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

Nathan,

You're pretty subtle.

Now.. I agree with all that Chris has said.  Because I think that on a
PRACTICAL level, it makes little difference between implementing this as
hardware or software.

On a PR level, though, I DEFINITELY agree with you're views.

On a legal level...?


I've spent some time wondering what IBM would do if a piece of software was
implemented that was more efficient than the OS/400 alternative.  Would they
actively back it?  Would they even support it?  Would they condone it?
Would they just stay silent on the issue, or actively try to thwart it...?
(The latter is easy enough for them to do, becaue they can target the
interactive "feature" to kick in on pretty much whatever they want.)

I'm not ruling out the possibility that they'd gradually drop the cost of
the interactive feature, starting first to iNation citizens...!  But this
seems the least likely prospect, unless they re-structure their pricing to
re-coup it elsewhere (ideally out of some other Division or some other
Group's budget ;-).


jt



> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Nathan M. Andelin
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:14 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero
>
>
> From: "Chris Rehm" <javadisciple@earthlink.net>
> > Because IBM offsets some of its manufacturing costs by
> > licensing some machines to smaller users, the overall cost of
> delivery to
> > the big customer is reduced so they pay less, not more. IBM is not
> crowding
> > out big deliveries by packing small orders into the production
> line. They
> > are letting the production line run at optimum capacity and
> they are using
> > the smaller licenses to offset some costs.
>
> IBM is "licensing some machines"?  But licensing is the domain of
> software,
> not hardware.  If IBM were to classify "Interactive Features" as software,
> then the licensing point would make sense.  In a hardware context, it
> doesn't.
>
> The problem is that IBM classifies "Interactive Features" as hardware.
> Installs a dummy card to support that notion.  Complains that
> Fast400 offers
> "unpurchased capacity".
>
> If that line of thinking were taken to the next level, then any software
> installed that was more efficient than an OS/400 alternative, should be
> classified as offering unpurchased capacity.  Sounds like
> illogical nonsense
> to me!
>
> In my opinion, hardware capacity is defined primarily by physical
> attributes.  In contrast, Interactive Features are defined by OS/400.  To
> attempt to blur the difference is a big mistake.
>
> Nathan M. Andelin
> www.relational-data.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>