Just started the video, but had to pause to say this - I have been dealing with Cisco equipment for decades. I used to have a CCNA (it's long since expired since I moved into security and development), all that. I never knew in all that time that Cisco was based on San Francisco, nor did I realize the logo was the golden gate bridge 🤣🤣🤣
problem with cisco products is that they are usually more expensive but offer no better features than competitors and often come bundled with expensive licenses. cant think of any cisco hardware i would choose over other vendors besides core routers.
Cisco has several new and better features than other vendors, the problem is that for you to use them, you have to buy a huge list of expensive components and for more customers it is better to work with traditional networking where by price Cisco has to fight only in performance and the price define the business.
@@thegutech2285Tech The pandemic has also driven the move to cloud computing. if you don't have an office, you don't need a router! and with all your servers being cloud-based to a greater or lesser extent you can usually rely on your telecom provider to deal with the networking for you. Doubly true for SMB's/
that is so true,,, they aruge with security features on the access level , that no IT admin has understanding for and so Little Exploitation potential... a 48 SFP Port switch from Cisco costs around 15000$ when you can get the same for 2000$ from competitive ,,, sure the cheap switch has little to no features , but no admin is putting the work or time to use the extra features....
If a company needs to pay San Francisco salaries, it is not surprising that their equipment and training are going to be expensive. I like the design of the equipment and that is where it ends.
They also soured their reputation in the IT community by their horrific interfaces, painfully expensive and convoluted training programs, constantly changing certification requirements, and ignoring serious bugs in their hardware and operating systems. Most IT companies I have worked for ditched Cisco years ago in favor of better more agile companies, with better warranty and technical support.
I've worked in IT since the 70's and still do work with many locations and your statement seems quite off to me. I do not know a single, large scale, enterprise that doesn't heavily rely upon Cisco routers. And I work with government and a great deal of the auto industry in addition to other startups. There, simply, is not a viable competitor to Cisco. Juniper is as close as it gets and they are way behind. As someone who started with Bay networking equipment and Wellfleet routers, I really do wish it was as you imply even though I agree the warranty and tech support from Cisco is lacking and their cert programs are ridiculous.
@@DarkHorseSki I think with the government you are very correct. But its more a case of that's what on the authorized list and that what we already have in90 percent of the exiting sites.. Its momentum and for an organization as large as government they are the market makers. Same thing with banks, insurance companies and municipal governments. But I am not sure if that is still the case in private industry where they have some flexibility in choosing their product. The real issue is connected to the above-mentioned large organizations. If there is any need to exchange data (eg. Boeing that does government contracts) their hands are tied by the specs of the contracts and the need to share data. I think what will happen over time is cloud services will gradually dominate SMB's which then expand to become the new enterprise companies. Cloud services are the only chance to displace Cisco. Given that the three largest cloud service providers have their own proprietary hardware this could be significant. The question is how long will it take? Azure for the government may point the way and give us a timeline. Its adoption with be the nail I the coffin. Its still several decades away given how slow government is to change. But Large government data centers are being consolidated meaning less cisco equipment before the final step to cloud infrastructure.
@@PWingert1966 Amazon, IBM, Microsoft and Google still heavily use Cisco for their cloud. And the more people need network bandwidth, the MORE they use CISCO. The cloud is a plus for Cisco, not a minus.
I have installed nothing but Cisco Meraki's for two or three years now - hundreds of them - Cisco isn't losing any commercial ground from the view I have which of course is from underneath and not from over top. Their Meraki's are pretty sweet - no more need for a console cable (99% of the time that is) - they come in pre-programmed to download their config as soon as it hits the network and after about 30 minutes I usually have all of the connections re-seated in their new swtich/router
Cisco Switch - MSRP: $20,000 Dealer Buy: $14,000 Customer specific dealer buy: $6,000 Demo Price: $5000 it’s so hard to quote and compare when prices are all over the place
From the lan perspective they used to build robust products that could run uninterrupted for more than 5 years, the switches they started releasing around 5 years ago have lots of bugs in their software. It looks they don't have quality control anymore. Not to mention the amount of licenses, hw and sw support you need to purchase for each single thing. Also their support is getting very bad.
Most don't know that Cisco is the 5th largest SaaS company. They are being transformed into a software business. Also if you didn't connect the dots, Sandy Lerner is one of the OG female tech founders in Silicon Valley and the company is still around today. It sucks that she was pushed out.
Yeah thats something he missed here. Another thing hes missing is that google etc etc are not building their own routers. Theyre just buying from other companies like juniper or nokia or arista for their edge routers in their cloud centres.
You are kidding yourself if you think Cisco are even close to a software company. COVID and hardware supplies have proven this. Rebranding your support services as software doesn't make you a software company. Also the software licenses you are buying are for features/products 90% of their customer base doesn't use.
Cisco has one thing going for it... if you are in IT..you know how to operate Cisco equipment. Nothing comes close to Cisco no of people trained on Cisco products. It must amount for something that every person in the whole industry learns from your literature and learn about your offerings to even start their career. Cisco might not be better than other vendors. But it sure is most popular and they are very good at keeping it like that.
They sold their networking OS to HP. The HP switches are usually a 1/3rd of the price or less but are managed in the exact same way, usually with the exact same warranty.
@@BenjaminRonlund It's not just HP Aruba, even CLI for Ruckus switches is similar to Cisco's, it is like that so that someone new will find it easy to use their product. I have worked on idk how many vendors...only CLI i found more intuitive was of Nokia-Alcatel but their documentation is not at par with Cisco. Only place Cisco is crap is in firewalls space. Palo Alto, Zscaler are really great products. Even Fortinet is good. But nothing comes close to Cisco in Routing and Switching areas. Even new Cisco SDWAN is one of the best if not the best.
Cisco in the 90s is an example of a good business and a bad investment. When everyone knew that the Internet is the future and that networking equipment powers the Internet, so everyone bought Cisco because it was a sure thing and the stock became massively overvalued to the point that it still hasn't recovered today. In 2000 Cisco traded at 200X P/E ratio when it was already worth 500 billion. I guess investors expected Cisco to start selling routers to aliens in the future b/c that price was not sustainable even if they sold a router to every single human on the planet. In order to beat the market not only do you have to be right but you have to be right when everyone else is wrong. This is why it's difficult to beat the market.
The problem with Cisco is their emphasis on iso releasing standards when they used to set standards. Anyone and their dog can implement an iso standard, it takes competence to make people want to adopt your protocol because it works better
It is also much less of a business risk to influence and then market industry standards. It could be argued that Cisco was building up to critical mass when the balloon popped. If they didn't make a hard turn towards low risk business practices, it is not much of a stretch to say the company would have been forced into being an acquisition. I think the technology world, and society, was robbed of the company having time to stay in startup mode longer. That was a wild time to be in tech. Cisco wasn't acquiring companies for fun or even long term strategy. They were buying to make marginal improvements in the balance sheet. It was slaughter or be slaughtered.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 the easy solution would've been to assign newly grads to develop FPGA designs for iot device routing or something but they haven't produced anything of value at all. It would've cost like a few hundred grand to patent a dicom medical image viewing hardware d'ongle or anything to make their brand sit beside the word "new" over the last 10 years. Just arrogant management, I hate that in a company with resources.
@@paxdriver you entirely miss my point. The dot com bust prompted the major shareholders to force the company to transition from a startup with a focus on innovation to become a long term stable investment like IBM, Proctor and Gamble and the like. The thought was if a tech company couldn't convince the world they were going to remain in business for the next century, they were being liquidated at fire sale prices. Cisco had to become a industry player rather than leader in order to survive. The last ten years are irrelevant. Once you become a long term focused organization and establish stability, you don't rock that boat. The dot com bust was almost like the banking collapse of 2008. The difference is the carnage was focused on tech companies. For those familiar with this time frame, this is when Bezos arguably earned his wealth. Amazon was a money pit with no end in sight. He personally constantly played cheerleader begging the world to believe in him. He was building the scaffolding for a future empire. He managed to convince a lot of people to let Amazon be the one speculation stock to prop up in tech. If it wasn't for the man's almost religious belief in himself, Amazon wouldn't exist today. Come to think of it, the fund managers created a monster by rewarding his personality.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 I don't think you give enough credit to unscrupulous business in the case of Bezos... Requiring merchants to disclose their supply sources "to protect the marketplace" allowed Amazon basics and Alexa to coerce unbranded sales at below wholesale. Killing the competition is what gave us 10 yrs of MSFT / APPL when Linux bested both without hardly any budget. All that aside, a long term company "to survive" needs some r & d somewhere. They just misused those funds. Even a million would've been enough to host a competition across the ivy leagues for a new patent here and there. They totally screwed the pooch despite their precarious financial position. You miss my point - the money it takes to do anything, including funding research of others, is pennies compared to what they waste under the R&D line item they're already spending. It barely takes a team of 3 to develop a new specialized circuit board. They didn't even try, that's bad management. Good management does a lot with small resources like nasa. No growth, but highly productive.
Cisco hasn't been focusing well enough in their core business. Switches, routers and wireless. Their products aren't price competative, their hardware is surpassed by many others and most of their new software stacks are buggy AF. I still use only cisco products, but I was a much happier customer in 2004-2010 than in 2022.
