[GTALUG] Cheap vs Inexpensive (Was: router upgrade)

[Scott Sullivan]

On 12/07/17 12:07 AM, William Park via talk wrote:
> TP-Link is cheap and disposable.

When I see this phrasing, I think poor quality, and I'm curious if that 
is your intention?

 From my own experience, this is not the case. I'v been using TP-Link 
gear for over a decade, in personal and professional settings (having 
worked at an ISP). I find TP-Link to be of good quality. Some of my 
personal units I've had in service for 5 years.

Wireless Router:
Archer C7 (x2)
TL-MR3020 (x3)
TL-MR3040 (x1)
Tl-WR810N (x1)

Switches:
TL-SG1008D (x2)
TL-SG105 (x2)
TL-SF1005D (x1)

Managed Switch:
TL-SG2008 (x1)

Let's not confuse cheap and inexpensive. I've take part routers sold 
under Bell's name, and various TP-Links. TP-Link has made an art of 
minimizing costs, without compromising the end product.

Tricks like, standing the LEDs on the leads up to the case, instead of 
using light pipes. Or my favorite, not populating the JR-45 contacts for 
ports that are only 10/100. This saves half the copper cost per port. 
There was a point they even did that with the cable shipped in the box, 
but those days are long behind us.

TP-Link waits for a technology and chipset has been proven by a higher 
tier OEM. They takes advantage of lower cost volume purchasing after the 
ramp up is done by the chip vendor.

TP-Link keeps software costs low, by using and then releasing the 
open-source code that makes part of their firmware.

TP-Link don't waste money on Marketing, or building 'Performance' 
products that appeal to Egos and number chasers.

The are inexpressible, and uninteresting, because it's the tech that's 
already been shown to work and is known.

-- 
Scott Sullivan