One of the negative appliance characteristics includes lack of control. Most IT technicians like to be able to understand what is going on inside a machine and troubleshoot and fix it -- whether it is a hardware, OS, or application problem.
The "black box" nature of an appliance means almost total reliance on the vendor (or the vendor proxy) for hardware and OS-level issues. Even some application issues can be only vendor-resolved. With earlier versions of Ciphertrust's Ironmail appliance, since corrected, mail managers had to call the vendor to empty the message-processing queue. Organisations must understand the exact chain of support for all three system components prior to purchase. There have been instances where, deep in the fine print of the contract, the vendor disavows hardware support, and leaves it up to the user organisation to procure support from the hardware supplier.
By nature, appliance vendors regularly update the operating system and application over the wire, which reduces administrative burden but does have some security risk due to the open path directly to the server. Such a service is also used by traditional mail hygiene suppliers, which routinely download spam signatures and heuristics over the wire. Part of the attraction of appliances is their singular functionality, but that factor can also work against them. The hardware, of course, cannot be redeployed for other use, and it does conflict with standard OS/hardware builds that the organisation is already ramped up to support.
In addition, appliance vendors occasionally change hardware suppliers, which brings even more hardware proliferation when upgrades are needed. Organisations need to be aware that appliance vendors, which rely on third-party suppliers, may see disruption in the future if the partners decide to part ways, leaving them with a decision about staying with either the appliance vendor or the software vendor.
Overall, we believe the cost factor is neutral. Appliances can cost vendors less money because they are stripped down to only the elements they need for operation. Most Global 2000 organisations have favourable volume-purchase agreements with server vendors. Organisations should compare the fully loaded cost of the traditional model (e.g., purchase price of hardware, OS, and application plus three years of support for those elements) versus the three-year cost of an appliance (including support) for a true-price comparison.
Because of the packaged nature of appliances, it is also easier to swap vendors: Just pull the plug on the old one, and plug in the new one. In addition, it means that swapping vendors is more expensive because, with a traditional software model, the hardware can be reused for the new supplier. Furthermore, traditional servers can be upgraded easily and cheaply to accommodate growing requirements, while appliances are not upgradable. New machines have to be purchased when capacity needs to be boosted.
Conclusion
Because there are still broad feature-set differences among mail hygiene vendors, organisations should gather requirements and select vendors based on ability to meet those requirements, rather than starting off with a bias in favour of or against appliances. Only when the shortlist is selected should the appliance factor come into play. At that point, decision makers should survey other parts of the IT organisation to determine if there is an institutionalised view of appliances.
In the absence of any corporate policy, decision makers should evaluate the relative merits of appliances previously mentioned and make a decision. We believe most organisations should conclude that an appliance form factor should not be a showstopper. In other words, mail hygiene server acquisitions should be based on traditional decision-making criteria -- not on the delivery model (see table below).
 |
Bottom line: Organisations must carefully consider the short- and long-term implications of appliances when selecting mail hygiene suppliers. Meeting functional needs should be the first order of business.
Business impact: Organisations must create a hygienic messaging system to protect a core corporate communication asset.
 | ||||||||||
| More from META Group | ||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
| | ||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
13%
1%