Well .. "only cisco products" isn't 100% true. Their router performance has been SHIT when it comes to vpn/crypto. A cheap server/pc with AES-NI with VyOS installed, TRASHES Ciscos router performance completely .... FOR FREE. So I ditched cisco for routing/vpn. But I still use Cisco for L2 switching and wireless. Apropos wireless.... Cisco has had weird bugs with android phones and wireless for YEARS, over several WLC generations. Some of the bugs are documented, but they haven't been fixed for over a decade. This is why I like Cisco less and less.
When I was in College, there was a package of network management and infrastructure courses I took, all of which taught both general networking, but using Cisco hardware and mostly Cisco software. I found it very intuitive and enjoyable even to work with. Where I am going with this is that what Cisco has going is good, and it would be even better for them to focus back on networking once again. After all, it is their roots, but not just that, they do it well. We have an emerging technology many of us have heard of called Quantum computing. There are many areas of that technology that Cisco could delve into, such as quantum encryption, which we soon will badly need. Currently we have encryption available to us that if one tried to brute force through it, it could take up to 200 years to crack. With quantum computing, it'd get through it in seconds. So quantum encryption is extremely necessary and something for them to start exploring right now. Another they should be exploring right now is quantum networking, and quantum entanglement, both in fact being directly related, since quantum entanglement is basically like researching how to make a new network cable or new wireless frequency, while quantum networking involves figuring out the needed routines to get quantum computers to communicate. We're not far from quantum computing on a standard commercial scale, maybe less than 10 years even. So if they can get on it and make a workable product on any of those platforms before everyone else, they might just get out of this rut.
I had a heads up of the 2000 bubble burst but didn't recognize it. We had a large circuit board manufacturer customer who made boards for Cisco. Cisco cancelled their orders with the circuit board manufacturer and stuck them with $6 million of inventory. This came out of the blue and shortly after, the 2000 bubble burst. I also had a friend who was a day trader who lost $2.5 million in the stock market over a couple of days, which was 90% of what he had. I remember one of his largest holdings was Juniper Networks. It went from $232/share to $9.70. Ouch!
This brings back lots of memories - nice video! As a guy who got into high tech in the late 1990s, I remember a world where Cisco was everywhere. In virtually every market I worked in, Cisco was typically the dominant #1 competitor, and I spent most days of my early career literally thinking "how can we possibly compete with Cisco?" Even my dad, one of the most technologically illiterate people on earth, knows about Cisco because of how often I'd bring them up :)
I don't know why venture capitalist buy into a promising company and then kick out the founder/founders of the company. That behaviour in most cases isn't a good one for the acquired company. It only leads to the fall of the company with time rather than continued growth because such business to the founders is their 'special baby' and can only be nutured profitably by the founders, e.g Apple under Steve Jobs when he was invited back to take over the company. I believe Cisco would have continued to grow successfully if it had kept the founders in control of these companies over time rather than kicking them out. The future of Cisco? who knows....
Venture capitalists profit from the market capitalisation of the company, not the company actually doing well. They're playing the average returns - hoping that for every 50 companies that work fine, they get one that gets _vastly_ overblown in market cap, and they do everything they can to feed that bubble. There's loads of predatory strategies on the stock market, unfortunately - and when you only care about the money now (and not the people, or the sustainable future), screwing people over can give you a nice paycheck. I highly recommend Plutocracy (the game) for a nice experience of just how messed up this can get :)
I don't know that you can generalise Jobs and say that every company should be lead by founder. Maybe the founder just had one great idea but is starting to miss the bigger picture, that happens. It also happens that a succession of board/investor appointed CEOs have a clear vision and serve the company well on its way to success - maybe if you're lucky they don't have preconceived notions on how the company should be run and end up asking the right questions and receiving useful answers from qualified persons, and delegate responsibility appropriately, which puts them on the right path.
Any manufacturers certs are bogus and a cash cow for the manufacturers. If said certifications were like The Professional Engineers certifications, done completely independent of the manufacturer and run by the state, as is done for electricians, plumbers, Doctors, and PEs then said certifications would mean something.
@@TheDigitaldougCerts can carry value even if they are from a manufacturer, i dont think anyone with industry knowledge would consider for ex. CompTIA Network+ as superior to a Cisco certified network associate just because CompTIA is an independent organisation. Even if we treat all manufacturer certifications as bogus, Cisco should be an exemption to that rule for two reasons, first of their 40%+ market share creates an unparalleled demand for workers with knowledge about Cisco products and second, Cisco certifications covers a wide range of network topics from entry- to expert-level in their many certifications, thus the majority of knowledge needed for passing Cisco certifications are applicable to more than just Cisco products.
Nice Video. As a system engineer I had to deal a lot with Cisco (networking). I totally agree with your view. Cisco has some though competition (Netgear, HP, IBM...) in the networking industry. They still charge premium Prices in the business industry, acting like they are still unique. No, For half the Price I can have a simular/better and with even more features a Netgear Switch. The Name Cisco as a brand is still very strong, that's what's keeping them going. For how long? Only time will tell.
Their prices and exclusivity makes then unreachable for startups. I'd say younger generation of IT experts have more experience with Ubiquity and Netgear. Also their competitor is Cisco aftermarket, whom they fight very hard.
it is an abomination comparing Netgear to Cisco , for business critical applications it is always cisco , if you have like a home networking setup , sure use netgear . but for like a banking/financial sector for example ? no thanks
Cisco really hit rock bottom, and the downfall of its share market and there ethics . Great video 👍🏻 Also today is my birthday 🎉 By the way did you heard about Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard for almost 70 billion dollars 💵🤯
I disagree router and switching is still an emerging and exciting field, look at ubiquity and juniper and others. There issue is their business model behave as if they were the only one in the market and always tried to destroy other competitors and pushing their own propriety and expensive technology they never want to share is always all are nothing. They have brand recognition and all they need to do was to lead. so after a while, people were buying cheaper and less complex technologies. I think field is still open it is still their to take but the clock is ticking
I agree. Even if Facebook and Google made all their own networking hardwarw, there's a massive market for the other 99% of businesses out there. Cisco is losing to Juniper, Ruckus, etc because there's no longer any reason to pay 3x as much for the Cisco name. Cisco's TAC (support) used to be the absolute gold standard - true experts helping you within 30 minutes. Now you're lucky if the call center in India even looks at your ticket in 48 hours.
Exactly. Same thing befell IBM back in the day. It was a cliché that you could "never go wrong buying IBM." IBM relied on that for far too long. Meanwhile everyone else in the industry blew right past them.
Actually Ubiquity has cut into the SMB market of Cisco significantly. It's easier to use, more reliable and better understood in that community of IT pros.
@@PWingert1966 Ubiquiti has definetly displaced Cisco in the SMB market, but that accounts for very little of Cisco's revenue. Massive contracts with giant companies/governments are the real cash cows. That said, IT pros often start in the SMB space, and if the next generation of network pros only know Cisco as "that ridiculously expensive dinosaur", then that could make for some bad times in the future.
I don't believe that cisco will reach the top 5-10 companies, but they keep innovating, and being a former employee and a current customer, I have seen a huge change from what they used to do 10 years ago to now. Cisco did shift to SDA and SDWAN business in enterprise space. Cisco SDWAN has been doing great even though there have been many competitors. SDA solution is pretty unique and much robust than what others offer. They also get a lot of revenue from the services, rather than products and things like Business continuity services are cash cows, as they help them get constant revenues for multiple years from customers. Moving to the Subscription base model has also been profitable so far.
Hasn’t recovered yet and apple does the same thing with repurchasing it’s shares highly recommend buying Cisco stock and especially the way the markets acting right now if it dips of your chunk I’m buying more
You have kind of missed the point around stagnation. The reason for the stagnation was the emergence of cloud computing by Amazon, Microsoft and Google. You no longer need hundreds of routers to connect to servers. you just need internet access for clients which can easily be accomplished at the enterprise level by allowing the telecom provider. The other issue is that Google, Microsoft and Amazon have their own proprietary network infrastructure that does not rely on Cisco. Finally, the emergence of companies like Juniper and Foundry networks that had better equipment with easier to use, more reliable and more capable software that was not subject to hacking and exploits. Many of the telecom companies adopted routers for client site access. This is what really happened. You should cover Belkin next as it has not been incredibly successful either.
Crazy how in 03 this was a big thing for young students learning networking at the time. Now all that’s AI replaced all these positions. Got into solar when it was dogged on in early 2000s. Now can’t keep up and I mention cysco and thong songs come up. How fast tech changes… and forgotten.
Linksys was is a turd of a company. Their tech was always buggy. Datacenter level Hardware is their bread and butter. It was solid. Like all tech, its always about better faster CHEAPER.
Have you? I have worked for a big bank and it was a Cisco shop, most companies I've worked for are Cisco shops. Whenever I see a job post, I also see companies asking for a Cisco cert. I don't think they are on the decline that fast.
@@internati0naled974 I don’t think he’s referring to the industry, I think he’s talking about consumer products. I mean I work at a DC that is 90%+ HP Enterprise equipment for storage, and I’ve seen in total less than two dozen HP R&S. Also why would Cisco give a shit about a $200 consumer router? I routinely work on Cisco devices, who 1/8 networking boards cost avg of $150k? Chassis is another 300k min Why chase $200 when you’re shitting out $500k products?
