Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero -- MIDRANGE-L


Chris,

If I understand your thought process here right, IBM also needs to keep in
mind the cost justification to the user versus other alternatively
available platforms that DON'T screw their users on the interactive
portion of the system.

We just did a system review for a client and they went balistic when we
explained how IBM's tiered interactive tax was structured...the guy wanted
to know how fast we could go to a intel platform where he didn't have to
pay for interactive through the ....

The NON-IBM world is of the mentality that if they buy a machine that runs
at 1.7ghz that they should be able to use ALL OF IT FOR THEIR
APPLICATIONS...NOT have some bullshit cycle killer like CFINTxx come in
and creat a forced cap on performance.

Justifying to people that they're paying PREMIUM pricing for a machine
that they'll not be able to use all that they're paying for is getting to
be alot harder in the real world...

Don in DC

----------

On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Chris Rehm wrote:

> On one hand, if the Fast400 product does (and I believe this to be the
> case) violate licensing agreements of iSeries owners, then it is only of
> value to those who do not mind putting their relationship with IBM at risk.
> This seems unlikely to be a large percentage of those people who have
> chosen to use the most reliable platform in the world.
>
> On the other hand, if it is perfectly legal and IBM must allow its use by
> customers, they have two forms of recourse:
>
> First, they can look to software methods of changing the identification of
> jobs so that the Fast400 patch doesn't work, allowing business to go on as
> before. This would probably lead to TigerTools trying to break that method
> as well, and the game goes on.
>
> Second, they could evaluate how much of the iSeries revenue stream is
> derived from the current method of licensing interactive jobs. If this
> revenue stream is "undefensable" then there really isn't any point in IBM
> continuing to produce the iSeries. Non-interactive (or what might be
> considered "more conventional") processing power is available from IBM in
> several other forms with the R&D already paid for by those markets. Dumping
> the existing iSeries NI market into those areas would simplify IBM's market
> strategies and lower overhead.
>
> If the revenue stream is "defensable" and IBM can find a way to play with
> the system to keep the license revenue in place, then I'm sure IBM wouldn't
> just give up what is a good source of revenue.
>
> It seems to be that one end is that we can look forward to IBM finding a
> way of defeating the Fast400 product. The other end is for IBM to
> discontinue the platform. I know that there are some people that are hoping
> IBM will just start selling the iSeries for the same as any Wintel box, but
> I just don't see IBM dumping all the extra R&D into iSeries when they could
> just sell the Wintel box instead.
>
> In the mean time, IBM dollars are being spent to "correct" this issue.
> That's money that could be going to solving the existing issues with the
> iSeries. Maybe improving compilers or adding new tools or whatever. But you
> can bet IBM isn't running out to hire NEW developers to correct this
> problem.
>
> So the net advantage to the iSeries community, less than zero. We lose.
>
>
> --
> Chris Rehm
> javadisciple@earthlink.net
>
> And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
> ...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
> commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>