Re: IBM Spin Doctors - couldn't resist responding :-)

>>Easy, easy now.  I don't think anyone of us is saying all management
>>decisions are based on 'what you heard recently'.  I believe, as I think
>
>You are wrong. The part of my post you clipped was a response from Dean
>saying exactly that.

Just tried to save space.  Point was, despite what Dean may have written
I'm certain that he was not saying ALL....if he cares to respond I'm sure
he will.
>>others do, that it occurs fairly often and way too much.  Now, given that
>>a 'half a million AS/400 sales' has occured - could it have been much
>>more?, is that proof of succesful marketing?, does it help moving
forward?
>It could have been more, it could have been less. I would call any $13
>billion business a success. But that is a matter of perspective. Does it
>help moving forward? I don't get the meaning of that question.

Point is (and you have even alluded to it from an application standpoint)
if
anyone, including IBM, takes a position that everything that is being done
today is ok because I'm large, succesful, and have sold a lot is almost
a guarantee for failure.  Example "We don't need new apps we already
have 25,000 and have sold 450,000 machines", "We don't need to
advertise more because we are a 13 billion dollar company and have
gotten there doing things this way".

The AS/400 is a resounding success.  What does this mean going forward?
Potentially nothing.
>>The ads are there for Microsoft.  While they don't necessarily advertise
>>NT they don't need to (which I'm sure is one of your points).  Go check
the
>>advertisers index and look under Microsoft.......
>Right! I do see the ads for Microsoft and their products. Some even for
>NT. Now, what I saw here was complaints that IBM advertised IBM as a
>solution provider instead of advertising the AS/400.
>This was astonishing to me as I had seen this same list berate IBM for
>spending money advertising the new e models instead of spending the money
>on something worthwhile. I noticed that IBM just awarded another $10
>million to educational institutions yesterday.
>Basically, my feelings and statements were and are that I don't think
>advertising the AS/400 is always money well spent. Car manufacturers don't
>advertise engines and then when people show up for that 300 hp beauty sell
>them the car it's in. I don't think it is any better for the AS/400.
True.  I for one thought that advertising was good.  Not the sole solution
by
any stretch but....the majority of the list seemed to think that money
should
have been spent on eduction/college programs.

Is the engine a proper analogy?  Car advertisers do display performance,
handling,
quality, image, etc.

I guess I look at selling the AS/400 being accomplished by a number of
factors
(all of them)
Advertising, applications, new technologies, education, trade press, etc.
Please
note this are not in the order of any criteria except my scatterbrain.

<snip>
>Obviously, you completely missed the point. It doesn't matter if there are
>100,000 applications on the AS/400 if nobody wants them. 10,000
>applications you don't want is less than one you do. Do you mean to tell
>me that if you walk into a computer store, and the guy behind the counter
>shows you that there are 10,000 applications that don't have anything to
>do with you at all running on machine x, and the app you want is running
>on machine y, you would buy machine x? Say that with a straight face.

Can't.  Point was that it assumes the 10,000 apps don't do what the 1 does.
This purchase approach, while being reality and also indicative of the need
to ensure as many apps are available on the AS/400, is somewhat
supportive of the improper buying mentality that everyone has been talking
about.
>Now, let's see how this relates to reality. You are Bob, the manager of a
>branch of a national company. Each day you pick up a periodical concerning
>widget sales, since that is the nature of your business, and you read
>through the articles and ads. Once in a while, you find an exciting
>article about a software package that will help you to improve sales or
>reduce losses, or some other feature that improves the bottom line. When
>you find one of those packages, you want to install it and improve your
>business. You call central MIS and ask to implement these programs since
>they mean more money for the company. You are told, "No! We use AS/400s,
>that is NT. You can't run it." After this happens 20 or 30 times, you
>start to feel that running AS/400s is costing the company money.
You assume a potentially improper response.  How about being told 'Not
that application specifically but if you want call management I have a list
of 10 applications that potentially do everything you need'.  Or how about
'lets set up requirements document to ensure that all your nees are being
met and we can send out an RFQ to a list of potential vendors.'

If the AS/400 has 25,000+ applications and 3,000+ C/S applications chances
are slim to none that another platform supports the only true best of breed
application.  Granted they are there but how many?  Is it getting worse -
potentially.