Depends on where you work. I work for a fortune 500 company and they use nothing but all Cisco equipment. I'm in an out of thr Network closets every day full of catalyst switches. We have jabber ip phones too.
Another aspect to consider is that many customer are moving to software defined networking. Cisco's ACI is so difficult to implement that most companies look for other options.
Ubiquiti isn't really competing with Cisco. Their WiFi APs are excellent value, but their routing/switching is quite weak and their support is non existent. Juniper/Arista/Ruckus are eating Cisco's lunch, as they are just as good (or better) at 1/3rd the price.
Yeah but Ubiquity is more targeted towards the home network, small business and consumer market. Def not so much enterprise or data center, service provider market like cisco, or juniper. I work for a fortune 500 company and everything is all Cisco.
@@Recliness For starters, they literally don't support routing protocols: OSPF/BGP/etc. Their handling of VLANs is a bit wonky, 802.1X, until recently you couldn't even NAT to multiple IP addresses. Ubiquiti is amazing for small business/home use, but it doesn't operate in the same realm that Cisco or Juniper.
After 5 years working for Cisco, a year ago I was 1 month away to have my permanent position and they sacked me for a cheaper engineer from a country that didn't ask Cisco for basic human requirements (medical insurance and stuff like that). That executive sacking story you showed reminded me of myself. They don't listen to their employees, its all about buying small companies and saving as much money as they can. A month after they sacked me, an indian company hired me for 5 times my salary at Cisco, I'm now among the 2% with higher income (for professionals, not entrepreneurs) in my country. Yeah.
@@LogicallyAnswered Yes, but they wouldn't have had a company if they didn't sell it for the capital needed. So, They didn't get screwed over. They decided to see their company and then decided to sell the stocks they got. No one forced them to do ether and there is no requirement to be employed to own stock.
Right, no one forced them to sell the stock. From their perspective though, they think that they got screwed over by the VC firms that they chose. Maybe if they opted for slower growth or chose different vc firms, they wouldn’t have gotten ousted and they would’ve retained their stakes.
@@LogicallyAnswered Maybe, One thing for sure. The VC Firm was right. As you said their share went from 100m to billions. Getting fired would have been very profitable.
@@LogicallyAnswered The best president of a company that I've ever worked with was in a company that was owned by only three people. I was shocked to find out that it was the vice president that owned over 50%. Why wasn't he president? Wasn't his strength. Creating and building a company is far different then running and growing it.
Thanks man! Well, there’s no easy solution to burnout. For me, it really just comes down to doing what you committed to do regardless of whether you want to or not.
Why not a single word is mentioned about very well known CEO? John T. Chambers, in full John Thomas Chambers, (born August 23, 1949, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.), American business executive who, as CEO (1995-2015) of Cisco Systems, Inc., elevated the technology company into one of the largest corporations in the world in the early 21st century.
yeah same, the company I worked on basically stay away from cisco and let us build our own hardware (which is more feasible when it comes to servicing it), majority of our hardware back then is basically decommissioned and replaced it with a open source one since the licensing fee on this stuff is much cheaper than cisco offers.
They treat licenses like a product, when in fact its a scheme where they are just holding the hardware you purchased hostage, until you pay up the exorbitant extortion fee. Their hardware is top dollar, and on top of that, their license prices are beyond belief.
Get an 50.000$ Cisco 4451 Router. It will be limited to 1Gbit/s Throughput. Get an "Performance License" and it will handle 2Gbit/s. Get another "Top Gear Performance" License and only then no License limitation is left and only then you really can use the Hardware you owned in the first place till its fully extend. It is just beyond stupid... I do accept that "advanced software features" like IPsec are to be payed additionally...
cisco certifications are expensive, their networking devices are even more expensive, and licenses are also expensive. they're like Avaya of the networking industry, the gold standard for voip and SIP implementations.. and look where Avaya is now.
The Avaya comparison is really good. I think a similar future is in store for Cisco when it comes to network equipment. I remember every enterprise organization used AVAYA. But the introduction of hosted VoIP and better internet made phones services cheaper and easier to scale. Software defined networking will have a similar effect for Cisco. The only difference, is the Cisco's education system and promotion of CCNA keeps producing more believers.
that's the aim of SDN, but so far its adoption and maturity is still not here, and it didn't sweep the landscape as fast as softphones, asterisk and other VoIP systems (in relation to Avaya). So maybe a few more years? I'm personally not a fan of SDN, but hey, if they function the same if not better i'm all for it. Cisco certs are becoming irrelevant nowadays. I've let my cert go unrenewed last year, and If only companies don't require CCNA/P, I would have done that sooner. Cisco certs is slowly becoming just another money source for Cisco that is losing relevance in the industry..
Interestingly.....when the founders of Cisco were fired....they didn't have to divest their stock. They could have simply been shareholders and their stake would have been intact and been worth more than a 100 billion dollars. They didn't have to lose vast amounts of money when they were fired. They chose to dump the stock in the company they founded. Similarly with Steve Jobs. He misplayed stock option compensation in his own company that would have been worth tens of billions of dollars.
I was working for the US government 20+ years ago, and it was buying Cisco Systems, then a new regime entered Washington, and the government was buying from some other corporate high-tech company, then yet another regime took over Washington, and we were buying from yet another high-tech company. Did we need all that high-tech? Corporate Welfare in action. Some National Park Superintendents make a career in government, while others travel through that revolving door. The higher you get in government, the less it's about serving the people and putting taxpayer money to good use.
Cisco isn't going any where any time soon. They still dominate the enterprise market. I work for a Fortune 500 company that uses all Cisco equipment. I'm in an out of network closets every day full of catalyst switches. If schools still offer and teach partnership Cisco academy, then Cisco still remains as an industry standard esp in network certifications.
@@Newskin01 Yup. I touch Jabber phones too. And anyconnect. I've yet seen any other vendor in any neywork closet besides Cisco. I even use Cisco switches in my own home network and home lab. Super reliable for over 10+ years.
@@technicalthug Nah that's the companies decision. Every place I worked always had Cisco equipment. I've been working in IT professionally for the past 10 years now. Juniper, Arista, and HP are still the minority in some enteripses. I don't run into too many. Cisco has brand recognition and reliability and a leader in industry certifications for IT professionals.
@@technicalthug a persons age has nothing to do with product preference. I work with people of all ages and some younger than me. I'm in my mid 30s. I don't think Cisco is going anywhere any time soon. Like I said if schools still teaches Cisco network academy courses, it's going to remain the industry standard for quite some time. I mean the CCNA is miles ahead of the Network+ certification that has better recognition on resumes. You aren't going find many Network Engineer jobs that ask for a Network+ or Arista. Most are going want you to have that CCNA or CCNP.
For me one of the problems now with Cisco is that solutions are just short term, they change so little and keep releasing software products for things that they already have, and also the over complexity of everything, lot of tools nowdays are way better and simplier doing the same tasks as Cisco products.
always wondered what happened to cisco - 1990s if I had money i would have invested in them - only 3 companies i ever thought about investing in Cisco Apple Tesla
With their 'premium' branding and being more expensive, they have real tough competition with hardwares really. Their core business now is now seen as same quality with other players being mostly Chinese and Taiwanese.
Close enough. It's not that routers were entirely unheard of, just that you kind of had to make your own if you wanted one. Cisco was probably the first company that seriously sold routers to end users. And the base of their tech, developed at Stanford, was pretty well designed, so pretty much everyone who wanted to sell routers emulated cisco to some extent. Remember, this was still a time when most of the internet was in universities and the military, and most computer equipment was more or less DIY - this is still just 7 years after the Apple II, which was IIRC the first mass-produced computer that _wasn't_ a kit (i.e. you didn't have to assemble it yourself :D ). _Networked_ computers were even more rare. Bosack and Lerner just realized that there is an actual market for consumer networking equipment. The guys who designed the Stanford hardware and software were opposed to commercializing it entirely.
in my place, most people use mikrotik than cisco. i don't know why. i haven't use cisco, but mikrotik is common for people to use in their home or building.
Hold on im currently taking a class for cisco products and using their website to learn about subnetting, routers and all that other stuff should i try to learn something else as well?
Some truths here but much left out. A majority of companies still trust Cisco and while some other tech companies are creating their own hardware, large enterprises still rely on Cisco to move data and that is not changing anytime soon. This is a case of market maturity IMHO.
This is really interesting. because as you mentioned, this market was not saturated back in the 80s and 90's. Right now we are seeing a huuuge uprising in the Tesla stock in general, compared to what it was. Maybe Tesla is like Cisco back in the days, as Tesla really pushed the limits of Electric cars. But now all the major players wants a part of that cake. It's still a large population of people in the world that still drives fossil fuel cars. So it won't happen for a while. However, just think about it. The other thing with Cisco, they have a good brand reputation. But I personally think they are waaay to overpriced. Every company we had purchased Cisco, you either feel scammed or overpaying for something. And you know what, I have also worked with HP enterprise and Fortinet etc. It's just as fucking awesome and much cheaper. Sorry Cisco, I'm out
$500M in _today's_ dollars. Yes, inflation is _that_ bad. Which in turn means that over those 20 years, Cisco barely beat inflation. They remain profitable and relatively stable, but they're not really growing (which is not a bad thing necessarily, of course).
