Carl, In a message dated 10/28/99 10:01:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes: <<snip>> > Why would IBM respond in this negative fashion? Suppose they introduce new > hardware on 1/1/0 and no one orders it until February 29th? Delivery is > normally far beyond annouce, with new products, so I don't see what is to be > gained by slipping the announcement. It just adds to the mystique of the > year 2000 problem. And, it encourages people who might order for earlier > delivery, to delay any hardware purchases. Why would you order something > which is already obsolete, knowing that IBM is putting off their new product > announcements? Too bad. <<snip>> I agree completely. I suspect another idiotic prognostication from IBM's marketing department. Why hasn't Gerstner canned them (marketing) along with all the good technical people that are now competing with IBM utilizing their buyout money? What would IBM's hardware revenue be in relation to services if they actually _KNEW_ how to sell something? With Global Services producing such a large share of IBM revenue, you would think that the marketing folks would have taken an informal poll among the Global Services employees to ask what the _CLIENTS_ are thinking. They would have found what I have -- most clients delaying purchases until after Y2K due to corporate mandate, even if they really _NEED_ a new box. Clients that would have placed an order on day one of the new announcement that will now suffer through until the belated announcement comes. Clients that will now have time to consider alternatives to IBM hardware -- a dangerous opportunity to provide in a WIN-Centric world, especially when 4Q revenues are already expected to be in the tank. Why? Why did OS/2 fail when the alternative was inferior? Why do we get generic "Magic Box" campaigns when the AS/400 is the only "box" in the touted product lines that approaches being "magical"? Why do we now have delayed product announcements at a time when IBM could most use the revenue? Why, after all this time, do so many Business Partners still perform so poorly? Three reasons -- poor oversight, poor marketing, and yes, poor marketing. Frankly, I would consider donating an organ or body part to get the same kind of response from IBM's marketing department or "Big Lou" himself on this list that we do from their developers. Alas, the latter is probably a pipe dream... Regards, Dean Asmussen Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc. Fuquay-Varina, NC USA E-mail: DAsmussen@aol.com "It's impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious." -- Anonymous +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: email@example.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.