>Then, to top it off, even though you hate giving up the new flashy GUI
>screens you ask if it is possible to gain some of the functions you want
>by buying an AS/400 version. You fight for months to get MIS to spare the
>manpower (because AS/400 guys are hard to come by) to research a package,
>or a modification to an existing package, or whatever. The report comes
>back that the mods you asked for can be implemented on an enterprise basis
>for $500,000.

Assuming that GUI is required.  Assuming that the AS/400 version is not
GUI.
Assuming you need MIS to research the package.  Assuming the mods are
expensive.  Then you could have a problem.
>Now, Bob is pissed. He thinks MIS is screwing the company because the NT
>app could be implemented for a few grand and he can't get the functions he
>wants because MIS says it costs a fortune. As a result, your profits are
>lower, so your pay is lower, so your bonuses are lower.
Assuming the NT app is truly implemented for a few grand and assuming that
profitability is truly affected then your example has merit.

>In truth, if MIS was to also research the NT implementation on an
>enterprise basis it would probably cost just as much or more. The ad
>didn't mention that. But how often does Bob get such an in depth
>appraisal? Especially when Bob is likely to state, "I don't want it
>enterprise wide, I just want to spend a few grand here in my area to
>implement it."
Doesn't this go back to issue of the decisions being made on what you
heard recently.  I am assuming your point is that this is application
driven vs. OS driven.  Does that make it any better?

>But this is the 10000 vs 1. Bob doesn't give a damn about the 10,000
>applications he hasn't heard about. He cares about the one he has heard
>about that will make him money. If you want him to care at all about those
>10,000 applications, then someone should tell him about them.

Yes someone should.  Don't you think that AS/400 ads as well as application
ads would be the approach?
>>No one has ever indicated that alternatives should not be explored.
>>Competition is good, assuming it's based on a rational thought process
and
>>not the in-flight magazine syndrome or some similar malady.
>
>Yes, Dean indicated that the idiot management he had to deal with forced
>him to report on alternative choices. He stated it in a fashion that
>indicated it was the very act of considering alternate implementations
>that made management foolish.
OK I give.

>>Articles are the form of advertising most noticeable - not the only.
>>Zillion articles
>>on NT applications?  That means about 1 billion articles per existing NT
>>application doesn't it?
>Don't bitch at me about it. I know that NT doesn't have nearly as many
>native applications as the AS/400. I am not at all pleased with the way
>the AS/400 is treated in the press. It is constantly ignored.

Well, you know that soapbox mode.  I also blame the 'trade press' for that
and not you.  Sorry to indicate that.

>>A lot?  What's a lot?  No new AS/400 apps?  Peoplesoft, SAP, Notes,
>>Accountmate?
>
>A lot: More than one new application every day for the last four years. I
>did not say that there were no new applications for the AS/400. What I
>stated was that the new applications for the AS/400 would stop unless IBM
>did something about it.
Agreed.

>>Why does IBM have to do something about new applications?  Maybe we have
>>stupid management at the software development houses?  Let's see, do I
>>write
>>apps for the most overhyped OS that lacks stability, integration,
>>scalability, and is
>>expensive for customers to operate or should we write to the most under
>>hyped
>>OS that has stability, integration, scalabillity?   Oh it's no big deal,
>>the overhyped
>>will get all those things in the future.  Besides, who said following the
>>lemmings
>>was bad?
>> Who's stupid here?
>Hmm, I would guess the stupid guy would be the one spending millions to
>develop an application he won't be able to sell.

Whose spending millions to develop an application he won't sell?
>If you want him to develop for the AS/400, then you need to change that
>perception. Show him how his product will sell, how he will be able to
>find developers at a reasonable cost, how development tools will reduce
>his costs and be plentiful, and that he will have a long future of
>hardware platform installs to insure a future customer base.
Agreed

>But calling him stupid because he goes where the money is just shows you
>don't know why he's in business in the first place.

That assumes that the only money is where he is going.  I do know why he
is in business for the first place and if he chooses to ignore a large
potential
revenue stream he is stupid.  Ok, maybe I shouldn't use a word like stupid.

Revenue is not solely generated by pure numbers of machines.
How about size?  Would you like to install your package for 3,000 dollars
across 5 machines or 15,000 on 1?  What does that scenario do to your
profitability and support issues?  That's probably another item IBM should
be out there getting across.


Michael Crump
Senior Systems Administrator
Ball-Foster Glass Container Corp.









+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com
|    and specify 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---