What is there to 'try harder' about? Keith, you know I'm a big fan of your work, but, unless I missed something, there really isn't any groundbreaking information here.
For example, take any tier 2 vendor. What do they need to do to become tier 1? More sales? Yeah, I can see that. More features? Well, more features increase complexity, cost and difficulty of use, so more features isn't necessarily a good thing.
How about this? I would be interested in your views on what a T2 vendor would need to do to become T1 with respects to technology? Maybe there is a company out there with T1 level technology with T2 level sales or exposure. If you ask any of us T2 guys, we are working very hard to get our story out there and when the story is told and understood, we get results. I can say that about the two T2 vendors I am most familiar with, Aerohive and Ruckus.
The Gartner Magic Quadrant is really good, but it ranks based mostly on the company, not the technology. Maybe you could rank these based on technology. For example:
Aruba - #1 integrated security solution
Aerohive - #1 controllerless technology
Ruckus - #1 in RF technologies (I was going to say range and throughput, but that is a bit much Kool-Aid. :) )
Meru - #1 in SCA architecture
The list above seems a bit bland as well, but I think this could be expanded. When it comes down to it, there is still enough differentiators within Wi-Fi vendors that each has pros and cons. One company may choose Aruba for their deployment and it would be the right one for them, and the other choose Ruckus (for example) and it would be right for them.
Not one vendor is the best at everything Wi-Fi.
(In case it isn't too obvious, I work for Ruckus :) )