Why is it that companies tend to go with vendors whose products cost much more than other less-known vendors whose products perform much better in general (stability/performance for the $/functionality/security) when all aspects are considered?
Example:
Company XYZ, inc. chooses to use products from Vendor C instead of Vendor B. The company in question already uses a lot of Vendor C’s products and Vendor C is a ‘preferred’ vendor. Vendor B is an up and comer with several solutions that out-perform all aspects of Vendor C’s identical offerings. Both Vendors are presented to the company and Vendor C is still chosen even though Vendor B is more cost-effective, their solution has triple the performance of Vendor C’s product and Vendor C’s product’s are well known to constantly need software upgrades to fix security issues that the Vendor (through shoddy coding review) allows into ‘final’ releases.
Why did Vendor C get tapped for supplying the companies needs?
The answer is multi-faceted.
Kickbacks to corporate officials or board members of the company, board members with undisclosed conflicts of interest, managers not wanting to ‘rock the boat’ with new technology decisions, a lack of truly solid technical understanding combined with almost non-existent forward thinking (ie: a solution for the now in the now even if it doesn’t meet needs in 2 years).
Sphere: Related Content