Re: More IBM Firings

[Jon Paris <Jon.Paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12-Nov-08, at 2:04 PM, midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Ross Mauri's recent letter included a very unfortunate word in  
> describing "i". He called it "strategic". Today being November 11th  
> I hope you all remember your history lessons, including what that  
> designation means to IBM products and initiatives.

Neil - you have it all backwards.  I agree it is an unfortunate word  
to have applied to the i but not for the reason you state.

"strategic" in IBM terms means that vast amounts of money and resource  
will be spent on it (and here's the important unwritten bit)  
regardless of whether it is a good idea or not and whether anyone  
needs it or not.  That's why when some new "strategy" comes along,  
everyone and his brother frantically tries to make their product fit  
the mold.  The current buzz would be SOA, but in the past AD/Cycle was  
strategic, SAA was strategic, VisualAge xxx was strategic, OS/2 was  
strategic.  WebSphere may be one of the few strategic things to meet  
with any real success.

"strategic" products tend to get buried under their own hype and the  
number of truly idiotic hanger-on products that leap on the  
bandwagon.  Some like AD/Cycle and SAA were good ideas in many ways,  
but ahead of their time and the technology curve - and IBM got "bored"  
with them long before the market was ready. But hey! we got RPG IV out  
of SAA so it wasn't all bad!

On-going success stories that were never really strategic (and hence  
successful) would be things like CICS and MQ Series.

Question is are we going to see the massive investment that  
"strategic" products normally attract.


Jon Paris

www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com