That only works if there's no competition. It looks like UBNT want's to eat MT's lunch now with EdgeMax and my guess is that they will if MT does not step up.If you have a product but no customers, then you will fail, whereas Mikrotik seems to have customers who want way more than company can offer. You might get a better understanding of their approach after watching the interview with Arnis Riekstins. It is an "I do it my way" approach and it's been successful so far, because demand is growing from customers like me and you. Your post just confirms it.
Considering the HUGE difference in feature set, it is going to take EdgeOS some years to even reach feature parity with what RouterOS currently offers, and I cant imagine Mikrotik are exactly sitting on their hands.That only works if there's no competition. It looks like UBNT want's to eat MT's lunch now with EdgeMax and my guess is that they will if MT does not step up.
Sales volume and market share is not just a matter of having certain features. Support, logistics, marketing, sales machine are important too. Of courese the presence of mandatory features is necessary. Now UBNT have more wireless market despite the fact that the MikroTik have more features. While the market is growing everyone can find their niche.Considering the HUGE difference in feature set, it is going to take EdgeOS some years to even reach feature parity with what RouterOS currently offers, and I cant imagine Mikrotik are exactly sitting on their hands.That only works if there's no competition. It looks like UBNT want's to eat MT's lunch now with EdgeMax and my guess is that they will if MT does not step up.
Each will carve out their niche in the market, their is certainly room for both.
How so? You yourself are an expert! Are you the one about whom it was written: "We rely on consultants, because we have so many and so good ones." Why do you need to support yourself? That is to say support for support. As I expected, this model does not work well in practice.As for the original question. I use Juniper gear on a daily basis, as do I use Extreme Networks and Fortinet. What is the primary difference between these vendors and Mikrotik? Support.
It sounds like you are comparing RouterOS to a general purpose operating system, which it is not.And second using a separate chip for data plane. And if the second advantage is controversial because advances in multi-core CPU can make this approach impractical. Then use such OS is a huge plus (IMHO).
I am not claiming to be an expert. I need support from Mikrotik as much as the next person, I was just putting my personal observation of the differences between Mikrotik and the "Big Boys" out there.How so? You yourself are an expert! Are you the one about whom it was written: "We rely on consultants, because we have so many and so good ones." Why do you need to support yourself? That is to say support for support. As I expected, this model does not work well in practice.
No I'm not comparing RouteOS with general-purpose operating system. I understand the advantages of specialized systems - ready to use out of the box, stability, ease of setup.It sounds like you are comparing RouterOS to a general purpose operating system, which it is not.And second using a separate chip for data plane. And if the second advantage is controversial because advances in multi-core CPU can make this approach impractical. Then use such OS is a huge plus (IMHO).
As for hardware accelerated forwarding, Mikrotik do this too, you may want to check out Fast-Path http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Fast_Path
It's no doubt that ROS hardware addresses most of networking needs, from wired to wireless, from edge to datacenter. However MT's success is limited by lack of stability. Even rudimentary knowledge base about bugs and available features is nonexistent. Change logs are incomplete and lack detail. It's pretty much left to end user to do live tests to see if features continue on working. Everyone does a lot of redundant work validating if features are working. Maybe having users as testers keeps the cost in check, but it certainly does keep MT from competing with Cisco/Juniper in deployments where downtime is money lost.when you have restricted environment and that is working for you - it is fine, when you grow out of it you have a problem. Either you have to upgrade using technology from your current provider or you have to go to new equipment provider. As far as RouterOS goes - you can get basic device that has restrictions on how well it can perform, but it is possible to use stuff from us to upgrade further while still being in same environment you are used to know. This gives you speed of deployment, gives you device upgrade path and device re-use when you expand your network. I do not see this in competition products you are so eager to promote on this technical forum.
And this is for most part me talking as home user. Who started out with RB532 when that device was all the rage, now updated with 802.11n card still provides wireless.
This^^^^^^It's no doubt that ROS hardware addresses most of networking needs, from wired to wireless, from edge to datacenter. However MT's success is limited by lack of stability. Even rudimentary knowledge base about bugs and available features is nonexistent. Change logs are incomplete and lack detail. It's pretty much left to end user to do live tests to see if features continue on working. Everyone does a lot of redundant work validating if features are working. Maybe having users as testers keeps the cost in check, but it certainly does keep MT from competing with Cisco/Juniper in deployments where downtime is money lost.when you have restricted environment and that is working for you - it is fine, when you grow out of it you have a problem. Either you have to upgrade using technology from your current provider or you have to go to new equipment provider. As far as RouterOS goes - you can get basic device that has restrictions on how well it can perform, but it is possible to use stuff from us to upgrade further while still being in same environment you are used to know. This gives you speed of deployment, gives you device upgrade path and device re-use when you expand your network. I do not see this in competition products you are so eager to promote on this technical forum.
And this is for most part me talking as home user. Who started out with RB532 when that device was all the rage, now updated with 802.11n card still provides wireless.
I guess it comes back to the age old question? Would you rather do a bit of extra work and save a large amount of cash. Or do you spend big bucks and make it a no brainer? In the business were in we go for the first one and we love Mikrotik for giving us that chance. After all that's actually their niche in the market if you think about it. If it was to change then maybe you would just have another Cisco or Juniper and then you may as well just buy them anyway if that's what you want. In my opinion your also overstating the quality of Cisco etc and understating the quality of Mikrotik anyway. They all make the odd mistake. I have never come across any big problems with Mikrotik in over 10 years as long as you do a bit of work fining out the hardware requirements etc?