Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cisco All But Kills Cius Tablet

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the see-us-not-be-surprised dept.

Handhelds 65

alphadogg writes "Cisco is slowly killing off its Cius business tablet less than a year after it started shipping. The Android-based collaboration tool, which featured a 7-inch touchscreen and was not intended to challenge more consumer-oriented tablets such as the Apple iPad, fell victim to the BYOD trend and cloud computing, Cisco said in a blog post. Cisco will instead 'double down' on software offerings like its Jabber and WebEx products for more popular tablets and smartphones supporting a variety of operating systems."

cancel ×

65 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Another Android shitlet gets flushed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123483)

Oh well, Android is a fucking useless turd anyway. Corporations have money, they don't need the poor man's tablet.

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (0)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123513)

Because it is the only tablet OS with big-name backing other than iOS, which is even worse.

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40124107)

You seem to have overlooked the BlackBerry PlayBook.

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40124597)

Was that a joke?

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40124875)

You seem to have overlooked the BlackBerry PlayBook.

Not surprising. Everyone else has.

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (1)

kqs (1038910) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123663)

First post is AC or new account? Check. Anti-Google? Check. Barely related to article? Check.

Microsoft, you really should spend the cash for a competent astroturfing company. This one is really pathetic, and however much you are paying, it's way too much.

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123971)

What's pathetic is your inability to interpret a troll correctly. You're head's so far up your ass you think that a MS troll is astroturfing the tablet market? That's about fucking clueless.

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40125801)

What do you think is the whole point of W8's new interface?

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40124017)

Was talking to a M$ employee once and he was so afraid to acknowledge the company's errors. Jokingly asked him if taking a middle name of Galileo would help ease his mind...

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130501)

First post is AC or new account? Check. Anti-Google? Check. Barely related to article? Check.

Microsoft, you really should spend the cash for a competent astroturfing company. This one is really pathetic, and however much you are paying, it's way too much.

Microsoft? Why would they give a shit what happens in the tablet world?

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130727)

Ballmer bet the farm on W8 and Metro.

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123821)

Oh well, Android is a fucking useless turd anyway. Corporations have money, they don't need the poor man's tablet.

Oh please. Even if corporations choose iOS, BlackBerry, or anything else besides Android, Android's advancement keeps the competition on their toes. Android, iOS, etc being in competition with each other results in better features and better quality for consumers. I know my iPad wouldn't have the quality or features that it has if Android wasn't on Apple's heels - not to mention the price would slowly drift upwards if there wasn't true competition in the market place. Microsoft's dominance in the OS & 'Office' marketplace negatively affected progress on many levels.

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40127209)

hmmm... thinking... nope... no advancement from android, just copyiny/catching up.
By the way, when is it that android will be innovating instead of stealing ?

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40124267)

Oh well, Android is a fucking useless turd anyway. Corporations have money, they don't need the poor man's tablet.

I'm sure an asshole, like you, knows all about turds and shit stains.

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40124669)

Avaya's Flare tablet is an Android device...and an iOS app. Nortel would have had one too had they lasted long enough. At any rate, years before the iPad made it big, developing a hardware device was a good idea. BYOD is where its at. Join it to the domain, push some antivirus and data encryption and go from there.

To the guy whining about viruses - in the grand scheme of things, who cares? Viruses could potentially take your sensitive data and your customer's sensitive data and expose it to the world. Be it a company laptop or a personal one, worrying about theft and securing your data should come before someone putting a little broadcast storm on a subnet somewhere because of boobs. Even at that, they probably do it with the work laptop as much as their personal one, so the ability to protect the enterprise from that has been required for a while.

Re:Another Android shitlet gets flushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40126171)

More than 850,000 people activating Android devices each day, 55 manufacturers and more than 300 carriers disagree with you.

Cannot trust Cisco (3, Interesting)

Openstandards.net (614258) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123503)

After Cisco put back doors in all their equipment, why would anyone who knows this ever consider buying a tablet or any device with plenty of alternatives?

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/57070 [networkworld.com]

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123623)

Because some of us don't give a fuck. Some of us don't steal music, we don't have pictures of 8 year old boys being pounded in the ass by a college football coach and we don't run government agencies. We're ok that a manufacturer has a back door to their own device. They're never going to use it when it comes to the man on the street. Don't get a fuck, seriously.