Trying to buy from Cisco was always an exercise in frustration. You had to call one of their business partners and inevitably you got a hold of some marketing know nothing. Experiences like this made me switch to the used marketplace where the people in those companies had a much better price and would help with the technical issues. Not meaning to be a Cisco basher, their hardware and software were magnitudes better than say a SonicWall (I think Dell bought that garbage) as it lasted much longer in harsher environments. Cisco's problem was they got a big head and forgot those that reliably and repeatably bought from them. My associates and competitors would laugh about Cisco having the best Sales Prevention department known to man. If you don't sell your product, then what has happened to Cisco is inevitable. It truly seems that marketing, bean counters and legal are doing to Cisco what they have done to GM, Chrysler, and Boeing. I wish them luck but failing to recognize that they are an engineering firm and should have someone with that expertise at the helm will doom them to the trash can of history.
Last year for first time since something like 1995 I ripped out all our cisco routers in our organizational and replaced them with VMware sdwan. I replaced around 140 routers all with vmware edges When LAN and wireless need replacing I will look at others Cisco have lost their way badly
Cisco is great and great quality BUT, I agree, becoming completely irrelevant with SDN and white/grey-boxes. Moreover, they still have not figured out how to execute on anything: Buy competing companies which only result in Cisco’s own products with other Cisco products (Instead of consolidation)
2:23 Holy shit, I used literally all of the equipment in the picture when I was in school xD But I never realized their logo was the golden gate. I always thought it was like Wi-Fi waves or something like that
I spent sooooo much time using Packet Tracer x) (And I killed a router too. I'm pretty sure it just died while I was using it, because I didn't do anything sensitive on it, I was just configuring a vLAN. But my teacher, when he went to see what I have done [it was a final exam, so yeah, he looked at how I configured the router] he said "Well, I don't see anything, you're sure you have configured the router ?" I answered that yes, I did, and I even tested the configuration, and it worked. Then he did some things and told me I broke the router)
Recently a Cisco tech support engineer taught me that if PING is disabled on any server, you can not access it from remote location. I kept my mouth shut. And agreed.
Yeah, this was so weird. Oh no! Only 100 mill! They could have had 150 billion today! Like, bruh. 100 mill is more than anyone needs. I would never have regretted that if it was me.
moral of the story? Don't become a bag holder. Imagine bag holding for 30 years. In that amount of time you could have made your money back with the tied up capital.
Cisco just _bought_ NAT :D In any case, it was a pretty good solution for the time and their business (offices and data centres). Of course, I never had any trouble getting a public IPv4 address, it's just people who don't care who "suffer". And it's not like there was a snowball's chance in hell of deploying IPv6 in time to prevent widespread internet troubles for everyone - NAT was the only reason the internet didn't just stop in 97 :D
@@LuaanTi It's good for office users, but hell for developers. Just imagine connecting two remote PC for video call. Developers have no idea what to do before WebRTC concept which involves relay servers plus complex data transmission algorithm for mass conference
@@KangJangkrik I know, I've been there. It's one of the big reasons why P2P is so complicated, and why serving content (like video calls or games) quietly moved to servers owned by someone else. But just look at the adoption of IPv6 even today - sure, it would have been somewhat faster if NAT didn't exist... but it would still suck. And of course, there are always those who profit from end-to-end addressing not being readily available.
That’s funny, because in the 1990s and early 2000s, Cisco didn’t sell any servers. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Are you calling the Cisco teal green router or switch a ‘server’?
Incomplete review:Once with pandemic company colab became very important, cisco servers and quality didnt improve much so their reputation sufered a LOT in facor of Microsoft Teams, which became a standard collaboration app very quick and requires less expensive hardware
I don't see artists wanting to use Web X it's just not as smooth as Zoom. Zoom has a better product that's easier to use and has a noticeable difference in picture quality. Zoom has better focus on the background so you can see exactly what's going on around the main subject. Webx just can't give as clear shot of the subject and the background and it seems to struggle in fast moving shots blurring out the background and missing the finer details. WebX is annoying when you're trying see that thing that most don't notice happening Like I said it's mostly a quality issue but most people are not paying much attention anyway and most people wear glasses and don't get their eyes checked as often as they should so I guess WebX can just slip by.
Though lately theyhave all of those fake so called discounts with garbage online courses of certificates that expire after 5 years.. . I don't understand how a skill you know can expire..... but those are lately spamming social media feeds and emails....
We are in a semi-global housing bubble. Now that the cardboard boxes in China are crumbling it will be a matter of mere years for the west to realise that half a million is not a sound investment to maybe rent out two condos. I'd advise you to short the giant construction and renting firms that took advantage of this. It happens in China now, it happened in Spain a long time ago, a lot of european countries are next.
@@jennyrymmai888 market cap is the how much the company is worth which is calculated by multiplying the total number of shares in the market with stock price and stock price is just how much a stock is worth which could be easily manipulated so which is why you should consider market cap first and stock price after that to get the real valuation of a company
@@bavidlynx3409 valuation of a company is mostly based on discounted cash flows. Market cap is useful to see where your valuation model falls within market.
Just started the video, but had to pause to say this - I have been dealing with Cisco equipment for decades. I used to have a CCNA (it's long since expired since I moved into security and development), all that. I never knew in all that time that Cisco was based on San Francisco, nor did I realize the logo was the golden gate bridge 🤣🤣🤣
Hahaha! That's hilarious!
How was your transition to security? I’m trying to go that route
Me too. I assumed the logo represented an electrical wave, that all their technology was based off.... you live and learn.....
WTF? Seriously?
Actually from an insider, the bridge logo was originally not inspired by the golden gate bridge but the bay bridge.
problem with cisco products is that they are usually more expensive but offer no better features than competitors and often come bundled with expensive licenses. cant think of any cisco hardware i would choose over other vendors besides core routers.
Cisco has several new and better features than other vendors, the problem is that for you to use them, you have to buy a huge list of expensive components and for more customers it is better to work with traditional networking where by price Cisco has to fight only in performance and the price define the business.
@@thegutech2285 A bunch of word vomit, non-answer. Define new & better. Also nice projection on the type of hardware you think commenter has.
@@thegutech2285Tech The pandemic has also driven the move to cloud computing. if you don't have an office, you don't need a router! and with all your servers being cloud-based to a greater or lesser extent you can usually rely on your telecom provider to deal with the networking for you. Doubly true for SMB's/
that is so true,,, they aruge with security features on the access level , that no IT admin has understanding for and so Little Exploitation potential... a 48 SFP Port switch from Cisco costs around 15000$ when you can get the same for 2000$ from competitive ,,, sure the cheap switch has little to no features , but no admin is putting the work or time to use the extra features....
If a company needs to pay San Francisco salaries, it is not surprising that their equipment and training are going to be expensive. I like the design of the equipment and that is where it ends.
They also soured their reputation in the IT community by their horrific interfaces, painfully expensive and convoluted training programs, constantly changing certification requirements, and ignoring serious bugs in their hardware and operating systems. Most IT companies I have worked for ditched Cisco years ago in favor of better more agile companies, with better warranty and technical support.
To renew my CCNA would be 300$. 300$ for something that has never gotten me hired.
😂
@@LARKXHIN At one time Cisco certs were like an Anty into a poker game. It was more to keep people out than to qualify them to come into the game.
I've worked in IT since the 70's and still do work with many locations and your statement seems quite off to me. I do not know a single, large scale, enterprise that doesn't heavily rely upon Cisco routers. And I work with government and a great deal of the auto industry in addition to other startups. There, simply, is not a viable competitor to Cisco. Juniper is as close as it gets and they are way behind. As someone who started with Bay networking equipment and Wellfleet routers, I really do wish it was as you imply even though I agree the warranty and tech support from Cisco is lacking and their cert programs are ridiculous.
@@DarkHorseSki I think with the government you are very correct. But its more a case of that's what on the authorized list and that what we already have in90 percent of the exiting sites.. Its momentum and for an organization as large as government they are the market makers. Same thing with banks, insurance companies and municipal governments. But I am not sure if that is still the case in private industry where they have some flexibility in choosing their product. The real issue is connected to the above-mentioned large organizations. If there is any need to exchange data (eg. Boeing that does government contracts) their hands are tied by the specs of the contracts and the need to share data. I think what will happen over time is cloud services will gradually dominate SMB's which then expand to become the new enterprise companies. Cloud services are the only chance to displace Cisco. Given that the three largest cloud service providers have their own proprietary hardware this could be significant. The question is how long will it take? Azure for the government may point the way and give us a timeline. Its adoption with be the nail I the coffin. Its still several decades away given how slow government is to change. But Large government data centers are being consolidated meaning less cisco equipment before the final step to cloud infrastructure.
@@PWingert1966 Amazon, IBM, Microsoft and Google still heavily use Cisco for their cloud. And the more people need network bandwidth, the MORE they use CISCO. The cloud is a plus for Cisco, not a minus.
