Cisco: Evil Genius or Just Plain Evil? [Cisco-Starent Acquisition]
October 14, 2009
Filed Under: in Analysis, Featured Articles, Infrastructure 2.0, Mobile, Tech Policy
Author: John Furrier
Welcome back.
Yesterday, Cisco Systems agreed to acquire Starent Networks for $2.9 billion, a company most people have never heard or read about.
Did Cisco in one fell swoop put a bullet into heart of competition and the competitive landscape? Starent represents one big strategic piece of the massively growing mobile infrastructure puzzle – core network software for high speed mobile Internet.
Starent’s technology provides multimedia intelligence, core network functions and services that service providers can use to manage access from any 2.5G, 3G or 4G radio network to a mobile operator’s packet core network. Starent will become Cisco’s new Mobile Internet Technology Group within Cisco’s Service Provider Business,
In speaking with industry insider who wanted to remain anonymous the following was said
“Cisco just killed innovation and any form of real competition for the coming years. The Starent deal eliminates any competitive forces or partnerships between Alcatel Lucent, Juniper Networks, Motorola, and even the Chinese. Even at the expense of their own products and customers. Cisco chose to take Starents’ neutral position as a competitive threats off the table. For what? - a measly $2.9 billion and a nice little premium to Starent shareholders. It makes you wonder what Cisco is afraid of.”
Others are feeling the same way. The New York Times reports that this is not the normal size of the kinds of deals Cisco does. In that story NY Times quotes analyst firm Breakingviews :
Yet this deal is bigger than Cisco’s typical $1 billion or smaller target, the publication notes. Small companies usually have weak relationships with potential customers and a small sales staff, so plugging these groups into Cisco’s marketing machine maximizes revenue. Starent’s maturity means that kind of so-called revenue synergy will be harder to come by, Breakingviews suggests.
Moreover, the deals this month for Starent and Tandberg are the fifth- and sixth-biggest acquisitions Cisco has ever made, according to Dealogic. This smacks of Cisco, a $139 billion company, having to perform larger acquisitions — with arguably more execution risk — to move the needle, Breakingviews argues.
My Angle: Cisco basically bought off the market any competitive threat from Starent neutral position. Additionally this combination threatens innovation in the mobile infrastructure segment.
BreakingViews via the New York Times makes some very important points about Cisco’s growth strategy. In essence corporate development dealmaking is so Web 1.0 – it doesn’t scale but instead poses execution risks. Historically, we could all view the dot-com bubble as additional evidence that deal making and mashing up companies doesn’t create value.
Cisco, via Starent in essence owns the innovation timetable in mobile networks. It was rumored among industry players that Starent was about to run the table on the China market and take most of (if not) all of the US market. The question is what if Starent with a superior product remained independent? Could Starent have worked with all the players – more like Switzerland?
Cisco just locked down the market at the mobile core. In terms of the hardware Cisco will let the radio guys fight for that market.
As an Internet user and entrepreneur, I feel cheated. Could the possibilities of competition with a neutral player like Starent at the core be better for me? Better for the industry? What about developers?
It doesn’t smell right. It smells monopolistic. It seems like evil genius.
I’m sure that I’m going to get spammed by all the Cisco defenders out there. Is the industry better off with this deal? I’m open-minded to hear such argument.
With big game changing deals like this I monitor keywords like Innovation, Net Neutrality, Competitiveness, Technology Advances, New Venture Creation, among others. With this Cisco Starent deal many red flags comes up.
Just today a developer named Shazam received investment from a top tier venture capitalist Kliener Perkins Caufield & Byers to bring more innovation at the edge. This is representative of what is happening around the globe from edge devices like smart phones to advanced radios and hardware tat we need in the network and on the cell towers.
It’s bigger than just industry competition. It’s about the future of innovation with entrepreneurs out there. Just today Scott Kirsner, Boston Globe and industry writer, wrote about the entrepreneurial changes in Boston. – there is a counter culture going on among entrepreneurs. Cisco’s old school mindset of buy at all costs doesn’t work.
In my opinion by eliminating a competitive threat Cisco just sets back innovation years. This reminds me of the old CLEC days when policy strategy killed the broadband movement before the industry even got going. As a result of lobbying during the CLEC formation days innovation was stifled for years and the carnage - of dead companies, lost jobs, and billions wasted - were littered on the Internet roadways with companies like Covand, Northpoint, and others.
Look no further than the massive mainstream growth in internet usage over mobile devices and it’s clear this is important critical piece of the new user internet environment.
Did Cisco just put in play a virtual monopoly lock on the mobile core network?
Cisco spin machine was out in force and according to Jim Duffy at Networks World the analysts say Cisco is moving with the market.
"Cisco is now placing its bets on LTE, which will be the big 4G winner," says Laurence Swasey, senior analyst at Visant Strategies. "Mobile operators around the world are all in different stages of moving toward LTE. WiMAX was always a dark horse for the mobile world."
Swasey says LTE provides more voice capacity, "better data crunch" and better revenue per subscriber than mobile WiMAX. He says vendors like Cisco put early bets on the technology as a placeholder until the dust settled around which 4G technology would win out.