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (2)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40126481)

Because some of us don't give a fuck. Some of us don't steal music, we don't have pictures of 8 year old boys being pounded in the ass by a college football coach and we don't run government agencies. We're ok that a manufacturer has a back door to their own device. They're never going to use it when it comes to the man on the street. Don't get a fuck, seriously.

Maybe the reason why we are not ok with it is because it is not Cisco's equipment but our own? I mean, we did pay for it right?

Setting aside all the arguments about privacy, anonymity, and you dont-have-anything-to-fear-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide crap we can at least agree that if you own something... you know... maybe you should own it?

I guess you don't give a fuck if you walk into your house, or business, and you find somebody standing there inspecting or modifying your equipment just because they sold it to you. That's sounds perfectly reasonable.

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (1)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131951)

I mean, we did pay for it right?

Well now, let's see. We are talking about Cisco here, better go to the checklist

  • Chassis
  • Power Supply
  • Redundant Power Supply
  • Controller Board
  • IO Board
  • Android OS
  • MS Royalties for Android OS
  • License to Use Android OS with hardware
  • SmartNet (renewable annually)

I don't know. If you have receipts for all of the above you might be ok to use the thing, but I'm not entirely sure you have the right to say that Cisco can't use it.

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40127395)

Because some of us don't give a fuck. Some of us don't steal music, we don't have pictures of 8 year old boys being pounded in the ass by a college football coach and we don't run government agencies. We're ok that a manufacturer has a back door to their own device. They're never going to use it when it comes to the man on the street. Don't get a fuck, seriously.

Either this is a joke, or you are.

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123675)

Because we'd rather have Cisco isntalling backdoors than the Chinese.

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123791)

Speaking of backdoors and the Chinese, have any of you read the Lionel Giles translation of Sun Tzu's The Art of War ?

There are several sections which refer to weakness as "chinks" in the armor. So if Cisco products are made in China, then you could say that there are Chinks in Cisco's armor.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138255)

I think the crew of the USS Pueblo would be proud of you.

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123797)

Are they sure it didn't just fall victim to "a competitor made a much better product for the money"?

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123973)

Are you sure it was only one reason that caused it to fail?

Maybe ( just maybe ) it could be possible that there is more than one reason for a product to fail.

yes yes i know, im going waaaaay out on a limb here, but hey.....have brain, can use it.

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123865)

It states right in the article you linked that by law it is required to be incorporated into all networking equipment sold to ISPs, AND that Cisco is the only company who makes its lawful intercept architecture public.

Not really trying to defend them here, but you may want to consider all the facts when making this kind of statement. =)

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40125517)

What law requires this? I did see the article but I find it to be questionable.

CALEA [wikipedia.org] is the only law I'm aware of, and it only puts the burden on service providers to be compliant, not equipment makers.

The way CALEA works is that a LEA (i.e. local PD, FBI, etc.) submits a warrant to a service provider and then configures their monitoring equipment to deliver data about a specific user to the LEA. The LEA doesn't go in and surreptitiously backdoor a router or a phone switch without the operator's knowledge as the article suggests. Maybe in extreme circumstances they would go to a judge to tap fiber at a POP or something.

In practice, a lot of equipment vendors build CALEA functionality into their products so that providers can easily be compliant, but again, it is configured by the network administrator, not the spooks.

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40132175)

Since the service providers are required to comply with CALEA, they will naturally tell their equipment vendors that the equipment they require must allow them to meet their CALEA obligations.

In other words, if the equipment vendors can't provide equipment that helps the service provider comply with CALEA, then they won't sell much equipment.

Re:Cannot trust Cisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123939)

This is a mis-use of the term "backdoor". That usually means a secret development password or other access method that engineers can use diagnose or otherwise manipulate deployed equipment. What is described in the article is a publicly known interface for the owner of the equipment to capture traffic going through their device and some potential shortcomings in how that interface is secured.

All service provider networking vendors in many countries are required to provide such interfaces. That Cisco made the description of interface publicly known is what exposed the shortcomings so they could be fixed.

