RE: Weigh in on Fast400 . . . -- MIDRANGE-L

Kevin,

Your post wasn't long enough, to suit me...:-)  See comments inline.

BTW, love your tag line...! !  If you made that up, IMHO, you should protect
it by placing a service mark after it: "(sm)".  Let me know (off-list) if
you're interested in selling it.

jjt


"Have a GREAT day...!  And a BETTER ONE TOMORROW~~~:=)" (sm)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of KMort@supnet.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 3:10 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Weigh in on Fast400 . . .
>
>
>
> Greetings.
>
> I will say right off sorry for the length.....(as I see this
> thing growing)
>
> As to whether it would be legal for IBM to change OS/400 to "make sure"
> Fast400 won't work....
>
> IMHO there is no legal requirement to make sure the OS will support
> Fast400.  If IBM would say change how interactive accounting
> works so it no
> longer changes this "magic bit", it would be up to TigerTools to change
> their code to see if they can make it work with this new method. The same
> thing stands in the case that mentioned possibly changing the location of
> this bit on the system.

There are many ways to circumvent TigerTools' trick.


>
> Perhaps IBM should have designed the machine so this was not possible.
> Perhaps is raises questions as to the interactive feature
> structure itself.
> Tiger Tools has indicated that IBM would not have a legal leg to stand on
> if a case were filed to squelch this app. This may or may not be true.
> However, If the ability to make this work is seen as a "hole" in the OS,
> isn't IBM entitled to close this hole?

More like obligated...  I say that because they're obligated to protect
their employee's and shareholder's interests.


>
> Now let's contrast this with a case where the OS would detect that Fast400
> was installed and then either remove that software or somehow corrupt the
> code etc. to make sure it would not run. There is most definitely a
> difference here.

I can't imagine IBM would do that, but I've been surprised by them before.


>
> I clearly understand the reasoning behind the pricing structure of iSeries
> machines - however, I see configurations every day where folks are paying
> $350,000 for interactive capacity and need an oxygen tank standing by when
> you deliver the config. That being the case I believe a better model is
> most certainly in order.

No doubt.  I'm sure IBM is looking into it, if they don't have one in mind
already.  They will proceed at the pace of the market, though.  Or the pace
that they /perceive/ the market requires.


>
> I believe it would be difficult to find someone on this list who thinks
> that pricing for something like MS Office is acceptable at $600 +. I also
> believe that if you really dug into it  and got to talking to folks you
> would find a number who have less than fully disclosed copies of software
> packages loaded on a PC or two. However, this does not change the legality
> of the fact that you are supposed to purchase your own license to the
> software. The same thing goes for your interactive capacity.

Some people don't mind skirting such issues as "what is ethical", to save a
substantial amount of money.  Some will do a risk/benefit analysis.  Some
will implement software tools that accomplish the same thing, in a more
ethical manner (which are available now).  Some will wait for a software
tool that does so transparently..  Hopefully they won't have to wait for too
long.


>
> To IBM > I think that if we are going to "WebFace" an app - the dang thing
> shouldn't use interactive! But alas they do. This adds to the
> difficulty of
> moving away from green screen applications that cost big $$$ to make use
> of.

Point well taken, IMV (in my view).


>
> We know green screen is fast, we know it is the best thing for data entry
> on the planet. We all know these facts. But wait....what did I
> just say? Oh
> yea, WE know these things. How we as a community present the box in the
> apps we create and the attitudes we have will help dictate its future. We
> cannot continually make IBM the scapegoat for not creating client server
> apps.

Hmmm...  But it almost sounds like you think the Community is solely
responsible for this situation.

IBM can disengage the interactive penalty faster that TigerTools.  Is it
legal/ethical/moral to charge two radically different prices for the same
computer...?  That's been debated here before, but never found any clear
answers to that one.

No matter, because it's a moot point.  IBM charges what the market will
bear.  The market bears the hardware prices, because the cost of re-training
the workforce and re-tooling the software is more than the price of the
hardware.  As long as that's the case, I don't see IBM changing their
pricing model.


Now, I don't absolve the Community of some responsibility for this.. just
saying it's an expensive proposition either way.  The existing tools which
bypass the interactive governor are about as expensive and are cumbersome.
They're that way because the market will bear it.

Over a year ago, Mike Cravitz (News/400 RPG guru) posted the question
something to the effect:  is there some easy way to change an EXFMT to an
API call that allows client/server programming and/or web programming?  I
don't recall if he asked specifically for a way to bypass the governor, or
not.  I never saw any satisfactory solution to that question.

Not being content to talk about it, I looked into it.  I believe there is a
way.  But the proof is in the pudding...

I told IBM, just about a year ago, that I was not actively pursuing it
because I recognized the need for green-screen customers to subsidize
lower-cost models, to keep the iSeries competitive.  About 6 months ago, I
told them the situation had changed, and I decided to develop such a
product.  That is my intention.  You may see some results early next year...
or you may not.  If there is little hope of this being accomplished, I'll
post my findings and other's can pursue it if they want.  But first, I'm
going to take a shot at making some money off the idea.

Point being, the Community has been more interested in talking about the
thing, than doing something about it.  I definitely see a shared
responsibility for IBM's pricing model.


>
> I firmly believe that whatever makes the iSeries more prevalent in the
> marketplace is fundamentally a good thing.

I can't agree more.  That's why I changed my mind about working on this.


> Whether TigerTools will do this
> is in some doubt. Will it extend the number of older technology machines
> still in place? Definitely. Could it potentially quell the growth of the
> platform in terms of new server sales or upgrades? Possibly. Could you
> argue that the influence this app will have is likely to be minimal? Yes.
> We could all be massively overstating the implications of this tool. Shops
> implementing TigerTools may not have been upgrading anytime soon anyway.
> You may be correct. But then again. . .

I'm extremely doubtful that many shops are going to purchase a significantly
smaller piece of interactive than they need.  First time IBM implements a
"fix" for TigerTools' trick, your system is gonna crawl slower than bin
Laden through a tunnel...;-)  Hard to see the risk/benefit working out
well...  The "legal/ethical/moral" element doesn't even come into play, IMV.


But points to the double-edge sword thing.  If something does come along to
make the iSeries unprofitable, this is NOT going to be a good thing, over
the long run.  There are 3 divisions within the Server Group, which would be
more than happy to see the iSeries Division just go away.  An unprofitable
iSeries is the easiest way for that to happen, IMV.  Such a scenario
wouldn't surprise me at all.

So if I, or someone else, develops a tool that gains widespread usage to
eliminate the interactive "tax", what are the implications?  IMV, there are
several things which may, or may not, happen:

a) IBM can choose to implement the governor on any tools they want
b) The market will have to be prepared to pay more for software, support,
and services
c) The iSeries will go under, but bought by a "white knight"
d) There will be a gradual shift, where increased sales volume makes up for
lost revenue
e) The iSeries will be combined with the pSeries to make a "super-server"
f) The iSeries will follow the path of the S/36
g) The iNation will save the day
h) Other

Could be any combination of these, BTW...


>
> ---------------------
> Kevin E. Mort
> iSeries Technical Support
> Support Net, Inc.
> Ph: 888.480.TECH
> Fx: 954.428.3991
> Mailto:kmort@supnet.com
>
> IBM Certified Expert - e(logo)server iSeries 400 Technology
> Lotus Certified Specialist
>
> " i want everything to work. i choose iSeries. "