An interesting tweet popped up in my timeline the other day and my reply was:

I think the distinction between an actual capability and how and with what it is being achieved gets lost in a lot of cases. When you define “connectivity” as a capability there are many options to choose from in how to achieve that. But in essence none of those should have a vendor name attached to it. An architect should be holistic, but at the same time should know how an actual network operates. This mix is not always logical especially in the lower layers of the OSI-model.

Very extremely put: there’s no such thing as a “<insert vendor> architect” How can you as a customer expect a holistic and agnostic view from someone who works for a company which goal is to sell products which answer the “what” question.