• Subject: Re: ROCHESTER PUSHES BACK 2000 ANNOUNCE DATE
  • From: DAsmussen@xxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:30:39 EDT

Carl,

In a message dated 10/28/99 10:01:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
friedberg@exs.esb.com 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: david@midrange.com
+---

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 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].