Holly cr*p (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40124765)

So the Linksys router (from CISCO) contains a secret government password and the ability to trace traffic and this can be turned on via UDP.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1590674/cisco-handholds-hackers-backdoor

Jeez, enough, no more US made kit.

Did it support PoE? (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123535)

.. or run off a 48 volt power supply?

Re:Did it support PoE? (3, Informative)

zbaron (649094) | more than 2 years ago | (#40124761)

Yes, they do support PoE when docked in the media station.

They also require connectivity to a WLAN at all times for signalling, but will use the wired LAN for voice/video when docked. I must be one of the very few people who actually make use of a Cius, it has a lot of promise as a device that combines a video phone and with the addition KDM, a VDI client that you can pick up and take with you when you leave your desk.

There are some "version 1" issues of course, like the the hdmi display being limited to only to mirroring at the moment and I believe they are the only available Atom based Android tablet, so it does run warmer than others. I however think a 7" screen is too small when trying to use a tablet as a replacement for a laptop for things like note taking in meetings.

Now, if the Cius tablet is going away, might we see a dock for an iDevice that has a telephone handset?

Why a headset? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40125481)

might we see a dock for an iDevice that has a telephone handset?

Why would you need that, when you can easily use so many bluetooth or microphones built into headphones?

I've used the iPad for a lot of Skype calls, a good set of earbuds with a microphone worked great.

Re:Why a headset? (1)

zbaron (649094) | more than 2 years ago | (#40125975)

Why would you need that, when you can easily use so many bluetooth or microphones built into headphones?

So very true. However, a lot of people out there still prefer to grab "the phone" when it rings or pick it up when they want to talk to someone. Besides, have you ever tried to slam down a bluetooth headset when it all just got too much?

Re:Why a headset? (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131211)

Bluetooth headsets. I fooking hate them

Another Bad Idea (3, Interesting)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123539)

Cisco needs to stop trying these new markets and focus more on their core offerings. Their latest networking an voice gear is slipping when compared to competitors. Microsoft Lync for instance stand to replace a lot of Cisco UM capabilities for most businesses at half the price. All in one UTM devices are eating away at Ciscos security market by combining the cost of 3+ incredibly expensive Cisco devices into one. Cisco, fix your business model before you become irrelevant.

Tired of BYOD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123569)

Instead of having us work off the clock for free for your unsupported products why dont your departments increase our budget to support them or better yet have someone support them yourself.

Why even have a help desk or IT department if people come in do whatever they want and scream if do not support it?

Tired of support complaining about BYOD (1)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123801)

Tech support is not rocket science, if you can't handle it and adapt with the times I suggest a change of careers.

Re:Tired of support complaining about BYOD (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123893)

I believe the issue is the beancounters cut down and limit helpdesk and then the policy changes where the amount of calls/tickets doubles, yet they are still supposed to have them all finished by the end of the day. This drives up support costs and puts the burden on the workers. If the employer refuses to pay for more support then those who need to get their email or other more appropriate business oriented task done will have to wait.

Worse, they now need to learn IOS, Andriod, and Blackberry in edition to Windows and Cisco stuff on their dime.

I can only imagine security issues of a single employee bringing in a netbook with a virus and having it spread all over the network. These are legitimate problems that these employers who bring them in are totally insulated from.

BYOD does not belong in the workplace. Maybe if they are important enough an external site can be used or something like OUtlook express so they can view emails on their phones but that is it. No bring your virii laden netbook from home and plug it in to the 3,000 user network and then cry foul at the lowly help desk guy for not foreseeing it.

Re:Tired of support complaining about BYOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40124401)

When it's your company, you can make the rules about what gets support and what doesn't. Until then, write down your objections so you're safe from later finger pointing and do your job.

On a personal note, you sound like someone bitter over finding out that that their MSIE would not be all they needed for their career and that those bastard reps lied about that to you.

Re:Tired of support complaining about BYOD (3, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40125057)

Maybe you can be the one who does IT support while I bring in 4 devices that mess up your work and I will help give you a poor performance review in return and make sure you work off the clock to service the legiitimate users while I waste your time trying to get facebook to work on my uber IPAD.

Sounds perfectly fair then. Do not like it then run your own company.

