Blog

Cisco list prices change on 7 November. If you have an open Cisco quote, a renewal coming up or a refresh in planning, now is the time to check what you are actually paying for.Cisco has told its partners that list prices on networking and security software, along with selected hardware, will change from 7 November 2026. It follows earlier pricing and contract changes this year, as vendors pass on rising component and memory costs.For Australian buyers paying in AUD, the change is already showing up in quotes.<h2>What we are seeing in Australian quotes</h2>In one Cisco DNA licensing example we reviewed, a licence priced at around AUD $22,000 is moving to around AUD $23,000. That is an increase of about 4.5%, for exactly the same entitlement.On a single line item, $1,000 looks small. Across an estate, it isn't. A 4.5% increase on a $2 million annual Cisco spend across licences, support and hardware is $90,000 of unbudgeted cost, before any project has moved forward.The exact impact depends on the product, price list and your purchasing agreement. But the question every CIO should ask is simple:If the entitlement hasn't changed, what is the extra money buying?<h2>Why the timing hurts</h2>Most network teams have already done the hard work: quotes obtained, business cases approved, budgets locked. A price change before the order is placed sends that work back to finance for re-approval.And licensing is rarely the only line in the budget. The same budget usually carries:<ul><li>hardware purchases and replacements</li><li>software licences and subscriptions</li><li>maintenance and support contracts</li><li>spares and replacement parts</li><li>expansion and refresh projects</li></ul>A rise in one category squeezes all the others.<h2>What to do before 7 November</h2><ol><li>Check every open quote. Note the expiry dates and confirm whether they fall under Cisco's standard price protection, which Cisco says it will maintain. Final pricing still depends on your negotiated discounts and contract terms.</li><li>Compare like with like. Confirm the licence, entitlements and contract terms are identical to what you priced originally. A higher price does not mean more functionality.</li><li>Question the refresh. Ask whether the technical requirement has actually changed, or whether the refresh is being driven by the vendor's lifecycle rather than your network's needs.</li><li>Price the alternatives. Get a second option before signing, just as you would for any other major procurement.</li></ol><h2>The alternatives most teams never price</h2>Keep good hardware running for longer. Network hardware loses value quickly, but it doesn't stop working on the vendor's schedule. Many switches and routers have years of reliable service left.Buy pre-owned where it fits. Quality pre-owned Cisco equipment can meet the same technical requirement for significantly less than new, depending on model and availability. It must be checked properly for compatibility, configuration, licensing, security and provenance. The goal isn't the cheapest box; it's the most commercially sensible way to meet the requirement.Use third-party maintenance. For eligible equipment, independent maintenance can replace an OEM support contract, often at a lower cost. Compare response times, parts availability and contract terms carefully.Recover the real value of what you retire. Most organisations assume they get fair value back for old equipment. Very few test it the way they would test any other procurement.<h2>What happens when you test it</h2>A healthcare organisation recently asked us to compare our approach with the proposals it had received for its retiring IT equipment. The result: Recirc IT returned 50 times the value offered by both the vendor and a recycling provider.The lesson isn't that every project will deliver 50x. It's that most organisations never check, and the gap can be enormous.<h2>The three questions buyers ask about pre-owned</h2><ul><li>Will it be supported? That depends on the product and provider, and should be confirmed before purchase.</li><li>Is maintenance available? For eligible equipment, yes, through third-party maintenance providers with defined service levels.</li><li>Can the supplier prove chain of custody? It must. Ask where the equipment came from, how it was handled and what documentation proves its history.</li></ul>Once these are answered, you can make a fair comparison between new and pre-owned.<h2>The bottom line</h2>Price rises will keep coming. Some will be justified. Many won't reflect any change in what you receive.When you're told a quote is no longer valid and more budget is needed, you should be able to answer three things: what changed, what the extra spend delivers, and whether there's another way to meet the same requirement.<h2>Get a second opinion before you sign</h2>Send us your Cisco quote before 7 November. We'll benchmark it against pre-owned hardware, third-party maintenance and value recovery from your existing equipment, and show you where the savings are.Contact Recirc IT on +61 489 187 136.

