Should we let vendors pitch?

Photo of author

Tim Higgins

It has been SmallNetBuilder’s policy to not publish articles written by vendors. The reason is that most vendor-supplied articles are basically advertising in a different format.

But sometimes the articles really are informative, even though they carry a built-in bias toward the author’s company’s product. So I’m thinking of trying this out.

These articles will have the author’s company affiliation clearly identified and carry a short disclaimer so that readers will know that the views expressed are the vendor’s and not SmallNetBuilder’s.

So what do you think? Should we let companies contribute articles? Let me know by leaving a comment below. Thanks!

Related posts

What are you using for dual-WAN routers?

Just got a call from a colleague who was looking for recommendations on dual-WAN routers to replace his faithful Nexland ...

Update:Has Airgo no shame?

Just before Monday broke here on the East coast, Qualcomm (which minutes later announced that it was acquiring Airgo) "announced the availability of the world's first chipset offering full support for Draft 2.0 of the IEEE 802.11n standard". As Glenn Fleishman points out in his post, since Draft 2.0 won't be voted on until March of next year, this announcement is pitching a chipset that is based upon a "draft of a draft".

We all knew that at some point Airgo would come off its mountain and wallow in the pre-standard mud along with Broadcom, Atheros and Marvell. So I guess if you're going to get dirty, you might as well set a new standard. Congratulations to both Airgo and its proud new owner Qualcomm for establishing a new low in WLAN marketing practices.

Change Your Bookmarks

If you have been using the TomsHardware front page to see when we post new articles, you’ll need to change ...