Mark Lowenstein , managing director of Mobile Ecosystem, echoes those views. "It is becoming clear that WiMAX is not being adopted for large scale deployments, outside Clearwire and a couple of Asia contracts," Lowenstein says. "Most wireless carriers on a 3GPP (WCDMA) or 3GPP2 (CDMA 2000) track are going to LTE. So Cisco wants to play in that sandbox as well, and with Starent it can capitalize."
Starent also allows Cisco to play a broader role in optimizing wireless networks for the 20-fold increase in usage that will be driven by smartphones, netbooks, and a new range of wireless embedded devices, and for new types of usage such as multimedia, Lowenstein says.
If it’s true that Starent had the superior product, market leadership, and a lock on all the mobile deals then Cisco isn’t placing a bet. It’s locking up the market.
This kind of position is defacto platform lock-in or monopoly. This might give Cisco a massive competitive advantage to innovate only their equipment and dictate to partners and customers which software and protocols to be used.
The Cisco Starent deal feels more like predatory move rather than one of innovation and advancement with benefit for their customers and users.
Maybe a brilliant corporate development move by Cisco that flexes corporate muscle and market power, but all I see is Cisco buying up the market, eliminating choice for developers, customers, and users.
Cisco Starent deal might look good on paper, but I just don’t get it. Will someone share with me how this is good for innovation, competitiveness, and the advancement of the mobile Internet.
Evil genius or just plain evil?
John, you asked at the end of the post "how this is good for innovation, competitiveness, and the advancement of the mobile Internet."
I've worked really close with Cisco for a lotta lotta years. I still have keys to a couple of their offices somewhere if I never pitched them. When in your memory has Cisco actually innovated or done anything but try to quash competition.
They buy competitors and up-and-comers, then integrate badly until products die. They open the standards by dragging Cico-centric drivel through the IETF for years when they can. They're generally late to the table, then the loudest voice. And advancement of mobile? They don't care about anything by the core. They simply want a mobile core running on 12000s. And from there out, it's all edge to them. Any little box with a Cisco label will do.
There are some really good people at Cisco. Really good. But it's as bad a meat grinder as Oracle for longevity. They're rapacious in the marketplace. They acquire without strategic vision. They're like my former employer, AT&T, in that regard (recall Olivetti, NCR, Western Union, Paradyne and more).
Evil genius perhaps. I personally don't hold Chambers in the same high regard many do. Then again, I remember how he did the job at Wang. Even his own people don't remember that.
Let's just say that while Cisco's a leader, I tend to take a pretty hard look at them all around. I'm glad to see a post that's so on-target and puts your opinion out there. Kudos for saying it.
I've always admired Cisco's cowboy days especially during their rapid growth years. Not sure the cowboy mentality works in today competitive market.
I'm not just a big fan for this deal. I just don't see the benefits for me and others - worse off for Cisco's customers.
It's a culture issue for Cisco and sometimes the past can be a big predictor for their future. We've seen this movie before (pre-bubble).
This on the heals of announcing a 'new developer program'. Some are askig how can Cisco be trusted if they behave this way. It doesn't reconcile with how they treat 3rd parties. I gotten some private emails since this post saying basically the following ....
"The company has a history of introducing products and solutions that rival their competitors well into a long established relationship, thus many are reticent to develop applications with the company for fear this will happen to them .. thus letting partners introduce new technology and innovations independently would hurt Cisco’s operating margins – and they can’t afford to let that happen."
I've never gotten a "warm and fuzzy" feeling from Cisco even when they have tried selling me solutions. It has always been a, "Hey, we're Cisco, you know you want us"-type vibe.
I agree about the cowboy days, but I think there was a shift from cowboy to robber baron at some point. If I had to pick when, I'd suggest either when Nortel acquired Bay Networks or at the big VoIP push when Cisco acquired Centillion. From that point on, I don't feel like they really even made a serious effort at R&D or real innovation.
I'm not a fan of this deal either. I think it will turn out to be bad for investors and bad for the industry. And I think it's the bell tolling for a close look at monopolistic practices in a new way for them.
As to innovation, I think you and I agree. You said "letting partners introduce new technology and innovations independently would hurt Cisco’s operating margins – and they can’t afford to let that happen." That sounds like protectionism of the status quo and a complete disregard for real effort at innovation.
[...] John Furrier Cisco: Evil Genius or Just Plain Evil? [Cisco-Starent Acquisition] [...]
[...] The "Cloud Ready" movement is very important for infrastructure, platforms, and applications to converge across all networks. Although important and relevant, it’s early. The vendors that are open and innovative will win. The wildcard variable in all of this – the role "open source" plays. The maturation of open source is leveling the playing field. It’s opening the market and threatening the market incumbents that have historically been dominating. [...]
[...] http://siliconangle.net/ver2/2009/10/14/is-cisco-evil/ [...]
[...] http://siliconangle.net/ver2/2009/10/14/is-cisco-evil/ [...]
[...] Rackspace business deal in essence saves FathomDB and ensures a healthy opportunity to add value. This is the big story and one that I’m focused on in other areas – Cisco in particular of late. [...]
[...] Differences: Open or Closed I wrote about Cisco's strategy here regarding their growth plans with respect to the Starent buy. Similar here with Cisco buying Tandberg. With these two [...]
[...] News was broke by the Wall Street Journal yesterday that Juniper is announcing will begin selling new wireless products for mobile carriers, responding to bigger rival Cisco Systems recent acquisition of Starent - of which I was critical. [...]