I have installed nothing but Cisco Meraki's for two or three years now - hundreds of them - Cisco isn't losing any commercial ground from the view I have which of course is from underneath and not from over top. Their Meraki's are pretty sweet - no more need for a console cable (99% of the time that is) - they come in pre-programmed to download their config as soon as it hits the network and after about 30 minutes I usually have all of the connections re-seated in their new swtich/router
Cisco Switch -
MSRP: $20,000
Dealer Buy: $14,000
Customer specific dealer buy: $6,000
Demo Price: $5000
it’s so hard to quote and compare when prices are all over the place
From the lan perspective they used to build robust products that could run uninterrupted for more than 5 years, the switches they started releasing around 5 years ago have lots of bugs in their software. It looks they don't have quality control anymore. Not to mention the amount of licenses, hw and sw support you need to purchase for each single thing. Also their support is getting very bad.
Most don't know that Cisco is the 5th largest SaaS company. They are being transformed into a software business. Also if you didn't connect the dots, Sandy Lerner is one of the OG female tech founders in Silicon Valley and the company is still around today. It sucks that she was pushed out.
According to the video she and her partner stole the tech from Stanford. Why should we be sad that a thief only profited a $100 mil?
Capitalism mate capitalism
Yeah thats something he missed here. Another thing hes missing is that google etc etc are not building their own routers. Theyre just buying from other companies like juniper or nokia or arista for their edge routers in their cloud centres.
You are kidding yourself if you think Cisco are even close to a software company.
COVID and hardware supplies have proven this.
Rebranding your support services as software doesn't make you a software company.
Also the software licenses you are buying are for features/products 90% of their customer base doesn't use.
Cisco has one thing going for it... if you are in IT..you know how to operate Cisco equipment. Nothing comes close to Cisco no of people trained on Cisco products. It must amount for something that every person in the whole industry learns from your literature and learn about your offerings to even start their career.
Cisco might not be better than other vendors. But it sure is most popular and they are very good at keeping it like that.
Ah yes, familiarity is definitely a major plus point for Cisco
This is true. I've used tons of IT softwares from multiple companies but Cisco if not the best, is one of the best I've ever used
They sold their networking OS to HP. The HP switches are usually a 1/3rd of the price or less but are managed in the exact same way, usually with the exact same warranty.
To think that CLI was an afterthought. All the education business for that became a standard.
@@BenjaminRonlund It's not just HP Aruba, even CLI for Ruckus switches is similar to Cisco's, it is like that so that someone new will find it easy to use their product. I have worked on idk how many vendors...only CLI i found more intuitive was of Nokia-Alcatel but their documentation is not at par with Cisco.
Only place Cisco is crap is in firewalls space. Palo Alto, Zscaler are really great products. Even Fortinet is good. But nothing comes close to Cisco in Routing and Switching areas. Even new Cisco SDWAN is one of the best if not the best.
I used to work for Cisco. Their problem is that they’re too top heavy thanks to the shareholders.
Could you explain what you mean by top heavy? Is the number of execs and managers too much compared to product developers and software developers?
Cisco in the 90s is an example of a good business and a bad investment. When everyone knew that the Internet is the future and that networking equipment powers the Internet, so everyone bought Cisco because it was a sure thing and the stock became massively overvalued to the point that it still hasn't recovered today. In 2000 Cisco traded at 200X P/E ratio when it was already worth 500 billion. I guess investors expected Cisco to start selling routers to aliens in the future b/c that price was not sustainable even if they sold a router to every single human on the planet. In order to beat the market not only do you have to be right but you have to be right when everyone else is wrong. This is why it's difficult to beat the market.
This sounds like tesla
Cisco was the first stock I bought
at the peak
and that's why I only do index funds now
The problem with Cisco is their emphasis on iso releasing standards when they used to set standards. Anyone and their dog can implement an iso standard, it takes competence to make people want to adopt your protocol because it works better
It is also much less of a business risk to influence and then market industry standards. It could be argued that Cisco was building up to critical mass when the balloon popped. If they didn't make a hard turn towards low risk business practices, it is not much of a stretch to say the company would have been forced into being an acquisition.
I think the technology world, and society, was robbed of the company having time to stay in startup mode longer. That was a wild time to be in tech. Cisco wasn't acquiring companies for fun or even long term strategy. They were buying to make marginal improvements in the balance sheet. It was slaughter or be slaughtered.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 the easy solution would've been to assign newly grads to develop FPGA designs for iot device routing or something but they haven't produced anything of value at all. It would've cost like a few hundred grand to patent a dicom medical image viewing hardware d'ongle or anything to make their brand sit beside the word "new" over the last 10 years. Just arrogant management, I hate that in a company with resources.
@@paxdriver you entirely miss my point. The dot com bust prompted the major shareholders to force the company to transition from a startup with a focus on innovation to become a long term stable investment like IBM, Proctor and Gamble and the like.
The thought was if a tech company couldn't convince the world they were going to remain in business for the next century, they were being liquidated at fire sale prices. Cisco had to become a industry player rather than leader in order to survive.
The last ten years are irrelevant. Once you become a long term focused organization and establish stability, you don't rock that boat. The dot com bust was almost like the banking collapse of 2008. The difference is the carnage was focused on tech companies.
For those familiar with this time frame, this is when Bezos arguably earned his wealth. Amazon was a money pit with no end in sight. He personally constantly played cheerleader begging the world to believe in him. He was building the scaffolding for a future empire. He managed to convince a lot of people to let Amazon be the one speculation stock to prop up in tech. If it wasn't for the man's almost religious belief in himself, Amazon wouldn't exist today. Come to think of it, the fund managers created a monster by rewarding his personality.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 I don't think you give enough credit to unscrupulous business in the case of Bezos... Requiring merchants to disclose their supply sources "to protect the marketplace" allowed Amazon basics and Alexa to coerce unbranded sales at below wholesale. Killing the competition is what gave us 10 yrs of MSFT / APPL when Linux bested both without hardly any budget.
All that aside, a long term company "to survive" needs some r & d somewhere. They just misused those funds. Even a million would've been enough to host a competition across the ivy leagues for a new patent here and there. They totally screwed the pooch despite their precarious financial position.
You miss my point - the money it takes to do anything, including funding research of others, is pennies compared to what they waste under the R&D line item they're already spending.
It barely takes a team of 3 to develop a new specialized circuit board. They didn't even try, that's bad management. Good management does a lot with small resources like nasa. No growth, but highly productive.
Companies inventing their own standards is the worst possible thing for consumers. Adopting ISO is a win for us all
Cisco hasn't been focusing well enough in their core business. Switches, routers and wireless.
Their products aren't price competative, their hardware is surpassed by many others and most of their new software stacks are buggy AF.
I still use only cisco products, but I was a much happier customer in 2004-2010 than in 2022.
Well .. "only cisco products" isn't 100% true.
Their router performance has been SHIT when it comes to vpn/crypto.
A cheap server/pc with AES-NI with VyOS installed, TRASHES Ciscos router performance completely .... FOR FREE.
So I ditched cisco for routing/vpn. But I still use Cisco for L2 switching and wireless.
Apropos wireless.... Cisco has had weird bugs with android phones and wireless for YEARS, over several WLC generations. Some of the bugs are documented, but they haven't been fixed for over a decade.
This is why I like Cisco less and less.
When I was in College, there was a package of network management and infrastructure courses I took, all of which taught both general networking, but using Cisco hardware and mostly Cisco software. I found it very intuitive and enjoyable even to work with.
Where I am going with this is that what Cisco has going is good, and it would be even better for them to focus back on networking once again. After all, it is their roots, but not just that, they do it well. We have an emerging technology many of us have heard of called Quantum computing. There are many areas of that technology that Cisco could delve into, such as quantum encryption, which we soon will badly need. Currently we have encryption available to us that if one tried to brute force through it, it could take up to 200 years to crack. With quantum computing, it'd get through it in seconds. So quantum encryption is extremely necessary and something for them to start exploring right now. Another they should be exploring right now is quantum networking, and quantum entanglement, both in fact being directly related, since quantum entanglement is basically like researching how to make a new network cable or new wireless frequency, while quantum networking involves figuring out the needed routines to get quantum computers to communicate.
We're not far from quantum computing on a standard commercial scale, maybe less than 10 years even. So if they can get on it and make a workable product on any of those platforms before everyone else, they might just get out of this rut.
I had a heads up of the 2000 bubble burst but didn't recognize it. We had a large circuit board manufacturer customer who made boards for Cisco. Cisco cancelled their orders with the circuit board manufacturer and stuck them with $6 million of inventory. This came out of the blue and shortly after, the 2000 bubble burst. I also had a friend who was a day trader who lost $2.5 million in the stock market over a couple of days, which was 90% of what he had. I remember one of his largest holdings was Juniper Networks. It went from $232/share to $9.70. Ouch!
This brings back lots of memories - nice video! As a guy who got into high tech in the late 1990s, I remember a world where Cisco was everywhere. In virtually every market I worked in, Cisco was typically the dominant #1 competitor, and I spent most days of my early career literally thinking "how can we possibly compete with Cisco?" Even my dad, one of the most technologically illiterate people on earth, knows about Cisco because of how often I'd bring them up :)
Highly doubt they could even reach top 15. But I don't see them failing
Yeah, that seems to be where they're headed. Just stagnation.
