RE: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero

Chris,

Oh...  I didn't catch Nathan's drift, then.

I shouldn't have implied that NOBODY in "IBM knows how to determine that
profitability either...;-)"  The rumor that OS/400 revenues goes outside of
Server Group, seems likes its just "creative bookkeeping", to me.  But, yes,
I can't agree more that you can't stay in business, for long, if you don't
know where your revenue and expenses come from.

I still think it's more art than science.

jt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Chris Rehm
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 9:44 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero
>
>
> On Saturday 10 November 2001 05:05 pm, jt wrote:
>
> > I'm sort of losing the drift of the end of this post.  I don't
> completely
> > understand your POS software, Chris, and I think Nathan's
> asking why your
> > POS software would become more expensive, if the governor was software
> > instead of hardware.  I'm not sure I understand that one,
> Chris.  But I'm
> > not sure that's what's being said, either.
>
> No, Nathan's feeling is that IBM should license 5250 terminal attachments
> to the iSeries instead of using a CFINT governor at all. This would allow
> for a clearly defined way of maintaining a revenue stream for the "old
> school" side of iSeries and allow people who want to do n-tier development
> to simply license fewer 5250s and attach using other methods.
>
> This way, there would be no CFINT governor to complain about.
>
> While I agree that this would be a more elegant solution, I just happened
> to know it would have an impact on some uses of the 5250 workstations that
> currently don't absorb much of the CPW workload but would need to carry
> their part of the cost burden.
>
> One big advantage to his proposal is the fact that this would
> tend to quiet
> down the complaints about whether or not IBM had a "right" to charge for
> their product.
>
> > I'm not certain that IBM knows how to determine that profitability
> > either...;-)
>
> As much as I've seen stated that agrees with you, I really feel the
> opposite. I have to believe that there are people within IBM who
> definetely
> know the revenue produced by marketing the iSeries. But I know
> that IBM may
> have reasons for not wanting this to be broad public knowledge. On the one
> hand, if IBM's margin is greater than 20% they'd likely face a lot of heat
> from customers. On the other hand, if it is low (or projected low), they'd
> likely face heat from stockholders.
>
> But I think the biggest point to remember is that the iSeries doesn't only
> have to remain profitable, it has to remain more profitable that IBM
> selling some other solution to the same customers.
>
> > jt
>
> --
> Chris Rehm
> javadisciple@earthlink.net
>
> And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
> ...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
> commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>