CWNP
Your Account   |   View Cart
Search:   
Aruba copies Meru? You decide. PDF Print
Written by Devin Akin   
Monday, 29 September 2008

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3774851

If you haven't read the articles or gotten the countless press releases, Aruba just released ARM 2.0.  The more I read about ARM 2.0, the more it sounds like Meru...someone who's technology Aruba dedicated a 31-page whitepaper to dismissing earlier this year.  "Coordinated Channel Access", "Airtime Fairness", and "Performance Protection" are all concepts pioneered by Meru and absolutely TRASHED by Aruba in their whitepaper here:

http://www.arubanetworks.com/pdf/technology/whitepapers/wp_RFARCH.pdf

So now we trash the ideas and features of the competition publicly in long, detailed, inaccurate whitepapers - immediately followed by announcing the same ideas and features in our own company and products?   What the @!#$&^ ??  It's not like people aren't watching and listening already.

I've harped on this topic before...here:

http://www.cwnp.com/community/articles/whitepaper_lies.html

My mom used to say, "have you no shame?"...I think that's applicable here.  People just don't care what kind of BS their marketing dept throws out there.   As the market gets more competitive, they go to greater lengths to make a dollar - at the expense of their integrity.  Sad really.  Again, I think we need an industry watchdog organization that filters the BS (marketing propaganda), but since I don't know how to start such an organization I'll just volunteer to use this blog to expose this sort of behavior from whatever vendor deserves it.

I'll be honest with you about the example I've used here - I have no bone to pick with Aruba.  They listen to product feedback.  They make a top-notch products...a little hard to configure perhaps...but a high-quality product nonetheless. They have some seriously smart people there as well - developers, SEs, and management.  However, they need to chill with the marketing hoopla (including picking on specific other vendors) already.  They, like some others, need to learn that it's "Everybody against Cisco until further notice."  The 5% guy shouldn't pick on another 5% guy when the 70% guy is over there fast becoming the 75% guy.  Comprende?

 

Comments (5)Add Comment
...
written by Reggie, October 01, 2008
Devin, I am beginning to understand the marketing "Ruckus" too. Read that Aruba whitepaper by Farpoint last night. Yes it was quite in"meru"esting. Do however like the performance improvements Aruba found --sounds like beamforming is going to be the proof in the pudding for WLANs. Didn't Cisco buy a WiMAX vendor that is using that?
...
written by Reggie, October 08, 2008
Cisco is using "Adaptive Beamforming"and have a whitepaper that explains it. The next generation of wireless LANs is surely looking at this path ?

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/ns341/ns524/ns811/beamforming_whitepaper_fujitsu.pdf
...
written by Franck, October 15, 2008
Ruckus solution is far from beeing reliable for enterprise the don't manage properlly co-channel interference.
Aruba are just bounty hunters they will not last long in the wifi world if they don't introduce some ethic in their business
...
written by Devin Akin, October 15, 2008
I would have to disagree on how Ruckus handles co-channel interference, given their ability to do transmit beamforming, interference rejection (nulling) at the AP, and automatic channel planning. It's interesting technology they're using. I think Aruba as a whole is an ethical company, but I think their tendency to write marketing documents disguised as technical whitepapers is a bad practice. Additionally, I don't much care for the way they like to attack other vendor's technology without thoroughly understanding it. Job 38:2 'Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?'
...
written by Franck, October 16, 2008
Devin, I agree that from a marketing point of view beamforming and automatic channel planny is a good idea. Unfortunately people that tested it in a real ( not lab) enterprise conditions (more than 3 AP's) have reported huge performance issues because of co-channel interferance. Ruckus technology has been first developped for point to point links, to connect 1 or 2 devices to your setup box and it indeed it does teh job very well. Enterprise is a different story and they are under estimated how comples it is to coordinate mutiple AP's. See this link

http://blogs.pcmag.com/atwork/2008/09/what_of_ruckus_when_theres_too.php


Write comment
quote
bold
italicize
underline
strike
url
image
quote
quote

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
Next >


Add this feed to your online news reader