From owning WebEx to losing to Zoom. Cisco could have have dominated the tech space in video conference tech especially today.
I don't know why venture capitalist buy into a promising company and then kick out the founder/founders of the company. That behaviour in most cases isn't a good one for the acquired company. It only leads to the fall of the company with time rather than continued growth because such business to the founders is their 'special baby' and can only be nutured profitably by the founders, e.g Apple under Steve Jobs when he was invited back to take over the company. I believe Cisco would have continued to grow successfully if it had kept the founders in control of these companies over time rather than kicking them out. The future of Cisco? who knows....
Venture capitalists profit from the market capitalisation of the company, not the company actually doing well. They're playing the average returns - hoping that for every 50 companies that work fine, they get one that gets _vastly_ overblown in market cap, and they do everything they can to feed that bubble. There's loads of predatory strategies on the stock market, unfortunately - and when you only care about the money now (and not the people, or the sustainable future), screwing people over can give you a nice paycheck. I highly recommend Plutocracy (the game) for a nice experience of just how messed up this can get :)
I don't know that you can generalise Jobs and say that every company should be lead by founder. Maybe the founder just had one great idea but is starting to miss the bigger picture, that happens. It also happens that a succession of board/investor appointed CEOs have a clear vision and serve the company well on its way to success - maybe if you're lucky they don't have preconceived notions on how the company should be run and end up asking the right questions and receiving useful answers from qualified persons, and delegate responsibility appropriately, which puts them on the right path.
Despite the competition - Cisco certifications are still recognized as industry standards. They still maintain a relevant education system.
kill the boer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can kinda confirm this first hand, one of my university courses has basically been studying a Cisco course.
Their certs are good. It's a must for network folks
Any manufacturers certs are bogus and a cash cow for the manufacturers. If said certifications were like The Professional Engineers certifications, done completely independent of the manufacturer and run by the state, as is done for electricians, plumbers, Doctors, and PEs then said certifications would mean something.
@@TheDigitaldougCerts can carry value even if they are from a manufacturer, i dont think anyone with industry knowledge would consider for ex. CompTIA Network+ as superior to a Cisco certified network associate just because CompTIA is an independent organisation.
Even if we treat all manufacturer certifications as bogus, Cisco should be an exemption to that rule for two reasons, first of their 40%+ market share creates an unparalleled demand for workers with knowledge about Cisco products and second, Cisco certifications covers a wide range of network topics from entry- to expert-level in their many certifications, thus the majority of knowledge needed for passing Cisco certifications are applicable to more than just Cisco products.
Nice Video. As a system engineer I had to deal a lot with Cisco (networking). I totally agree with your view. Cisco has some though competition (Netgear, HP, IBM...) in the networking industry. They still charge premium Prices in the business industry, acting like they are still unique. No, For half the Price I can have a simular/better and with even more features a Netgear Switch. The Name Cisco as a brand is still very strong, that's what's keeping them going. For how long? Only time will tell.
Their prices and exclusivity makes then unreachable for startups. I'd say younger generation of IT experts have more experience with Ubiquity and Netgear. Also their competitor is Cisco aftermarket, whom they fight very hard.
Netgear? Yeah you are defintely a systems guy.
it is an abomination comparing Netgear to Cisco , for business critical applications it is always cisco , if you have like a home networking setup , sure use netgear . but for like a banking/financial sector for example ? no thanks
Cisco really hit rock bottom, and the downfall of its share market and there ethics .
Great video 👍🏻
Also today is my birthday 🎉
By the way did you heard about Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard for almost 70 billion dollars 💵🤯
Ah yes, that acquisition is nuts! Microsoft is really becoming a game publishing giant. Also, happy birthday Arnav!! 🎉
@@LogicallyAnswered thanks 😊 hari
@@LogicallyAnswered are you going to make a video on this acquisition ?
I’m not sure, maybe. I usually don’t cover news events.
@@LogicallyAnswered ok it is fine
I disagree router and switching is still an emerging and exciting field, look at ubiquity and juniper and others. There issue is their business model behave as if they were the only one in the market and always tried to destroy other competitors and pushing their own propriety and expensive technology they never want to share is always all are nothing. They have brand recognition and all they need to do was to lead. so after a while, people were buying cheaper and less complex technologies. I think field is still open it is still their to take but the clock is ticking
I agree. Even if Facebook and Google made all their own networking hardwarw, there's a massive market for the other 99% of businesses out there. Cisco is losing to Juniper, Ruckus, etc because there's no longer any reason to pay 3x as much for the Cisco name. Cisco's TAC (support) used to be the absolute gold standard - true experts helping you within 30 minutes. Now you're lucky if the call center in India even looks at your ticket in 48 hours.
@@thelight3112 cisco support is most overrated service I have interacted with. expensive and mostly useless
Exactly. Same thing befell IBM back in the day. It was a cliché that you could "never go wrong buying IBM." IBM relied on that for far too long. Meanwhile everyone else in the industry blew right past them.
Actually Ubiquity has cut into the SMB market of Cisco significantly. It's easier to use, more reliable and better understood in that community of IT pros.
@@PWingert1966 Ubiquiti has definetly displaced Cisco in the SMB market, but that accounts for very little of Cisco's revenue. Massive contracts with giant companies/governments are the real cash cows.
That said, IT pros often start in the SMB space, and if the next generation of network pros only know Cisco as "that ridiculously expensive dinosaur", then that could make for some bad times in the future.
I don't believe that cisco will reach the top 5-10 companies, but they keep innovating, and being a former employee and a current customer, I have seen a huge change from what they used to do 10 years ago to now. Cisco did shift to SDA and SDWAN business in enterprise space. Cisco SDWAN has been doing great even though there have been many competitors. SDA solution is pretty unique and much robust than what others offer. They also get a lot of revenue from the services, rather than products and things like Business continuity services are cash cows, as they help them get constant revenues for multiple years from customers. Moving to the Subscription base model has also been profitable so far.
Ah, thanks for the insight Ekhor!
They keep innovating? Why did it take open source to figure out multiplexing tcpip? What have I missed of their invention in the last 10 years?
Hasn’t recovered yet and apple does the same thing with repurchasing it’s shares highly recommend buying Cisco stock and especially the way the markets acting right now if it dips of your chunk I’m buying more
My father bought Cisco stock in 1999... And he sold it in 2007
Dang, that's unfortunate
You have kind of missed the point around stagnation. The reason for the stagnation was the emergence of cloud computing by Amazon, Microsoft and Google. You no longer need hundreds of routers to connect to servers. you just need internet access for clients which can easily be accomplished at the enterprise level by allowing the telecom provider. The other issue is that Google, Microsoft and Amazon have their own proprietary network infrastructure that does not rely on Cisco. Finally, the emergence of companies like Juniper and Foundry networks that had better equipment with easier to use, more reliable and more capable software that was not subject to hacking and exploits. Many of the telecom companies adopted routers for client site access. This is what really happened. You should cover Belkin next as it has not been incredibly successful either.
rightly said
Exactly! Cloud is a major challenge.
Crazy how in 03 this was a big thing for young students learning networking at the time.
Now all that’s AI replaced all these positions.
Got into solar when it was dogged on in early 2000s. Now can’t keep up and I mention cysco and thong songs come up.
How fast tech changes… and forgotten.
Seems I'm seeing less and less of Cisco devices nowadays. Linksys is no longer a common brand and they've been overtaken by Chinese companies.
Ah interesting, the Chinese ones are probably much cheaper
Linksys was is a turd of a company. Their tech was always buggy. Datacenter level Hardware is their bread and butter. It was solid. Like all tech, its always about better faster CHEAPER.
Have you? I have worked for a big bank and it was a Cisco shop, most companies I've worked for are Cisco shops. Whenever I see a job post, I also see companies asking for a Cisco cert. I don't think they are on the decline that fast.
@@internati0naled974 I don’t think he’s referring to the industry, I think he’s talking about consumer products.
I mean I work at a DC that is 90%+ HP Enterprise equipment for storage, and I’ve seen in total less than two dozen HP R&S.
Also why would Cisco give a shit about a $200 consumer router? I routinely work on Cisco devices, who 1/8 networking boards cost avg of $150k? Chassis is another 300k min
Why chase $200 when you’re shitting out $500k products?
Depends on where you work. I work for a fortune 500 company and they use nothing but all Cisco equipment. I'm in an out of thr Network closets every day full of catalyst switches. We have jabber ip phones too.
8:09 - wow, this story about the zoom founder is amazing! Zoom has crushed WebEx in the last 5 years!
No they haven't, WebEx is still a strong product.
Another aspect to consider is that many customer are moving to software defined networking. Cisco's ACI is so difficult to implement that most companies look for other options.
Ubiquiti is growing fast af. But most schools have Cisco partnerships which I’m sure makes them a lot
Ubiquiti isn't really competing with Cisco. Their WiFi APs are excellent value, but their routing/switching is quite weak and their support is non existent.
Juniper/Arista/Ruckus are eating Cisco's lunch, as they are just as good (or better) at 1/3rd the price.
