That's a little tongue in cheek. Obviously they aren't. But what I've learned over the last few weeks is that there are fundamental differences in how you order an LWAPP solution.
First is power. This isn't so much a problem with the Controller as it is with the 1000 series AP. The 1000's are directly from the Airespace acquisition and as all Cisco acquisition's go they are different than the rest of the product, at least for a revision or two. Case in point- The 1000's use 802.3af for power. No problem you say, you have a POE switch. Great, but what if you don't have a switch and are only deploying, say, 9 AP's? A dedicated switch for 9 AP's might be a little overkill so injectors are your next choice. Here's where it's different. Older Cisco AP's include a transformer for providing local power. This is great if you have one or two AP's. The 1000's don't include any transformer. Also, if you want to use an injector with your older Cisco AP you buy a less expensive injector that's little more than an "injector". You still have to take the transformer that was included with your AP and plug it into the injector. The POE injectors for the 1000 series are actually transformers too! This jacks the price to double the normal injector price!
Another caveat with the Controller is related to the physical ports for connecting the box. With the 4402 and I think the 4404 also there are several ports available. The service port (rj45) is basic and not useful for much more than startup configuration. The Serial port (db9) is the primary method for accessing the startup wizard. I think you have additional functionality there but let's face it, this thing was designed to be used through the web interface. The remaining three ports are for network connectivity including user VLAN's and the management VLAN/interface. Now here's the part that's hidden deep in a Cisco document with only one small asterisk. One port is RJ45 and the other two are SFP's. The RJ45 is labeled "Utility". This port looks like it could be a user port just like the two SFP's. It's even 10/100/1000 so you'd think they were intending it to carry user traffic. In fact there's nothing to suggest it can't be 1 of 3 ports. Except it can't. This asterisk note suggests that it's for future use only. Talk about needle in a haystack! The port provides link, looks like it's working, but does absolutely nothing. What the hell! Moral of the story, don't think you can get away with copper GE links for the Controller!
Otherwise, the Controller is very easy to work with and does some very cool stuff. More on that later.