RE: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero

Don, Nathan

I agree with both of you.

But I don't know that it matters much if it's implemented as hardware or
software.  I DO think it matters how it's perceived.

I don't recall any stink being raised about COD.  The iSeries is shipped
with spare CPUs.  Customer pays a premium for the option of having those
readily available, without needing a CE to come out and upgrade.  But
SOMEBODY has paid for those processors to sit their, unused.  Seems quite
similar to CFINT, in that respect.

As I just posted, in a longer piece:  "IBM charges two prices for the
iSeries, because the iSeries addresses two totally different markets.  IMV,
that is actually GOOD news, as it shows the versatility of the iSeries."

jt


"Have a GREAT day...!  And a BETTER ONE TOMORROW~~~:-)" (sm)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Nathan M. Andelin
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:02 AM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero
>
>
> From: "Don" <dr2@cssas400.com>
>
> > Nathan, would you pay $110,000 for a system you were
> > only allowed to use 7.5% of!?
>
> That would be pretty silly.
>
> It seems to me that the CRUX of the problem is that IBM markets
> "Interactive
> Features" as hardware.  Then IBM comes up with a gimmick like Interactive
> CPW to define the hardware capacity.  Then IBM comes up with something
> resembling a virus (CFINT) to control access to that capacity.
> It's out of
> sync with peoples expectations of hardware.
>
> On the other hand, when people license Client Access (for
> example) for 1000
> users, they expect to pay more than when they license Client
> Access for only
> one user.  In my opinion, IBM ought to sell Interactive Features as
> software.
>
> If 7.5% of my users needed one set of software features, and 92.5% needed
> another set of software features, and both sets of user had 100% access to
> the hardware, and TCO was comparable to the competition, then I might buy
> it.
>
> Nathan M. Andelin
> www.relational-data.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
> mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>