Re: AS/400 market segment (was Re: "Webulating" RPG)

I generally do not say too much, but enjoy just "lurking" ... that said,
here are a few comments (my $.50 [$.02 adjusted for inflation]) that
consolidate
all of the posts WRT the entire discussion.

The AS/400 market is facing some interesting challenges with many of the
companys out there willing to toss aside reliability (which in my mind
the
AS/400 represents) for the perceived "cheaper" solution.  Sometimes it
is
downright difficult to suggest to someone to add 4G more of DASD in a
system
when you know it is going to cost 3-4 times what many are paying for
less
reliable equipment, but in their minds, why spend the extra money.

IBM has been doing better at positioning the AS/400 with some price
reductions
and breaks, but it is still can be an uphill battle to "sell" all of the 
intangible features that make it a great box.  It (IBM) also must
realize
that the AS/400 can be a "me too" type box in a large IS shop and must
get
out of the mindset that the AS/400 is the "crescent wrench" of all IS
depts.

Only when we (IS Managers, AS/400 Programmers, Consultants) start
documenting
the success/failures of all of our equipment (sometimes this is more
tangible
than others) and calculate what it actually "costs" us to use, then
those
writing the checks will begin to understand why the [insert targeted
system]
is either a success or failure.

Lets use NT as an example.  In my office I have an AS/400 (40S), RS/6K,
Sun
SPARC/x86, Warp Server, NT Server and a few other systems.  The NT
Server is
the least stable of the bunch and all are running on IBM hardware
(except the
SUN products).  It is hard for me to imagine that someone would try to
move
their enterprise solutions away from a stable AS/400 platform to a
"cheaper"
NT solution, but it is happening at an alarming rate.  Once people can 
quantify how good/bad this and other platforms happen to be, then we can
get
back to serious computing ... until then, it is gravy for many who can 
capitalize and exploit this weakness.

qappdsn@ibm.net wrote:
> 
> Chris Rehm wrote:
> 
> > ** Reply to note from "Guillermo Andrades" <Gab@CPIsoftware.com> Mon, 23 
>Feb 1998 17:19:25 +0100
> > <<snip>>
> >
> > It is true that applications once implemented are very seldom changed.

The Y2K issue has really impacted this one.

> > However, the market share of older technology is dwindling. The reason is
> > that there are more and more new areas where technology can be implemented.
> > As a result, there is a growing market for technology. New implementations
> > which in the old days would certainly have been host based are more and
> > more being brought out on distributed systems using network servers.
> >
> > If the AS/400 doesn't want to run out of room to grow, it needs to appeal
> > to the same market segments.

Agreed. See above ... it needs to compete "head-to-head" and give those
making
the decisions better reasons for being.  However, you don't have to sell
me on
its definite merits.

> soapbox(*on)
> 
> The first, at about half of the installed base, are legacy systems which were 
>running fine on the
> old hardware (S/3x) but needed the added head room.  And they are not 
>dwindling as fast as you may
> think.  They are stable market share companies that were brought into the IBM 
>fold by a S/36 and ran
> it without a hitch for 10 years. (Some still are!)

This would be fine, except for the Y2K stuff.
 
> The second are corporate or departmental servers where reliability is the key 
>selling point.
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the ONLY keyword relevant for many of us, but to the CFO's of
the world, it is PRICE,
PRICE, PRICE!
 
> I believe what you are talking about is a historically PC based application 
>with the ability to
> access LAN data, serial devices, communications servers, etc. where the 
>"real" data base is being

I think some of us might need to rethink the LAN and communications
strategies WRT the AS/400.
Its selling points might be better served as a DAMN good database and
let other systems, boxen, 
handle the specific tasks that they might do best.  With this approach,
you need to ask yourself
and your company, "how much is your data worth?" and "what is an
acceptable UNSCEDULED downtime?".
This should help those seeking for the right "tool" for the right "job".

> stored and managed on an AS/400.  If I'm seeing things correctly, in your 
>situation, the shift is
> away from the AS/400 as the application processor to more of a secure file 
>server.  And this goes
> far beyond just putting a pretty face on a green screen.

Agreed.
 
> I believe this may be a trend for new shops that install the latest and 
>greatest apps or some of the
> larger shops, but it still leaves about 200,000 or so small shops in the gap. 
> These types of shops
> don't have an IS staff.  They've been spoiled by a machine they could run for 
>10 years and get
> reliable, acceptable performance from.  And they want to know how making it 
>look better makes it run
> better (cheaper).

That is sadly the appearance that Redmond likes to paint with their
solutions.  IBM does poorly in
this category, IMO.
 
> Here is where IBM has to do some reality checks to bring these people into 
>the new order.  I can get
> a Pentium 200, 32M ram, 2 GB disk, WinNT, network card, twinax card for one 
>third the price of
> adding an Ethernet card to a CISC AS/400.  With the money left over you can 
>give the sysop a salary
> raise to cover the OT. :) Fax adapter for a 400? Don't think so.  Even a IPCS 
>costs twice the amount
> of a stand alone PC. These dollar based decision FORCES a company to accept 
>solutions which continue
> to erode the importance of the 400 as a small business solution.  But I'd 
>guess that half the
> installed base is in <$50M/yr companies.

Amen brother!!
 
> In this environment it's hard enough to sell them on the idea of using 
>something better then a
> garage made clone as a server.  They just don't know how bad it can get!  
>They're spoiled!  And
> don't even tell them that the 386 that's receiving the shipping information 
>and tied into their
> scale is going to shut down shipping in two years...why it hasn't given them 
>any grief...so far.

Yesss!
 
> soapbox(*off)
> 
> Maybe I'm just in the small end of IBM's 80/20 rule (80% of the AS/400's are 
>installed in 20% of the
> clients, the remaining 20% of the AS/400's are spread out among 80% of the 
>clients...heh! 80/20 is
> just the name of a rule...let's not quibble over absolute numbers), and I've 
>rambled for so long
> I've lost touch of the point. :)  Oh, I remember, the target market of the 
>AS/400.. it's such a
> great machine with such scalability I think it's losing it's "nitch" and can 
>serve your situation
> and mine.  Yet be different in each case.  The new 170 can be file server, in 
>an environment of
> multiple servers, and be a small companies main computer and sole server.  
>Both markets can be
> served and served well.  Now if I could get my hands on a Nway 
>processor......I could remind the
> world that HAL and the AS/400 are both 9000 series! ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> James W. Kilgore
> qappdsn@ibm.net
> 

-Bob Angell-
-- 
   Bob Angell, Principal - Sys. Engineer/Author/Consultant
   Applied Info & Mgnt Sys, 1238 Fenway Ave., SLC, UT 84102 
   v801-583-8544 mailto:aimsllc@ibm.net mailto:aims@gte.net
   --------------------------------------------------------
            http://home1.gte.net/aims/index.htm
   --------------------------------------------------------
   "Had Mama Cass and Karen Carpenter shared that Ham sand-
   wich, they would both be with us today!"
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@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
+---