Re:Tired of support complaining about BYOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40127415)

Yeah, that's the Free Market (tm) at work. If you don't like a policy at your company,mother just take w few million of your own, invest in some infrastructure, and start your own. Oh, wait, I think I see the problem here...

Seriously, BYOD does NOT belong in an enterprise, except maybe, maybe for email clients on mobile devices. The rest of this "trend" is just the IT press pandering to users who want to play Angry Birds at work, and to kids who don't want to learn to use things other than what they know. (So much for the digital generation, BTW. Who's the unadaptive dinosaur in that scenario?). Well, also, most mobile devices are such poorly designed nightmares from a security point of view that nobody would ever actually be able to sell them to a real IT department, so you need end users to make the stupid choices and spend money. Otherwise these vendors would actually have to spend R&D money on stuff other than new displays and of course sufficient processing power to play games.

BTW, what does so-called "cloud computing" have to do with ANY of this, as in how would it affect sales of this device one way or another? I'm sick and tired of that poorly defined term being tossed about as the answer to or cause of absolutely everything these days.

Re:Tired of support complaining about BYOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40128253)

Are you the guy who at my last job who refused to allow Macs to use VPN when my job for the company was programming Macs? Because he was just as helpful.

Re:Tired of support complaining about BYOD (1)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131401)

I believe the issue is the beancounters cut down and limit helpdesk and then the policy changes where the amount of calls/tickets doubles, yet they are still supposed to have them all finished by the end of the day. This drives up support costs and puts the burden on the workers. If the employer refuses to pay for more support then those who need to get their email or other more appropriate business oriented task done will have to wait.

If this is indeed the reality of your workplace, it should not be too difficult for you to demonstrate the increase in ticket volume. If your manager still believes you can do twice the work with half the staff, it is your manager's problem - not your users' problem. Do not take it out on your users, or attempt to say what is good for the entire workforce globally (your comment "BYOD does not belong in the workplace") based upon your manager's near-sightedness.

Worse, they now need to learn IOS, Andriod, and Blackberry in edition to Windows and Cisco stuff on their dime.

I'm sorry, but this industry is constantly changing. That is the reality of it. Again, if you can't handle that you are in the wrong line of work.

Reverse vaporware? (4, Interesting)

Ignacio (1465) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123571)

Did anyone even know this thing existed?

Re:Reverse vaporware? (4, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123631)

It's the next big thing: Streisand marketing.

Re:Reverse vaporware? (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123793)

That seems to be happening more commonly these days, especially in the mobile world.

Company announces they will end a product line, and everyone looks around asking "Did you even know that existed?", of course I guess that explains why it's being ended.

Re:Reverse vaporware? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123835)

Did anyone even know this thing existed?

Yes, but I never actually saw one in the wild. I would have thought Cisco would have used the consumer marketing skills the Linksys people had to get this in the hands of consumers as a "Linksys compatible home wireless communication device".

Re:Reverse vaporware? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40125285)

They really do exist, as I saw one once, last summer in real life. Our rep had one. Never saw it again. Now i know why.

Re:Reverse vaporware? (2)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 2 years ago | (#40128529)

They really do exist, as I saw one once, last summer in real life. Our rep had one. Never saw it again. Now i know why.

I'm looking at one on my desk right now. It's a decent phone and convenient to snatch it out of the cradle and walk around mid-call, but I'd rather have something else for a tablet device. There are a number of flaws that make it a poor choice for a road warrior, like needing a power brick to charge. Putting the focus on software is the right move.

Re:Reverse vaporware? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40127451)

Glad to see I'm not the only one. i like to hang out on tech feeds like Daily Rotation and Fresh news and when i saw this I went "since when did Cisco make an iPad ripoff?" and had to go look it up. Maybe if these companies actually tried a little marketing and advertising then they might actually get some sales, don't ya think?

Looking at the specs [ciustablets.com] it was an interesting looking device although i'd have to question using an Atom for it. if you wanted to go X86 you would be better off with an AMD C series bobcat since that would give you dual cores and 1080p over HDMI and if you wanted battery life you'd be better off with ARM, and of course android is used primarily on ARM so I really don't get it. and why would you want to put a single core CPU [intel.com] in this day and age? Aren't most of the midrange and up tablets running dual cores? Looking at the price...holy fuck! The cheapest place is $940? for a single core Atom?

