Re: IBM getting rid of RPG

> Chris,
> If in your flood of words is the sentiment that ibm needs to make money,
then I agree.

Well, close. Sorry it's a flood of words, that's just me. But more
specifically I'm saying that IBM feels there are two different markets,
interactive and batch. But I think they really view those as "AS/400
specific" and "industry standard." Sure, there's a blurring. But anyway, IBM
will need to support the AS/400 specific through income from that market. If
it doesn't profit them to keep up the integrated AS/400 server, away it
goes.

> My point is that the cost of cfint is not $, but loss of simplicity,
options and flexibility. The server models are not as good as they could be
because interactive use is not allowed. In a competitive world, this limits
the acceptance of our platform.
>
> I think your response is to say that all the user has to do is pay the $
and then they can have all the interactive and batch env have to offer. My
response: look at the nbrs. customers are not willing to pay the price.

Well, not exactly. But I am saying that IBM provides a set of
services/products at a price. If a customer does want that, then they need
to pay that price. It doesn't matter what other people pay for different
services.

I agree that some people will find that service to not be cost effective.
IBM will lose customers because of that. They have to juggle that.

> Steve Richter

Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---