|
This clause has been a thorn in our side for years. I have argued vehemently with JBA, and subsequently Geac, that the size of AS400 we use is our business, not theirs, and reflects the nature of the applications we choose to run to support our business, and how we want to run them. We might have one very larger "killer" app that needs a big machine, so why should we then be penalised if we also run S21 on that system to support a small number of users if it is convenient for us to do so? There is also the other issue that has been touched on: that of System 21 performance itself. The increasing reliance on SQL has a significant impact on machine performance, so upgrades tend to become necessary just to maintain an acceptable level of performance for the end-user. If you are running on a fairly lowly system (as we are) with no potential small scale upgrade, then the next step can be huge in performance terms. When discussing hardware upgrades in the past, it has been made clear that the minimum numbers clause is negotiable only if the hardware order is placed through Geac. The modules themselves are costed on a per user basis. As understand the licensing currently, if you have a 50 user license, you have 50 users for each module in your specific stack. So if you only need two users on payroll, you still must pay for 50. A colleague in another group company had a period where this arrangement was flexible, and different numbers of users could be acquired per module. I followed this up recently and was told that this licensing model had now been prohibited by Geac. I have no doubt that System 21 is starting to suffer from basic design limitations inherent from when the product was first put together, and this is more than evident in the application management facilities. I asked for better usage reporting at a UK Technical User Group over 8 years ago, along with improved auditing, consistent archiving procedures, and better subsystem management: things still haven't changed. It would appear the Geac don't seem to consider the application's control and management to be sufficiently "sexy" to warrant any real investment. For the target SME's with only small IT departments this could be interpreted as either a significant marketing blunder or a method of extracting more consultancy business. Depends on how cynical you are. It's all very well saying negotiate, but these licensing/upgrade are, in my opinion, verging on restrictive practice. It would be interesting to see the contract conditions challenged seriously. I don't think these conditions do Geac any favours. Indeed, the frustration they cause can only lead to possible a loss of revenue as people consider less costly, and less restrictive alternatives. David Dewick Information Technology Manager ThyssenKrupp Darcast Limited -----Original Message----- From: jbausers-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jbausers-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 08 March 2003 18:00 To: jbausers-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: JBAUSERS-L Digest, Vol 1, Issue 450 Send JBAUSERS-L mailing list submissions to jbausers-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/jbausers-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to jbausers-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx You can reach the person managing the list at jbausers-l-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of JBAUSERS-L digest..." Today's Topics: 1. [SYS21] Re: Minimum Number of Users (Heffner, Art) 2. [SYS21] Re: Minimum Number of Users (keith.tyler@xxxxxxx) 3. [SYS21] Re: Minimum Number of Users (Tim Pfeifer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- message: 1 date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:51:51 -0500 from: "Heffner, Art" <aheffner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> subject: [SYS21] Re: Minimum Number of Users I love JBAs argument that if you are upgrading your processor, you must be doing better. Didn't they ever think you have to upgrade your processor because their inefficient code runs so slow? Art Heffner PTS -----Original Message----- From: Angus Appleby [mailto:aappleby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:51 AM To: GEAC/JBA System 21 Users Subject: [SYS21] Re: Minimum Number of Users Yes, another great JBA scam! When I was at my previous company, we wanted to upgrade to a 720 machine to make use of the faster processor for the web serving elements of the AS/400, nothing at all to do with JBA, or increase in business, or additional throughput. We had the "minimum no of users" clause in the contract which stated that we had to buy something ridiculous like about another 50 users, even though we already had what we wanted at 35. After about 6 months wrangling and much unpleasantness, we agreed to buy 5 additional users at our original purchase price (plus maintenance). JBA argued that the clause was in there as they assumed that if you were upgrading your processor, you must be doing better, so they should be entitled to a share! The whole thing left a very sour taste, and the first thing I checked when I moved to my new company, was for this clause in our contract. We run a model 720 here also, with 45 users, and no sign of a minimum, even though the contract was signed at approximately the same time as my last company. All in all, I don't believe there are any agreed standards, its purely down to the individual salesman and contract agreed at that time. I certainly don't envy anyone caught up in this. Angus "Watkins, Rick" <rwatkins@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: jbausers-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx 07/03/2003 15:18 Please respond to GEAC/JBA System 21 Users To: "'JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx> cc: Subject: [SYS21] Minimum Number of Users Minimum (?) number of users. Although this subject has been discussed before I would like to resurrect it. In reviewing the past thread, there appears to be a number of inconsistencies in representations made by JBA (Geac) to users. For instance Hitachi was told that the minimum number of