Cisco Price Rise 7 November: What Australian CIOs Should Do

<h2 style="padding-left: 40px;" data-mce-style="padding-left: 40px;">2025 Didn’t Create Scarcity. It Revealed Dependency. </h2>Last year was framed as a hardware problem.Price increases. FX volatility. Licensing shifts. AI-driven upgrade narratives. Lead-time unpredictability.But the organisations that navigated 2025 best didn’t treat these as refresh triggers.They treated them as leverage signals.The difference was subtle — but commercially significant.<h3>What Actually Happened in 2025</h3>Across the environments we supported:• 1,240 enterprise assets remained operational instead of entering premature refresh • 780 units were redeployed internally before new capital was approved • Urgent hardware requirements were fulfilled in under 30 days when OEM channels could not • Maintenance coverage was extended on systems previously marked “end-of-life” • Capital was preserved for strategic initiatives rather than reactive replacementAnd as a by-product:• Significant volumes of infrastructure were redirected into reuse pathways instead of disposalSustainability was not the driver.Control was.<h3>&nbsp; The Pattern Behind the Data</h3> Three behaviours consistently separated high-control environments from reactive ones:1. They solved constraints — not entire stacks A failed component did not trigger a five-year architectural reset.2. They questioned commercial milestones “End-of-life” was assessed technically, not accepted commercially.3. They introduced supply optionality early Secondary sourcing wasn’t used for cost cutting. It was used to preserve leverage.The organisations that applied these principles reduced unnecessary capital deployment while increasing operational flexibility.<h3>&nbsp; The Short-Term Reality</h3> This isn’t theory.Switches fail. Sites expand. Memory becomes constrained. Projects accelerate.The distinction is whether urgency dictates architecture — or whether architecture absorbs urgency.That’s where control either compounds or erodes.<h3>Close</h3> If 2025 felt reactive inside your infrastructure strategy, the root cause likely wasn’t hardware.It was decision design.If you’d like a confidential benchmark against the outcomes above, reply “snapshot”.No sales cycle. Just perspective.

Recirc IT 2025 -The Difference We made

IT Support, Digital Technology, Technical Support, Customer Service and 24/7 Assistance, Business Technology Solutions for World-Class Support, Service Management

<h2>CPU &amp; Memory Allocation Dynamics in Enterprise Infrastructure </h2>Over the past 12–18 months, upstream CPU and memory demand has shifted in a way that is not immediately visible to most enterprise environments.The narrative often focuses on “shortages.” In reality, the pattern emerging is more nuanced.<h3>Allocation Bias vs. Outright Shortage </h3>Rather than an absolute lack of silicon availability, what we are observing is allocation bias earlier in procurement cycles.Large-scale hyperscale and AI-driven deployments are securing production capacity further upstream. This does not remove supply from the market entirely, but it can compress availability windows for enterprise buyers operating later in the cycle.The result is not necessarily “unavailable hardware,” but reduced forecast reliability and less flexibility once projects move from planning to order.<h3>Where Enterprise Feels the Impact </h3>In enterprise environments, the effects tend to surface in three ways:Extended or less predictable lead times Reduced pricing flexibility Increased pressure to commit earlier in budget cycles These changes can subtly influence refresh timing and procurement strategy, particularly for CPU-intensive or memory-heavy environments.<h3>Planning Considerations</h3>For enterprise infrastructure leaders, the key consideration is not panic procurement. It is predictability.Understanding where capacity is being absorbed upstream allows organisations to:<ul><li>Improve forecast accuracy</li><li>Avoid compressed procurement timelines</li><li>Maintain optionality in supplier strategy</li></ul>In many cases, the operational risk is not shortage itself, but reduced flexibility when timing becomes constrainedAs allocation dynamics continue to evolve, enterprise environments that prioritise visibility and procurement agility are better positioned to absorb shifts without disruption.