Yeah but Ubiquity is more targeted towards the home network, small business and consumer market. Def not so much enterprise or data center, service provider market like cisco, or juniper. I work for a fortune 500 company and everything is all Cisco.
@@thelight3112 what makes them weak?
@@Recliness For starters, they literally don't support routing protocols: OSPF/BGP/etc. Their handling of VLANs is a bit wonky, 802.1X, until recently you couldn't even NAT to multiple IP addresses. Ubiquiti is amazing for small business/home use, but it doesn't operate in the same realm that Cisco or Juniper.
@@thelight3112 ahhh, interesting! What is the purpose of those things out of curiosity, I would love to learn.
After 5 years working for Cisco, a year ago I was 1 month away to have my permanent position and they sacked me for a cheaper engineer from a country that didn't ask Cisco for basic human requirements (medical insurance and stuff like that). That executive sacking story you showed reminded me of myself. They don't listen to their employees, its all about buying small companies and saving as much money as they can. A month after they sacked me, an indian company hired me for 5 times my salary at Cisco, I'm now among the 2% with higher income (for professionals, not entrepreneurs) in my country. Yeah.
How the heck can you change someone deciding to sell their stock on their own terms into getting screwed over?
They wouldn’t have sold if they didn’t get fired. Selling their shares was like a rebellion/protest move.
@@LogicallyAnswered Yes, but they wouldn't have had a company if they didn't sell it for the capital needed. So, They didn't get screwed over. They decided to see their company and then decided to sell the stocks they got. No one forced them to do ether and there is no requirement to be employed to own stock.
Right, no one forced them to sell the stock. From their perspective though, they think that they got screwed over by the VC firms that they chose. Maybe if they opted for slower growth or chose different vc firms, they wouldn’t have gotten ousted and they would’ve retained their stakes.
@@LogicallyAnswered Maybe, One thing for sure. The VC Firm was right. As you said their share went from 100m to billions. Getting fired would have been very profitable.
@@LogicallyAnswered The best president of a company that I've ever worked with was in a company that was owned by only three people. I was shocked to find out that it was the vice president that owned over 50%. Why wasn't he president? Wasn't his strength. Creating and building a company is far different then running and growing it.
Hey amazing video dude... How do you manage burnouts???
Thanks man! Well, there’s no easy solution to burnout. For me, it really just comes down to doing what you committed to do regardless of whether you want to or not.
@@LogicallyAnswered Great answer 👍
My aunt and uncle used to work for cisco, i even got a few shirts and a pair of FlexPods, so this video intrigued me
Cisco is now a semiconductor company as well. It is worth mentioning
Arthur are you here?
Why not a single word is mentioned about very well known CEO?
John T. Chambers, in full John Thomas Chambers, (born August 23, 1949, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.), American business executive who, as CEO (1995-2015) of Cisco Systems, Inc., elevated the technology company into one of the largest corporations in the world in the early 21st century.
yeah same, the company I worked on basically stay away from cisco and let us build our own hardware (which is more feasible when it comes to servicing it), majority of our hardware back then is basically decommissioned and replaced it with a open source one since the licensing fee on this stuff is much cheaper than cisco offers.
They treat licenses like a product, when in fact its a scheme where they are just holding the hardware you purchased hostage, until you pay up the exorbitant extortion fee. Their hardware is top dollar, and on top of that, their license prices are beyond belief.
Get an 50.000$ Cisco 4451 Router. It will be limited to 1Gbit/s Throughput. Get an "Performance License" and it will handle 2Gbit/s. Get another "Top Gear Performance" License and only then no License limitation is left and only then you really can use the Hardware you owned in the first place till its fully extend. It is just beyond stupid... I do accept that "advanced software features" like IPsec are to be payed additionally...
Just before I retired from my job in IT I dropped a Cisco Nexus 1000V Switch on my foot and I am suing for disability! Those things are a death trap!
cisco certifications are expensive, their networking devices are even more expensive, and licenses are also expensive. they're like Avaya of the networking industry, the gold standard for voip and SIP implementations.. and look where Avaya is now.
thank you for bringing back to memory that horrible piece of b*s*t that is avaya, havent worked with more not reliable phones
The Avaya comparison is really good. I think a similar future is in store for Cisco when it comes to network equipment. I remember every enterprise organization used AVAYA. But the introduction of hosted VoIP and better internet made phones services cheaper and easier to scale. Software defined networking will have a similar effect for Cisco. The only difference, is the Cisco's education system and promotion of CCNA keeps producing more believers.
that's the aim of SDN, but so far its adoption and maturity is still not here, and it didn't sweep the landscape as fast as softphones, asterisk and other VoIP systems (in relation to Avaya). So maybe a few more years? I'm personally not a fan of SDN, but hey, if they function the same if not better i'm all for it.
Cisco certs are becoming irrelevant nowadays. I've let my cert go unrenewed last year, and If only companies don't require CCNA/P, I would have done that sooner. Cisco certs is slowly becoming just another money source for Cisco that is losing relevance in the industry..
Interestingly.....when the founders of Cisco were fired....they didn't have to divest their stock. They could have simply been shareholders and their stake would have been intact and been worth more than a 100 billion dollars.
They didn't have to lose vast amounts of money when they were fired. They chose to dump the stock in the company they founded.
Similarly with Steve Jobs. He misplayed stock option compensation in his own company that would have been worth tens of billions of dollars.
I was working for the US government 20+ years ago, and it was buying Cisco Systems, then a new regime entered Washington, and the government was buying from some other corporate high-tech company, then yet another regime took over Washington, and we were buying from yet another high-tech company. Did we need all that high-tech? Corporate Welfare in action. Some National Park Superintendents make a career in government, while others travel through that revolving door. The higher you get in government, the less it's about serving the people and putting taxpayer money to good use.
Sandy and Leonard didn't get screwed over. They were petulant and sold all their stock in a childish fit and still made ridiculous money.
I have high hopes for Cisco
Ah, why so?
Are you expecting Kodak film to come back one day?
So do I ! That they fail
I have a current CCNA & CCNP I never knew the back story really interesting
Cisco isn't going any where any time soon. They still dominate the enterprise market. I work for a Fortune 500 company that uses all Cisco equipment. I'm in an out of network closets every day full of catalyst switches. If schools still offer and teach partnership Cisco academy, then Cisco still remains as an industry standard esp in network certifications.
Not to mention collaboration hardware and phones. Also the many many services they offer outside of hardware.
@@Newskin01 Yup. I touch Jabber phones too. And anyconnect. I've yet seen any other vendor in any neywork closet besides Cisco. I even use Cisco switches in my own home network and home lab. Super reliable for over 10+ years.
@@technicalthug Nah that's the companies decision. Every place I worked always had Cisco equipment. I've been working in IT professionally for the past 10 years now. Juniper, Arista, and HP are still the minority in some enteripses. I don't run into too many. Cisco has brand recognition and reliability and a leader in industry certifications for IT professionals.
@@technicalthug a persons age has nothing to do with product preference. I work with people of all ages and some younger than me. I'm in my mid 30s. I don't think Cisco is going anywhere any time soon. Like I said if schools still teaches Cisco network academy courses, it's going to remain the industry standard for quite some time. I mean the CCNA is miles ahead of the Network+ certification that has better recognition on resumes. You aren't going find many Network Engineer jobs that ask for a Network+ or Arista. Most are going want you to have that CCNA or CCNP.
When you are the one writing the checks your opinion of Cisco will change. Expensive if warranted is ok, but gouging is not.
For me one of the problems now with Cisco is that solutions are just short term, they change so little and keep releasing software products for things that they already have, and also the over complexity of everything, lot of tools nowdays are way better and simplier doing the same tasks as Cisco products.
It's ridiculous how overpriced their equipment is. They want to move to the consumer space but keep the business prices too.
That's because your buying the name just like the tool brand "Snap On", your buying the name.
always wondered what happened to cisco - 1990s if I had money i would have invested in them -
only 3 companies i ever thought about investing in Cisco Apple Tesla
Well, it's a good thing you didn't invest in 2000
I have worked in Cisco projects and have worked in those Cisco buildings in Bangalore 😁😁
With their 'premium' branding and being more expensive, they have real tough competition with hardwares really. Their core business now is now seen as same quality with other players being mostly Chinese and Taiwanese.
Good video. Just had to say for the part about "Sequoia capital" it's pronounced suh-KOI-yah
Thanks for the correction David
Im not sure I understand. Cisco invented the router? Really?
They didn't invent it, but they did play a large role in commercializing routers, servers, and other network devices
Close enough. It's not that routers were entirely unheard of, just that you kind of had to make your own if you wanted one. Cisco was probably the first company that seriously sold routers to end users. And the base of their tech, developed at Stanford, was pretty well designed, so pretty much everyone who wanted to sell routers emulated cisco to some extent. Remember, this was still a time when most of the internet was in universities and the military, and most computer equipment was more or less DIY - this is still just 7 years after the Apple II, which was IIRC the first mass-produced computer that _wasn't_ a kit (i.e. you didn't have to assemble it yourself :D ). _Networked_ computers were even more rare.
