Ask Slashdot: Do You Trust When a Vendor Tells You To Buy New Parts?

Nerval's Lobster writes "Roughly 85 percent of IT managers polled by Forrester said they would hold onto networking infrastructure longer, but vendors retire products prematurely in an effort to force customers to upgrade. In a response that may seem familiar to anyone who's ever been pressured into buying a maintenance contract—either by an enterprise vendor or a major electronics retailer—over 80 percent of the 304 respondents said they don't like the misrepresented cost savings, new fees, and inflexible pricing models—but buy the products anyway. One of the survey's interesting points is that IT decision makers aren't willing to contradict the vendor. The uncertainty seems to come from the fact that the vendor may in fact be right—and a customer who contradicts what they're saying may end up shouldering the blame if the equipment goes south. It's the 'you never got fired for buying IBM' argument, applied to the networking space. The problem, of course, is that the vendor often works for its own agenda. Do you upgrade when the vendor (or reseller) suggests you do so? Or do you stick to your own way of doing things?"

Comments

Depends on the consequences of being wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

And, let's face it, whose money you're spending.

Re:Depends on the consequences of being wrong

[asmkm22]

In my experience, the only people who get rewarded for cost savings are the ones in management. They're the ones who get the bonuses and gratitude of the people who actually run the company. As a result, there is literally no upside to turning down a vendor-recommendation, yet plenty of potential blame if you do. That being said, if you really think an upgrade isn't needed, just submit official vendor recommendations, and maybe a section detailing the alternative, including stuff like expected costs savings versus risk of hardware failure for keeping the "older" stuff in place, etc.. Make sure you include hard numbers, when it comes to the cost of upgrading versus the cost and risks of not. If they decide to save the money and not upgrade, they did so will full-documented knowledge of any risks that come with it. Keep a copy of your recommendation, and their response, in your CYA file.

It's also worth noting that IT guys get something out of upgrading vendor stuff before absolutely necessary: experience with newer equipment. It's fun to be able to play with the latest and greatest, and also allows for a nice method of updating your skill set on a resume. You always want an exit strategy, so the last thing you need is to look for a new job with a resume filled with outdated vendor equipment. Unless it's something really rare or specialized, of course.

Re:Stop buying gear without lifetime warentee

[Anonymous Coward]

Lifetime warranty from Cisco doesn't mean for the lifetime of the piece of equipment. Quoth Cisco (from http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/general/warranty/English/LH2DEN__.html):

As long as the original End User continues to own or use the Product. In the event of discontinuance of product manufacture, Cisco warranty support is limited to five (5) years from the announcement of discontinuance.

Consumables vs New.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a related question. Do you trust when a car manufacturer tells you to buy new parts?

Specifically, the maintenance schedule in the owner's packet that comes with a new car. For example, at 60,000 miles:

1) Replace engine coolant

2) Replace HEV inverter coolant

3) Replace manual transmission oil

4) Replace automatic transmission/CVT/eCVT fluid

5) Replace differential oil

6) Replace engine drive belts

7) Replace radiator cap

8) Replace transfer case oil

Are all these necessary, or is the dealer trying to squeeze more money from the owner? I've heard various mechanics coming down on both sides of this question. Does the differential oil really need periodic replacing? Do you need new drive belts if there's no visible damage?

(Also: Do you replace the engine oil and filter every 2000 miles, or is this just another way to squeeze money from the consumer?)

You're talking about consumables. What the vendors are doing is the same as a car manufacturer telling you to buy a new car because it's out of date - regardless if it still works or not.

Ask for evidence ...

[gstoddart]

I'm sure most of us have dealt with sales reps over the years, and seen all sorts of claims of bigger/better/faster/cheaper, but they're often unsubstantiated by anything.

We had a scenario with a vendor a while back where functionality we were relying on wasn't going to be in their next version until a year after it was too late for us. (Add on component we'd been using for years.)

So, we basically forced them into extending support since the only reason we couldn't upgrade was because of their inability to deliver functionality we already had.

Then they spent the next year constantly asking us when we would be upgrading, and conveniently trying to forget about the signed contract they'd given us to extend support and telling us we were about to become unsupported.

You need to work with your vendor, but you sure as hell don't need to take what they tell you at face value without something to support it.

At the end of the day, most of the salesmen (because that's what your rep is) are more worried about their commission check than anything else, and will certainly mislead your or pressure you to do something which doesn't really benefit you.