CPU & Memory Allocation Dynamics in Enterprise Infrastructure

<h3>Windows 11: The Great IT Refresh or Unnecessary Waste?</h3>The push for Windows 11 has reignited a long-standing issue in the IT&nbsp;industry: planned obsolescence. Microsoft’s strict hardware requirements—especially the need for TPM 2.0 and newer processors—mean that many perfectly functional devices are now deemed unfit to run the latest OS. The result? A wave of unnecessary upgrades, increased e-waste, and higher Scope 3 emissions for businesses that pride themselves on sustainability.<h3>The Hidden Cost of the Windows 11 Mandate</h3>For IT decision-makers, the requirement to replace hardware solely for Windows 11 compatibility presents significant challenges:Artificial End-of-Life: Many existing systems that function well are being forced out of service due to software constraints rather than actual hardware failure. Increased E-Waste: Companies replacing entire fleets of desktops and laptops contribute to the growing global e-waste crisis. Scope 3 Emissions Impact: Manufacturing new hardware has a far greater carbon footprint than any potential energy savings from marginal efficiency gains in newer devices. Security Pressures: Organizations may feel pressured to upgrade out of fear that older systems will be insecure, even though security updates for Windows 10 continue until 2025.<h2> The Circular Economy Response</h2>Forward-thinking companies can push back against this forced obsolescence and adopt more sustainable IT strategies:Extending Hardware Lifespan: Many enterprise-grade devices can still run efficiently with minor upgrades, such as additional RAM or SSD replacements. Alternative Operating Systems: Linux-based distributions, such as Ubuntu or Chrome OS Flex, can breathe new life into otherwise ‘unsupported’ hardware.Virtualization &amp; Cloud Solutions: Instead of buying new endpoints, companies can explore virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) or hybrid cloud models.Third-Party Security &amp; Patch Management: External vendors can provide security updates and extended support for legacy systems, reducing the urgency of a Windows 11 upgrade.<h3>Rethinking IT Procurement</h3>Rather than automatically defaulting to new purchases, organizations should evaluate:Do we actually need new hardware, or is this an unnecessary spend? Can we upgrade existing assets to extend their life? What’s the true environmental impact of this refresh cycle? A Call to Action for CIOs and IT Managers Before rolling out a company-wide refresh, businesses should consider the broader implications—both financial and environmental. Buying pre-owned hardware, leveraging third-party maintenance, and delaying unnecessary refresh cycles are all ways to avoid falling into the trap of manufacturer-driven obsolescence.At Recirc IT, we believe that new isn’t always better. By rethinking refresh cycles and adopting circular economy principles, businesses can cut costs, reduce waste, and lower their carbon footprint—without compromising on performance or security. Our offering is very simple. We will take away your old laptops and bring them up to compute power to deal with the upgrade instead of buying new.Laptops account for one of the largest contributors to e-waste globally.&nbsp; Its time to take a different approach to tackling these OEM problems and force them to start to think about more sustainable approaches.&nbsp;Are you being pressured to upgrade? Let’s talk about more sustainable alternatives before you commit to unnecessary spending.

Windows 11: The Great IT Refresh or Unnecessary Waste?