Bosack and Lerner just realized that there is an actual market for consumer networking equipment. The guys who designed the Stanford hardware and software were opposed to commercializing it entirely.
in my place, most people use mikrotik than cisco. i don't know why. i haven't use cisco, but mikrotik is common for people to use in their home or building.
Cisco is not worth it anymore. There are better alternatives. Aruba is a much better product line.
Hold on im currently taking a class for cisco products and using their website to learn about subnetting, routers and all that other stuff should i try to learn something else as well?
you didnt cover where all this networking equipment is manufactured
Some truths here but much left out. A majority of companies still trust Cisco and while some other tech companies are creating their own hardware, large enterprises still rely on Cisco to move data and that is not changing anytime soon. This is a case of market maturity IMHO.
Great video- I urge you to listen to Sandy Learner’s episode of How I Built This on NPR.
Not me thinking the cisco logo was a longitudinal wave 💀💀💀
This is really interesting. because as you mentioned, this market was not saturated back in the 80s and 90's. Right now we are seeing a huuuge uprising in the Tesla stock in general, compared to what it was. Maybe Tesla is like Cisco back in the days, as Tesla really pushed the limits of Electric cars. But now all the major players wants a part of that cake. It's still a large population of people in the world that still drives fossil fuel cars. So it won't happen for a while. However, just think about it.
The other thing with Cisco, they have a good brand reputation. But I personally think they are waaay to overpriced. Every company we had purchased Cisco, you either feel scammed or overpaying for something. And you know what, I have also worked with HP enterprise and Fortinet etc. It's just as fucking awesome and much cheaper. Sorry Cisco, I'm out
You lost me on Tesla.
In my country cisco’s arch enemy is mikrotik
Cisco was never a $500 billion company , it's peak marketcap was $271 billion in jan 2001 according to companies market cap...
$500M in _today's_ dollars. Yes, inflation is _that_ bad. Which in turn means that over those 20 years, Cisco barely beat inflation. They remain profitable and relatively stable, but they're not really growing (which is not a bad thing necessarily, of course).
Nope, cisco underwent a stock split. Do your maths again. It was worth 500bn in 2001
Trying to buy from Cisco was always an exercise in frustration. You had to call one of their business partners and inevitably you got a hold of some marketing know nothing. Experiences like this made me switch to the used marketplace where the people in those companies had a much better price and would help with the technical issues.
Not meaning to be a Cisco basher, their hardware and software were magnitudes better than say a SonicWall (I think Dell bought that garbage) as it lasted much longer in harsher environments.
Cisco's problem was they got a big head and forgot those that reliably and repeatably bought from them. My associates and competitors would laugh about Cisco having the best Sales Prevention department known to man.
If you don't sell your product, then what has happened to Cisco is inevitable. It truly seems that marketing, bean counters and legal are doing to Cisco what they have done to GM, Chrysler, and Boeing. I wish them luck but failing to recognize that they are an engineering firm and should have someone with that expertise at the helm will doom them to the trash can of history.
Last year for first time since something like 1995 I ripped out all our cisco routers in our organizational and replaced them with VMware sdwan. I replaced around 140 routers all with vmware edges
When LAN and wireless need replacing I will look at others
Cisco have lost their way badly
Yo hold up, how did you pronounce Sequoia?
Its the best place to work. I wanted to see Cisco to be top 5 again.
Got $100M and that's considered being screwed? Idk I'd just go start another company.
They never had to work another day for the rest of their life and could live off interests alone. lol
Cisco is great and great quality BUT, I agree, becoming completely irrelevant with SDN and white/grey-boxes. Moreover, they still have not figured out how to execute on anything: Buy competing companies which only result in Cisco’s own products with other Cisco products (Instead of consolidation)
Cisco was the networking dominant until juniper Nokia arista Huaweii appeared
Never will they reach that share value again.
2:23 Holy shit, I used literally all of the equipment in the picture when I was in school xD But I never realized their logo was the golden gate. I always thought it was like Wi-Fi waves or something like that
I spent sooooo much time using Packet Tracer x) (And I killed a router too. I'm pretty sure it just died while I was using it, because I didn't do anything sensitive on it, I was just configuring a vLAN. But my teacher, when he went to see what I have done [it was a final exam, so yeah, he looked at how I configured the router] he said "Well, I don't see anything, you're sure you have configured the router ?" I answered that yes, I did, and I even tested the configuration, and it worked. Then he did some things and told me I broke the router)
Recently a Cisco tech support engineer taught me that if PING is disabled on any server, you can not access it from remote location.
I kept my mouth shut. And agreed.
Yes bcz I need to enable remote in order to access
@@farazkazmi725 After the tech support call (without getting solution) I have disabled PING and still can access the server remotely.
In 2001 Kodak was making billions of dollars too. Cisco is in serious trouble.
You pronounce "Sequoia" like this: "suh·kwoy·uh".
I’m sure they just fine with 100 milli
Hahaha true
Yeah, this was so weird. Oh no! Only 100 mill! They could have had 150 billion today! Like, bruh. 100 mill is more than anyone needs. I would never have regretted that if it was me.
I choose Dlink product. Cheaper. Meet all my needs.
I hate this company because of its corporate culture!
Great video
moral of the story? Don't become a bag holder. Imagine bag holding for 30 years. In that amount of time you could have made your money back with the tied up capital.
I have an interview tomorrow at cisco
Good luck Varun!
How did it go? What do you do?
John Chambers?
so basically they're more becoming like SEGA
Thanks to Cisco for ducktape technology like NAT instead of newer IP version
Cisco just _bought_ NAT :D In any case, it was a pretty good solution for the time and their business (offices and data centres). Of course, I never had any trouble getting a public IPv4 address, it's just people who don't care who "suffer". And it's not like there was a snowball's chance in hell of deploying IPv6 in time to prevent widespread internet troubles for everyone - NAT was the only reason the internet didn't just stop in 97 :D
@@LuaanTi It's good for office users, but hell for developers. Just imagine connecting two remote PC for video call. Developers have no idea what to do before WebRTC concept which involves relay servers plus complex data transmission algorithm for mass conference
@@KangJangkrik I know, I've been there. It's one of the big reasons why P2P is so complicated, and why serving content (like video calls or games) quietly moved to servers owned by someone else. But just look at the adoption of IPv6 even today - sure, it would have been somewhat faster if NAT didn't exist... but it would still suck.
And of course, there are always those who profit from end-to-end addressing not being readily available.
missed the most popular product they had. Blue Pizza Box Servers. Cisco servers were the most popular rack mount servers in the 90s and early 2000s.
That’s funny, because in the 1990s and early 2000s, Cisco didn’t sell any servers. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Are you calling the Cisco teal green router or switch a ‘server’?
Incomplete review:Once with pandemic company colab became very important, cisco servers and quality didnt improve much so their reputation sufered a LOT in facor of Microsoft Teams, which became a standard collaboration app very quick and requires less expensive hardware
I tapped on this thinking it was going to be a slo-mo of someone popping a bubble
OOF
XD
TwT
The chic interviewing don valentine is kinda hot 🥵 yo. Hard to believe Cisco was once bigger than Microsoft and Apple 🍎 combined.
Netgear doesn't make or sell servers.
But, they do provide networking solutions.
@@LogicallyAnswered and you missed the big elephant in servers, HP. Sorry you have to deal with the IT crowd 😅
may be 32768 is a reason not many people do trust Cisco
I don't see artists wanting to use Web X it's just not as smooth as Zoom. Zoom has a better product that's easier to use and has a noticeable difference in picture quality. Zoom has better focus on the background so you can see exactly what's going on around the main subject. Webx just can't give as clear shot of the subject and the background and it seems to struggle in fast moving shots blurring out the background and missing the finer details. WebX is annoying when you're trying see that thing that most don't notice happening Like I said it's mostly a quality issue but most people are not paying much attention anyway and most people wear glasses and don't get their eyes checked as often as they should so I guess WebX can just slip by.
Get Microsoft Teams and dump the Chinese Goverment out that hides in Zoom ;)
Too many companies with comparable products at much cheaper prices.
Though lately theyhave all of those fake so called discounts with garbage online courses of certificates that expire after 5 years.. . I don't understand how a skill you know can expire..... but those are lately spamming social media feeds and emails....
You are wrong about the share price my dude. The share price has little to do with the value of the company, you should be comparing market cap
We are in a semi-global housing bubble. Now that the cardboard boxes in China are crumbling it will be a matter of mere years for the west to realise that half a million is not a sound investment to maybe rent out two condos. I'd advise you to short the giant construction and renting firms that took advantage of this. It happens in China now, it happened in Spain a long time ago, a lot of european countries are next.
people have to stop looking at stock price and just look at market cap, i wish google did this too
True, many people think that market cap and stock price are the same thing
What's the difference
@@jennyrymmai888 market cap is the how much the company is worth which is calculated by multiplying the total number of shares in the market with stock price and stock price is just how much a stock is worth which could be easily manipulated so which is why you should consider market cap first and stock price after that to get the real valuation of a company
@@bavidlynx3409 valuation of a company is mostly based on discounted cash flows. Market cap is useful to see where your valuation model falls within market.
???? What does this comment even mean smfh
So long as they still have the military, they'll be fine.
Not all that are called will be selected