Fortinet: Competitive Landscape & SASE Transition
Former Major Accounts Manager at Fortinet
inpractise.com/articles/fortinet-competitive-landscape-and-sase-transition
Former Major Accounts Manager at Fortinet
The executive has over two decades of experience in cybersecurity. The executive held commercial roles at Fortinet and national MSSPs.
Interview Transcript
This is a snippet of the transcript, sign up to read more.
That's an excellent overview. I would like to clarify a few points. It seems like the Opaque network integration largely failed. If I were to pinpoint the most challenging aspect, it appears that the original plan was to have hardware in the Equinix data center, essentially building your own PoPs. However, integrating the client proved to be difficult and building the PoPs was quite costly. Were these the two main challenges?
The issue with Fortinet was that they didn't want to fully step into the SASE market. They were cautious about cannibalizing hardware sales and wanted to slowly transition into SASE. I believe there were several factors at play here, and it became quite political. The question was whether to fully commit to SASE, which everyone knew was the right direction.
This is a snippet of the transcript, sign up to read more.
That's an excellent overview. I would like to clarify a few points. It seems like the Opaque network integration largely failed. If I were to pinpoint the most challenging aspect, it appears that the original plan was to have hardware in the Equinix data center, essentially building your own PoPs. However, integrating the client proved to be difficult and building the PoPs was quite costly. Were these the two main challenges?
My guess is that Fortinet was cautious about the cost and didn't want to cannibalize their hardware. They weren't fully committed to SASE but felt the need to transition because everyone else was doing so. They chose the less expensive route, using their existing FortiClient, which most of their customer base already uses.
This is a snippet of the transcript, sign up to read more.
That's an excellent overview. I would like to clarify a few points. It seems like the Opaque network integration largely failed. If I were to pinpoint the most challenging aspect, it appears that the original plan was to have hardware in the Equinix data center, essentially building your own PoPs. However, integrating the client proved to be difficult and building the PoPs was quite costly. Were these the two main challenges?
However, most of their customers were using Zscaler. This was during the pandemic when remote access VPN was challenging to use. Employees were connecting from remote networks, and there were concerns about security and user experience. This led to an increased interest in secure remote access and SASE. That's why we were bought, and Fortinet felt obligated to get into the market. It was a complex situation.
This is a snippet of the transcript, sign up to read more.
Related Content
Copyright Notice
This document may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means including resale of any part, unauthorised distribution to a third party or other electronic methods, without the prior written permission of IP 1 Ltd.
IP 1 Ltd, trading as In Practise (herein referred to as "IP") is a company registered in England and Wales and is not a registered investment advisor or broker-dealer, and is not licensed nor qualified to provide investment advice.
In Practise reserves all copyright, intellectual and other property rights in the Content. The information published in this transcript (“Content”) is for information purposes only and should not be used as the sole basis for making any investment decision. Information provided by IP is to be used as an educational tool and nothing in this Content shall be construed as an offer, recommendation or solicitation regarding any financial product, service or management of investments or securities. The views of the executive expressed in the Content are those of the expert and they are not endorsed by, nor do they represent the opinion of In Practise. In Practise makes no representations and accepts no liability for the Content or for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies will in no way be held liable for any potential or actual violations of laws, including without limitation any securities laws, based on Information sent to you by In Practise.
© 2024 IP 1 Ltd. All rights reserved.