<h3> Introduction: The E-Waste Illusion</h3>Many organizations view recycling as the cornerstone of their sustainability strategies, believing it resolves their e-waste challenges. However, recycling addresses only the downstream effects of the IT lifecycle. In Australia, where e-waste generation far exceeds the global average and the nation plays a leading role in raw material extraction, the pressure to embrace a holistic approach has never been greater. Recycling is just one piece of the puzzle—companies must rethink their entire IT asset lifecycle to align with circular economy principles, meet national sustainability targets, and ensure accountability beyond what OEMs can provide.<h3>&nbsp; The Problem: Gaps in Current E-Waste Management</h3> 1. Australia’s Unique Responsibility Australia’s global prominence as a major exporter of raw materials, including copper, silver, and rare earths, puts the nation in a pivotal position in the sustainability conversation. These materials are essential for the production of electronics, yet their extraction is resource-intensive and environmentally destructive.The mining process depletes finite resources and causes significant land degradation, water contamination, and biodiversity loss. As the global demand for technology rises, the extraction of these materials is projected to intensify, further amplifying environmental pressures. In this context, Australia’s responsibility to lead by example in sustainability is clear. Yet, without systemic changes to IT asset management, the nation risks exacerbating its environmental impact and failing to meet international expectations for responsible resource use.2. The Scale of the E-Waste Crisis E-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world. In 2022, global e-waste production reached a staggering 62 million tonnes, and this figure is projected to rise to 82 million tonnes by 2030. Australia contributes disproportionately to this crisis, with its citizens generating an average of 22 kg of e-waste per capita annually—more than double the global average.This waste comprises discarded electronics like computers, servers, and mobile devices, many of which contain hazardous materials such as lead, mercury, and cadmium. Improper disposal can lead to these toxic substances leaching into the soil and water, causing long-term environmental and health issues.Despite the scale of the problem, only 22% of global e-waste is properly recycled. In Australia, inadequate infrastructure and fragmented strategies further hinder effective e-waste management, leaving valuable resources untapped and contributing to environmental degradation.3. Limited Reporting and Accountability A lack of transparency is a significant barrier to effective e-waste management. Many businesses outsource their recycling responsibilities to third parties but fail to obtain clear data on how their IT assets are handled post-disposal. Without comprehensive reporting, companies cannot:Track avoided waste, including which assets were reused or refurbished instead of discarded. Quantify recovered materials, such as copper, silver, and palladium, that are reintegrated into supply chains to offset the need for virgin resources. This lack of insight not only impedes progress toward sustainability goals but also limits an organization’s ability to communicate its impact to stakeholders. Transparent reporting is essential for accountability and for driving meaningful change in e-waste practices.4. The Limitations of Relying on OEMs Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) often position themselves as leaders in sustainability, yet their interests are fundamentally misaligned with the principles of the circular economy.Conflict of Interest: OEMs benefit financially from frequent hardware upgrades and planned obsolescence. By designing products with shorter lifecycles, they encourage overconsumption, driving sales at the expense of environmental sustainability.Greenwashing Practices: Many OEMs focus their sustainability narratives on superficial metrics, such as the use of recycled materials in packaging, while ignoring the significant environmental impacts of manufacturing. For example, the carbon footprint associated with producing a single server can far outweigh the benefits of using eco-friendly packaging.Lack of Transparency: OEM recycling programs often lack comprehensive data on material recovery rates, leaving businesses unsure of the actual impact of their participation.A Better Source of Truth: Independent partners who specialize in IT asset lifecycle management are better equipped to provide transparent reporting and actionable strategies, ensuring alignment with genuine circular economy practices.5. Fragmented IT Lifecycle Management Organizations frequently work with multiple vendors for different aspects of IT lifecycle management—one for procurement, another for maintenance, and yet another for e-waste handling. This fragmented approach creates inefficiencies, redundancies, and accountability gaps, hindering progress toward sustainability.Procurement teams often prioritize cost savings over sustainability, while maintenance providers focus solely on operational performance. Meanwhile, the e-waste handling process may be disconnected from the broader sustainability strategy. This lack of cohesion results in premature disposal, limited reuse of assets, and missed opportunities for value recovery.The solution lies in fostering a collaborative approach where procurement, maintenance, and e-waste management are integrated under a unified sustainability strategy. A single partner managing the entire lifecycle—from delaying consumption to ensuring responsible disposal—can bridge these gaps effectively.6. E-Waste as a Cost Instead of an Opportunity E-waste is often treated solely as a cost to be managed rather than a potential source of value. Companies frequently view the disposal process as an unavoidable expense, leading to missed opportunities for revenue generation and sustainability alignment.Innovative recycling providers are challenging this narrative by demonstrating how e-waste can be transformed into an asset. By extracting valuable materials like gold, copper, and palladium, these providers reintegrate resources into supply chains, reducing the demand for virgin materials and creating economic benefits. Additionally, the recovered value from IT assets can offset disposal costs, making e-waste management a financially viable component of sustainability strategies.Transparent reporting on recovered materials further enhances this value proposition, allowing businesses to quantify their contributions to the circular economy while reducing their environmental footprint.