So maybe its best that they killed the thing and that we hadn't heard of it because somebody obviously didn't think this thing through.

We didn't even get to see the real cost. (1)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 2 years ago | (#40123749)

I suspect if it ever made it to market Cisco would have buried it in licensing costs for every feature.

Have you ever tried to provision their VoIP systems? You are typically in for 4 CALs per phone right off the bat for dial tone and voicemail. That is after paying double for their hardware vs similar SIP or UC handsets from other vendors..

"All But" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123773)

That's a stupid sentence filler that doesn't add anything. Do not want.

Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123857)

Cisco made a tablet???

BYOD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40123859)

FYAD!

Cisco? Those guys are still around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40124209)

lol

Re:Cisco? Those guys are still around? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40129129)

They have the only remaining corporate AOL account.

Since when did Cisco make Cialias Tablets? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40124617)

I didn't realize Cisco had gotten into the drug manufacturing business.

But then maybe the folks paying full price for Cisco's latest gear need meds; in that case, they should be manufacturing Aripiprazole.

!FAGORZ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40126187)

prima donnas, and unFCover a story of

Handspring'd!!! (1)

steveha (103154) | more than 2 years ago | (#40126383)

You need to imagine Strong Bad's voice [homestarrunner.com] saying it for full effect:

HANDSPRING'D!!!

I remember when the CEO of Handspring announced [palminfocenter.com] that smart phones were the future for Handspring, and sales of the Visor PDA went almost to zero immediately, and sales of Visor accessories (Springboard cards, etc.) also went almost to zero immediately.

The Cius Tablet has been shipping for less than a year, and the CEO just announced that no further development will ever be done. The chances of anyone getting interested in this now: 0%

And wow, Android 2.2 on a $750 device with a 7 inch screen and a funky Intel chip? 680 grams (about 1.5 pounds)? The review didn't say anything about an ARM emulator so I assume any Android apps with native code for ARM just won't run on this thing. I'd sooner put CyanogenMod 7 on an old Nook Color. 448 grams (just under a pound) by the way.

(Oh wait, I already did that. A Nook Color makes a surprisingly nice Android tablet! It is a lot faster with CM7 than with the factory Nook software.)

The fact that the CEO was willing to Handspring this device probably means that the sales were already close to zero, so he didn't feel there were any sales left to discourage.

"...you'll know what to do." (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40128803)

> "Cisco is slowly killing off its Cius business tablet [which] fell victim to the BYOD trend and cloud computing,

So a wise company would recognize the need for massive amounts of ultra high-speed routing hardware to supply a voracious Internet model where billions of computers are little more than dumb terminals streaming faux desktop video from computers running elsewhere?

Karl Malden as "The Soldier's" General Omar Bradley: "Do you have anyone in mind, Gerorge?"

Business only (1)

countach (534280) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130455)

The big mistake a lot of companies keep making is assuming you can focus on the business market and not get killed. RIM did it and it worked for a while, now they are toast. Sun was obsessed about ignoring the consumer, and they collapsed into nothing when consumer level hardware (PCs) ate their lunch. Microsoft's initial success was going against this trend (and overtaking IBM in the process) and their demise is in caring too much about enterprise sales of Office and Windows and ignoring consumer trends. Apple is set to kill everyone because they care only about the consumer, and all tech tends to trickle down until the consumer, and thereby who controls economy of scale of large sales, kills the narrowly focused business focused companies. BYOD is new, but the basic principle has been at work for a long time.

Everything changed in less than a year? (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130909)

"BYOD is the new norm.... 95% of organizations surveyed allow employee-owned devices in some way, shape or form in the office... These stats underscore a major shift in the way people are working, in the office, at home and on-the-go, a shift that will continue to gain momentum."

Cisco is now able to identify and predict "a shift that will continue to gain momentum," but a year ago, nobody could foresee it?

In 1980, nobody ever brought an Apple to work to run Visicalc?

I have no idea what the real story is. Maybe an upper-management personality clash. Maybe the device just turned out to be really bad. But I don't think the statistics and "new norm" story can be the real story.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>