Juniper's Scott Kriens weighs in on Cisco and the future of enterprise networks
"There's a joke and I know it very well.
It's one of those that I told you long ago.
Take my word I'm a madman, don't you know?"
Elton John, "Madman Across the Water"
Dear Vorticians,
In my last missive, I praised Google for standing up to the Justice Department's unwarranted request for information about search terms and searched sites. Since the story broke, there's been a wide array of opinion expressed on Google's stance. Many people wrote to praise my piece and others have sent links to various articles and columns. If you'd like to read some of the responses to my column, check out this entry.
Google's decision has not been universally hailed. Some claim the company should cooperate because the government's goal of limiting children's access to pornography is a laudable one - although by that rationale, the government ought to be able to come into your house whenever it wants to see what you're hiding under the mattress. Others pooh-pooh Google's stance because it is not high-minded, but rather a practical one aimed at (either/both) protecting its trade secrets or attempting to deflect criticism from its decision to release a censored version of the search engine in China. (Vortician David Kirkpatrick of Fortune magazine talked with Google founder Sergey Brin about the company's decision to do just that in this entry from the Davos Conference.)
I'm not crazy about Google's decision to, essentially, aid the Chinese government in blocking the free flow of information to a very large chunk of the world's population. I don't see how that fits with Google's stated philosophy of doing no evil. I also recognize that Google isn't opposing Uncle Sam on lofty privacy terms. But I still applaud the decision not to cooperate, for whatever reason. I think it's the right stand. Do what do you think? Does it matter what motivates Google in this situation?
Switching gears, two weeks ago I began sharing some of the insights I gleaned from meeting with Cisco CEO John Chambers and Juniper CEO Scott Kriens. Most of that note was devoted to Chambers' thoughts and I want to spend some time on my discussion with Kriens this week. But first, a few links that you may find helpful.
First, here's my piece on the Chambers conversation.
Next, here's our full interview with Chambers.
Finally, the full interview with Kriens.
Chambers and Kriens are remarkably in synch on the prize ahead: A converged, multi-services IP network that gets more and more intelligent - meaning it does a better job managing and securing itself, supporting virtualization in the data center and optimizing apps performance. Chambers says Cisco has a big head start in making that a reality. Kriens says Juniper will deliver first because it is narrowly focused while Cisco is spreading itself thinner and thinner.
"The way that we've gotten as far as we have is not to deviate. That formula is the best one for the next 10 years as well: Stick to what we believe we can contribute and not be tempted by what other opportunities are out there unless we can actually materially contribute to them. There are people demonstrating today that there are other opportunities, but that doesn't mean (they should be) Juniper based unless they have to do with our core competency. The more focused we remain, the better off we'll be 10 years from now.
"The key to success in this game is going to be effective collaboration with stakeholders who will fully defend the places from which they came. Nobody's ever taken IBM out of the mainframe computing market and I don't think anybody ever will. I don't think Apple's going to take Microsoft out of the desktop market. History says that if a technology company stakes out ownership in a space it's very difficult to dislodge them. We are laser focused on intelligent infrastructure and history also shows that companies who focus in that way have an opportunity to set up a position that is very difficult to attack or to disassemble."
Unlike Cisco, Kriens and Juniper have no intention of playing in the consumer market.
"You won't see us trying to build something that is cooler and sexier than what a consumer electronics company could put in the palm of your hand or could put on the top of your television because there's no reason to think a network company has any ability to be better at that. We will be very active in populating those devices with intelligent interfaces because that's where there's leverage and where it becomes appropriate for each of the participants to do what they do best. We've got global-network awareness to offer a consumer device. Consumer electronics companies have user-friendly, ergonomically sensitive, high-volume, low-cost, low-margin devices to offer to the network interface and you'll se us being true to that distinction in the consumer entertainment market."
I asked Kriens to comment specifically on Chambers' assertion that Juniper is an interesting point-product competitor, but not a rival not one that has articulated a compelling enterprise strategy. Chambers also claimed Juniper is late to the enterprise game. Not surprisingly, Kriens bristled at these ideas.
"That would be nice if it were true, but we're looking at a requirement that is still in a state of change. What percentage of users today have completely converted their network infrastructure to a single, multiservice IP fabric on which integrated security and application performance and all of that resides? That number is not far from zero. If that's true, then by definition it's hard to believe the opportunities have passed us by. There's a lot to be done, there are a lot of needs to be served that today are unmet and, therefore, a lot of opportunity. It would be hard to believe there's as much jockeying for a position in a game that's already over."
Kriens also believes Juniper's strong position in the service provider market will be a major asset.
"In the next few years we're going to see significant expansion of managed services offered by service providers and we're going to see in the IT community an increased willingness to take service providers up on those offers, to share the responsibility in a way that isn't so siloed. This notion that the virtual definition will dominate the physical is going to pervade and become a significant change of mindset."
Finally, will Juniper offer a message switch, a la Cisco's AON? Kriens was more cryptic there.
"You're going to see us increasingly application knowledgeable up the stack. While we don't want to be the application and we don't want to be the consumer device, we have to have knowledge of those elements. So yes, we're going to become increasingly aware of devices, of applications, of transport infrastructure, of entertainment and content out of necessity because we've got this base of intelligence about source and destination to begin with and now the more intelligence we can add the more value we can offer or contribute."
Who's in a better position to capture this future intelligent network opportunity? You tell me. As always, your thoughts can reach me here.
Bye for now.
Back to Vortex Blog
Comments
Post a comment
