Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
From: PC <paul4004 () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:26:56 -0600

This particular product is often used by the SMB types.  This changes
things a bit.  While I disagree with paying for signature updates you
didn't use (It's a service, and I don't care about their fixed costs, I
went into it knowing I'd have a license for the signatures as they were
expired), I do understand where they are coming from for software/firmware
development.  Unfortunately, they don't decouple the two.

However, this particular vendor is bad in a market where gear often passes
hands or goes lapsed for years.  After a certain point (IE: 1 yr), you
shouldn't have to true-up.  This particular company makes your 3-year
lapsed appliance pay for 3 years of missed updates, at which point you
might as well just throw it in the garbage.

Same thing with my license plates -- if they go for 11 months or less, I
have to "true up".  If I put a car in storage for over a year, I can
purchase a new registration.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM, James M Keller <jmkeller () houseofzen org>wrote:

On 12/21/2011 3:22 PM, David Swafford wrote:
In my position within the enterprise vertical,  backdating to the
expiration (not the payment date) seems to be the norm.  Cisco does
this on SmartNet, as does SolarWinds and a number of other vendors
I've worked with.  We don't typically slip on the dates intentionally,
but our procurement and legal groups have a habit of fighting over
wording on the contracts.


Having worked in the past at a shop that sold managed support agreements
for software we sold - the overhead for staffing and code and
blacklisting type data sets are spread out in the yearly support
agreement.    A lapsed customer has not funded the delta changes in code
and data set from lapsed data to renewal date, but will get to take
advantage of the work.
While a new customer also will not fund these on a new starting
contract,  that is normally considered some cost of acquiring new

Now in some cases on the other end of the transaction I've found it
cheaper to buy 'new' then it was to 'true up' the support.    I haven't
found a vendor that wouldn't go that route, even if it involved getting
some escalation on the sales side first.    At that point it's the cost
of customer retention vs new business that the vendor needs to worry
about.    However if you are happy with the product, and the renewal
isn't more then 'new' purchases - we all shouldn't be baulking having to
'true up' contracts.

James M Keller

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]