<h3>&nbsp;Australia’s Circular Economy Framework</h3>Australia’s national and state-level initiatives underscore the importance of moving beyond recycling toward integrated lifecycle management:National Waste Policy Action Plan:Targeting an 80% material recovery rate and a 10% per capita waste reduction by 2030. Export Ban on Waste:Mandating domestic processing of waste streams, with e-waste expected to come under greater scrutiny. State-Level Leadership:Victoria’s Recycling Victoria Policy focuses on repair, refurbishment, and job creation, targeting 10,000 new roles in sustainability industries by 2030. NSW’s Circular Economy Policy emphasizes investment in recycling infrastructure and markets for recovered materials. E-Waste Recycling Goals:The National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS) aims for 100% recycling rates, setting a benchmark for IT asset accountability. &nbsp;<h3> Solutions: Moving Beyond Recycling</h3>1. Integrated IT Lifecycle Management Companies must partner with independent providers offering end-to-end solutions for IT procurement, maintenance, and e-waste handling. This reduces inefficiencies and ensures a cohesive, circular strategy.2. Transparent Reporting and Accountability Implement robust systems to track and report:Avoided Waste: IT assets diverted from waste streams through reuse and refurbishment. Recovered Materials: Quantities of valuable resources extracted and reintegrated into supply chains, supporting Australia’s 80% material recovery target. 3. Extend the Lifespan of IT Assets Invest in refurbishment and third-party maintenance to maximize the useful life of equipment, reducing waste generation and reliance on OEM-driven upgrade cycles.4. Rethink Recycling as Part of a Larger Strategy Align recycling efforts with broader goals, ensuring that recovered resources replace virgin materials and support national sustainability targets.5. Embrace Localized and Ethical Recycling Work with certified domestic recyclers to comply with Australia’s export ban and reduce environmental harm.6. Foster Cross-Department Collaboration Encourage procurement, maintenance, and e-waste management teams to collaborate under a unified sustainability strategy. Partnering with a single provider who manages the full IT lifecycle ensures consistency, accountability, and alignment with broader circular economy goals.<h3>&nbsp; Conclusion: Turning Challenges Into Opportunities</h3>Recycling your e-waste isn’t enough. As Australia faces increasing scrutiny for its role in raw material extraction and waste generation, companies must adopt a proactive approach to IT lifecycle management. By focusing on transparency, lifecycle extension, and comprehensive reporting, businesses can align with Australia’s circular economy goals, build stakeholder trust, and position themselves as sustainability leaders.Transparency and accountability are no longer optional. Reporting on avoided waste and recovered materials is essential to demonstrate progress and contribute meaningfully to a sustainable future. By moving beyond recycling and embracing holistic strategies, organizations can turn compliance into a competitive advantage while making a real difference for the planet.&nbsp; Case Study: Transforming E-Waste Into ValueOne of the largest supermarket retail chains in Australia historically handed its waste to a single recycling provider, receiving no value or reporting in return. Despite their strong focus on sustainability, they faced significant gaps in their approach to e-waste management.Recirc IT proposed a new strategy, starting with a detailed assessment of their e-waste. The organization identified approximately 40 chassis-based switches that the supermarket’s security team required to be removed from the network. Recirc IT evaluated these assets and:Identified Repurposable Assets: Determined which switches could be refurbished and reused, preserving their functional value. Extracted Valuable Raw Materials: Extracted high-value materials like copper and palladium from non-repurposable assets, demonstrating tangible recovery value. Delivered Economic Benefits: The process generated a credit value exceeding $30,000, which the client reinvested to acquire additional pre-owned assets from Recirc IT. This case study highlights how an integrated approach to e-waste management can transform a perceived cost into measurable value while aligning with sustainability goals.Recycling your e-waste isn’t enough. As Australia faces increasing scrutiny for its role in raw material extraction and waste generation, companies must adopt a proactive approach to IT lifecycle management. By focusing on transparency, lifecycle extension, and comprehensive reporting, businesses can align with Australia’s circular economy goals, build stakeholder trust, and position themselves as sustainability leaders.Transparency and accountability are no longer optional. Reporting on avoided waste and recovered materials is essential to demonstrate progress and contribute meaningfully to a sustainable future. By moving beyond recycling and embracing holistic strategies, organizations can turn compliance into a competitive advantage while making a real difference for the planet.