users for a 720 was 170 - recently we were told in writing that the number was 127. This would lead one to look at the processor not the model number. In our case we purchased 150 licenses for a 510 P30 (processor), moved to a 720 P20 and incurred no phantom upcharge, then moved to an 820 and back up to the P30 processor (our original level) and are now being told that we need 39 more licenses. (we own 150 and only use about 120). We were also told at the time of sale that there would be no tier based pricing - only per user pricing (naturally that salesperson is long gone). What we weren't told is that Geac would be the one to tell us the minimum number of users we have in our facilities. Also in the past thread it was stated by some customers that they were given a schedule of AS400 models and the minimum number of users. Did everyone receive this schedule? Does any outside agency play a part in determining the minimum user number or is Geac free to do whatever they please? Doesn't this practice seem counter- productive to their partnership with IBM since it discourages hardware upgrades? By the way, we were chastised for not purchasing our upgraded hardware through Geac and the implication was made that if we had, this upcharge could have been avoided. How? I cannot understand how we are required to buy something for which we have no use. And it goes without saying, that this larger number of users will be used to determine annual maintenance costs ad infinitum. It would appear that Geac wants to drive users to dropping maintenance. If anyone can shed light on this usurious practice please do so. If anyone else has an 820 P30 machine I would appreciate knowing have many minimum users you were required to have licenses for. I think this will be a nice discussion topic during the Q & A at Mr. Quinn's Alliance presentation. Rick Watkins Director of BPR RJF International Company _______________________________________________ This is the GEAC/JBA System 21 Users (JBAUSERS-L) mailing list To post a message email: JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/jbausers-l or email: JBAUSERS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/jbausers-l. _______________________________________________ This is the GEAC/JBA System 21 Users (JBAUSERS-L) mailing list To post a message email: JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/jbausers-l or email: JBAUSERS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/jbausers-l. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- Notice: All email sent to or from the Production Tool Supply corporate email system may be retained, monitored and/or reviewed by PTS personnel. The views expressed in this email may not necessarily reflect the views of Production Tool Supply. ------------------------------ message: 2 date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 15:33:04 -0500 from: keith.tyler@xxxxxxx subject: [SYS21] Re: Minimum Number of Users The statements below about Hitachi are somewhat incorrect. We did have a situation during one of our upgrades that required Geac (then JBA) to advise us that our user count was insufficient for the processor upgrade. We were moving to a 620 - 2181 at the time (02/99) and the minimum number of users (according to a document we did not have) was 170. Just as many of you have stated this was quite a shock as none of our other 400 based products were licensed this way. We were able to work with Geac (JBA) to a conclusion that allowed a win / win situation. But it did leave a scar that has since healed considerably. My suggestion to anyone that has the potential to change processors in the future. Check your contract for the "minimum user clause", if it exists, ask your account rep for a copy of the (Minimum number of Users based on Processor Size) document. This will allow you to evaluate your exposure and work with Geac on any plans moving forward. Keith "Watkins, Rick" <rwatkins@xxxxxxxxxx To: "'JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > cc: Sent by: Subject: [SYS21] Minimum Number of Users jbausers-l-bounces@x idrange.com 03/07/2003 10:18 AM Please respond to GEAC/JBA System 21 Users Minimum (?) number of users. Although this subject has been discussed before I would like to resurrect it. In reviewing the past thread, there appears to be a number of inconsistencies in representations made by JBA (Geac) to users. For instance Hitachi was told that the minimum number of users for a 720 was 170 - recently we were told in writing that the number was 127. This would lead one to look at the processor not the model number. In our case we purchased 150 licenses for a 510 P30 (processor), moved to a 720 P20 and incurred no phantom upcharge, then moved to an 820 and back up to the P30 processor (our original level) and are now being told that we need 39 more licenses. (we own 150 and only use about 120). We were also told at the time of sale that there would be no tier based pricing - only per user pricing (naturally that salesperson is long gone). What we weren't told is that Geac would be the one to tell us the minimum number of users we have in our facilities. Also in the past thread it was stated by some customers that they were given a schedule of AS400 models and the minimum number of users. Did everyone receive this schedule? Does any outside agency play a part in determining the minimum user number or is Geac free to do whatever they please? Doesn't this practice seem counter- productive to their partnership with IBM since it discourages hardware upgrades? By the way, we were chastised for not purchasing our upgraded hardware through Geac and the implication was made that if we had, this upcharge could have been avoided. How? I cannot understand how we are required to buy something for which we have no use. And it goes without saying, that this larger number of users will be used to determine annual maintenance costs ad infinitum. It would appear that Geac wants to drive users to dropping maintenance. If anyone can shed light on this usurious practice please do so. If anyone else has an 820 P30 machine I would appreciate knowing have many minimum