<rambling>
I had asked Dan Warmenhoven about this as well at the product launch for the 700-series, and his reasoning made a fair amount of sense.. IIRC, the argument was that penetrating the lower-end market can be very expensive to move into, compared to the 'lower-high' end they're targeting now..
There's obviously a nicer margin in this area, and the lower volume sales keeps their post-sales costs down and allows them to keep a smaller pool of customers much happier. I would also imagine this market is much more stable, compared to the companies that come and go in any low-end market. They're still a small company, and I would imagine that if an offering in the low-end flopped, it could bring them down with it...
In any case, as Dan had put it, they want to establish themselves unquestionably with what they're doing now (like it or not, there's still alot of people who think you're talking about Larry Ellison's lastest rant when you refer to getting a 'network appliance box'). Once they've done this, and have enough money in the bank to cover the move, we'll see it for sure.
They have proven themselves in trying to do this right the first time (how long did you wait on 18gb disks, or 700 clustering?), and I would image the <$20k filer will be a potent, strong offering once they're ready, but certainly won't rush it.
..kg..
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Philip Thomas wrote:
Mr NetworkAppliance,
The NetFORCE 1000 looks like might fill the low-end server market that Netapp has conveniently vacated. ;-)
Did you hear this??? This is the same stuff I was preaching for the last 3+ years to any at your company who is willing to listen.