Recycling Your E-Waste Isn’t Enough: Why It’s Only One Piece of the Puzzle

<h3>Big Tech Loves Trust—And It’s Time to Question It</h3>Trust is the backbone of the tech industry. It’s what keeps users loyal and decision-makers invested in the solutions provided by some of the world’s largest companies.We trust them to protect our data. We trust them to act responsibly. We trust them to source ethically.But what happens when that trust is broken—over and over again?Recent lawsuits and revelations have peeled back the layers of these assurances, exposing cracks in the promises we’ve taken at face value. Apple, for instance, has been at the center of multiple controversies, including allegations over privacy breaches and now accusations of enabling unethical sourcing of conflict minerals.This isn’t just an Apple problem; it’s an industry-wide issue. These recurring patterns raise the question: Is trust in big tech a liability?<h2>The Currency of Trust</h2> Trust is big tech’s most valuable currency, and they spend it recklessly.Take Apple’s recent $95 million settlement over privacy violations. For a company generating hundreds of billions annually, that’s a rounding error—a cost of doing business. The allegations? Siri inadvertently recorded private conversations, with snippets allegedly overheard by employees.And now, Apple faces criminal complaints from the Democratic Republic of Congo for allegedly sourcing “blood minerals.” The lawsuit accuses Apple of indirectly funding armed conflict and child labor through a contaminated supply chain. Apple denies the claims, insisting it holds its suppliers to the highest standards and has taken steps to suspend sourcing from conflict regions. But can we take these assurances at face value?The broader picture shows a disturbing trend. Whether it’s privacy, sourcing, or sustainability, the pattern is clear: profit margins often take precedence over principles.Why Does This Keep Happening? Big tech thrives on trust—and often exploits it. Here’s how:Accountability Takes a Backseat: When issues arise, settlements and denials become the norm. Meaningful change often lags behind. Transparency Is a PR Tool: Industry buzzwords like “responsible sourcing” and “low emissions” sound reassuring but lack tangible proof. Minimal Consumer Pushback: Despite breaches of trust, many continue to trust OEMs and adopt their advice without question, assuming their recommendations are “the best option.” This cycle of misplaced trust enables companies to operate with minimal accountability while maintaining a veneer of responsibility.<h2>What Can You Do?</h2> For decision-makers and consumers alike, it’s time to challenge the status quo. Here’s how:Question Every Claim: Don’t accept statements at face value. When an OEM promises ethical practices, ask for independent audits or certifications that back up their claims. Seek Independent Verification: Don’t rely solely on the manufacturer’s word. Leverage third-party organizations that can objectively validate the claims made about sourcing, sustainability, or privacy. Consider Alternatives: Look into solutions that align with a circular economy model, such as repurposing or refurbishing existing assets. By reducing reliance on new hardware, you can minimize your exposure to unethical supply chain practices. Hold Suppliers Accountable: When choosing a partner or supplier, demand transparency and set clear expectations for ethical and sustainable practices. Push for real accountability, not just lip service. The Real Question When an OEM makes a promise, the real question isn’t, “Is this true?” It’s: “Who benefits if I believe it?”Big tech’s playbook isn’t written for your benefit. It’s designed to serve their bottom line. As consumers and leaders, we must stay skeptical, demand proof, and push for better practices across the board.Trust, but verify. Every time. Speak to us to get independent advice on where you stand each time.&nbsp;

News & Articles

Cisco Price Rise 7 November: What Australian CIOs Should Do

Recirc IT 2025 -The Difference We made

CPU & Memory Allocation Dynamics in Enterprise Infrastruc...

Windows 11: The Great IT Refresh or Unnecessary Waste?

Recycling Your E-Waste Isn’t Enough: Why It’s Only One Pi...

Big Tech Loves Trust - And Its Time To Question It