users you were required to have licenses for. I think this will be a nice discussion topic during the Q & A at Mr. Quinn's Alliance presentation. Rick Watkins Director of BPR RJF International Company _______________________________________________ This is the GEAC/JBA System 21 Users (JBAUSERS-L) mailing list To post a message email: JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/jbausers-l or email: JBAUSERS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/jbausers-l. ------------------------------ message: 3 date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:29:18 -0800 from: "Tim Pfeifer" <pfeifert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> subject: [SYS21] Re: Minimum Number of Users We upgraded from a 500 to an 820 this year. The issue with a software charge related to a change in processor happened with three of or software vendors. It was a common part of contracts and not unusual in the AS/400 world. We had to negotiate a reduced fee in all three situations. I inherited all three contracts from a "previous administration". I would advise anyone to review all your software contracts before any upgrade. It's all "old school" and we all know the reasons for upgrades. We can only hope it's because we are "doing better". But even that isn't a good reason to have to pay more for the software. Negotiate a reduced fee or no fee. Lets put this subject to bed! Tim Pfeifer Director of Information Systems -----Original Message----- From: jbausers-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jbausers-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of keith.tyler@xxxxxxx Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:33 PM To: GEAC/JBA System 21 Users Subject: [SYS21] Re: Minimum Number of Users The statements below about Hitachi are somewhat incorrect. We did have a situation during one of our upgrades that required Geac (then JBA) to advise us that our user count was insufficient for the processor upgrade. We were moving to a 620 - 2181 at the time (02/99) and the minimum number of users (according to a document we did not have) was 170. Just as many of you have stated this was quite a shock as none of our other 400 based products were licensed this way. We were able to work with Geac (JBA) to a conclusion that allowed a win / win situation. But it did leave a scar that has since healed considerably. My suggestion to anyone that has the potential to change processors in the future. Check your contract for the "minimum user clause", if it exists, ask your account rep for a copy of the (Minimum number of Users based on Processor Size) document. This will allow you to evaluate your exposure and work with Geac on any plans moving forward. Keith "Watkins, Rick" <rwatkins@xxxxxxxxxx To: "'JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > cc: Sent by: Subject: [SYS21] Minimum Number of Users jbausers-l-bounces@x idrange.com 03/07/2003 10:18 AM Please respond to GEAC/JBA System 21 Users Minimum (?) number of users. Although this subject has been discussed before I would like to resurrect it. In reviewing the past thread, there appears to be a number of inconsistencies in representations made by JBA (Geac) to users. For instance Hitachi was told that the minimum number of users for a 720 was 170 - recently we were told in writing that the number was 127. This would lead one to look at the processor not the model number. In our case we purchased 150 licenses for a 510 P30 (processor), moved to a 720 P20 and incurred no phantom upcharge, then moved to an 820 and back up to the P30 processor (our original level) and are now being told that we need 39 more licenses. (we own 150 and only use about 120). We were also told at the time of sale that there would be no tier based pricing - only per user pricing (naturally that salesperson is long gone). What we weren't told is that Geac would be the one to tell us the minimum number of users we have in our facilities. Also in the past thread it was stated by some customers that they were given a schedule of AS400 models and the minimum number of users. Did everyone receive this schedule? Does any outside agency play a part in determining the minimum user number or is Geac free to do whatever they please? Doesn't this practice seem counter- productive to their partnership with IBM since it discourages hardware upgrades? By the way, we were chastised for not purchasing our upgraded hardware through Geac and the implication was made that if we had, this upcharge could have been avoided. How? I cannot understand how we are required to buy something for which we have no use. And it goes without saying, that this larger number of users will be used to determine annual maintenance costs ad infinitum. It would appear that Geac wants to drive users to dropping maintenance. If anyone can shed light on this usurious practice please do so. If anyone else has an 820 P30 machine I would appreciate knowing have many minimum users you were required to have licenses for. I think this will be a nice discussion topic during the Q & A at Mr. Quinn's Alliance presentation. Rick Watkins Director of BPR RJF International Company _______________________________________________ This is the GEAC/JBA System 21 Users (JBAUSERS-L) mailing list To post a message email: JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/jbausers-l or email: JBAUSERS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/jbausers-l. _______________________________________________ This is the GEAC/JBA System 21 Users (JBAUSERS-L) mailing list To post a message email: JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/jbausers-l or email: JBAUSERS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/jbausers-l. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ This is the GEAC/JBA System 21 Users (JBAUSERS-L) digest list To post a message email: JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/jbausers-l or email: JBAUSERS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/jbausers-l. End of JBAUSERS-L Digest, Vol 1, Issue 450 ******************************************
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
