bought a new Cisco router for that exact reason. There are a lot of old 10/100 base T routers out there in the enterprise that all need to be upgraded.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

They are about to make some serious bank on all the IPv6 router upgrade requirements. I just bought a new Cisco router for that exact reason.

Most of my Cisco lab equipment is IPv6 ready and it's not new equipment. I only had to update to IOS v12.4. I have a couple 2500 series routers that aren't capable but I think everything else is capable. I hope most companies would have planned for this long ago although by at least l using IPv4 internally and making sure they have a IPv6 border router to connect to their ISP.

I started learning IPv6 back in 1999 when I bought the first edition of the Cisco Press TCP/IP Routing Vol1 & Vol 2 (I forget which volume covered IPV6. I can honestly say I don't think I've learned anything new about it in a dozen years. IPv4 is confusing enough with 32 bits and four relatively simple octets. Moving to 128 bit is rough but hexadecimal seems to stump most people in technology. I doubt most people in networking could even convert denary or binary to hex (and vice versa) even when they can convert denary to binary and back with ease.

Perspective: There are a total of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses in the world. That is obviously less than one per person. IPv6 takes that to a whole 'notha level with about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Not in total but per person* I think we're set for a few years. :D


* I'm pretty sure you know this mstone but just pointing it for those that may not be aware of how many addresses that really is.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Most of my Cisco lab equipment is IPv6 ready and it's not new equipment. I only had to update to IOS v12.4. I have a couple 2500 series routers that aren't capable but I think everything else is capable. I hope most companies would have planned for this long ago although by at least l using IPv4 internally and making sure they have a IPv6 border router to connect to their ISP.
I started learning IPv6 back in 1999 when I bought the first edition of the Cisco Press TCP/IP Routing Vol1 & Vol 2 (I forget which volume covered IPV6. I can honestly say I don't think I've learned anything new about it in a dozen years. IPv4 is confusing enough with 32 bits and four relatively simple octets. Moving to 128 bit is rough but hexadecimal seems to stump most people in technology. I doubt most people in networking could even convert denary or binary to hex (and vice versa) even when they can convert denary to binary and back with ease.
Perspective: There are a total of 4,294,967,296 IPv4 addresses in the world. That is obviously less than one per person. IPv6 takes that to a whole 'notha level with about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Not in total but per person* I think we're set for a few years. :D
* I'm pretty sure you know this mstone but just pointing it for those that may not be aware of how many addresses that really is.

Most consumer telcos have not switched to IPv6 for their customers and even if a company network has a border router, unless their public web servers and named servers are configured with IPv6 (not that they aren't capable), pretty soon those servers will become inaccessible from many new mobile devices in China, which are expected to be IPv6 only. Just as you stated, the numbers are confusing hence many corporate IT departments have not even thought about implementing it. The first step is to actually get an IPv6 network address block from your provider which many small to medium size companies have not done, including my company. We are just now getting the project underway. We have three class "C" networks from three different providers and none of them are currently IPv6.

 

Like you, I had a 2600 which has now been replaced with a 2900.


Edited by mstone - 5/27/12 at 11:24am

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #36 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

They could blame BYOD movement, or they could blame themselves for getting on the wrong end of that movement. BYOD is like a bulldozer: it's quite safe as long as you're not in its path.

They were on both sides here. They offered a dedicated device, but they also offered free apps to use on your own device to connect to their services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

That's sort of correct. It's more like Apple MUST deal with the carriers whereas the 3rd party apps aren't forced into such a thing. 

I'm surprised the carriers didn't require Apple to disallow all video chat apps.
post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

They could blame BYOD movement, or they could blame themselves for getting on the wrong end of that movement. BYOD is like a bulldozer: it's quite safe as long as you're not in its path.

Does anyone bring their own tablets to work? Accessing work emails and calendars from personal smartphones are extremely popular, but I've never seen anyone use their own tablet at work. All work tablets I've seen were bought by the company.
post #38 of 38

Actually bringing tablets to work is extremely popular and one of the reasons the Cius did not work.  I have one and it is a decent little tablet but is a victim of it's own compromises and I am happy that I was told on Friday I can now pick up the new Ipad.  Cisco does not sell consumer driven products well & they had to design a secure tablet around a form factor that businesses would actually buy and no one really thought business would but tablets for their own sake.  Hell even VMware is going completely BYOD across the board from phones, to laptops, to tablets.

 

I have found most of the Cisco people I deal with have long migrated to Apple products, during a Telepresence presentation in Cincy everyone of them had a Ipad, only one of them had a Cius.  During Cisco's partner summit for demo's they had an Ipad on the stage and I do not remember seeing a Cius anywhere.  Most of the reps I deal with have started carrying Macbook pro's and I was told that was the general direction of the company since Apple did not complete with them in the server market.

 

Generally they seem happy to integrate apple endpoints and make all of their video and collaboration software completely compatible.  Endpoint agnostic I think they call it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Cisco sounds death knell for Cius tablet, blames BYOD movement