|
Chris, Oh... I didn't catch Nathan's drift, then. I shouldn't have implied that NOBODY in "IBM knows how to determine that profitability either...;-)" The rumor that OS/400 revenues goes outside of Server Group, seems likes its just "creative bookkeeping", to me. But, yes, I can't agree more that you can't stay in business, for long, if you don't know where your revenue and expenses come from. I still think it's more art than science. jt > -----Original Message----- > From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com > [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Chris Rehm > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 9:44 PM > To: midrange-l@midrange.com > Subject: Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero > > > On Saturday 10 November 2001 05:05 pm, jt wrote: > > > I'm sort of losing the drift of the end of this post. I don't > completely > > understand your POS software, Chris, and I think Nathan's > asking why your > > POS software would become more expensive, if the governor was software > > instead of hardware. I'm not sure I understand that one, > Chris. But I'm > > not sure that's what's being said, either. > > No, Nathan's feeling is that IBM should license 5250 terminal attachments > to the iSeries instead of using a CFINT governor at all. This would allow > for a clearly defined way of maintaining a revenue stream for the "old > school" side of iSeries and allow people who want to do n-tier development > to simply license fewer 5250s and attach using other methods. > > This way, there would be no CFINT governor to complain about. > > While I agree that this would be a more elegant solution, I just happened > to know it would have an impact on some uses of the 5250 workstations that > currently don't absorb much of the CPW workload but would need to carry > their part of the cost burden. > > One big advantage to his proposal is the fact that this would > tend to quiet > down the complaints about whether or not IBM had a "right" to charge for > their product. > > > I'm not certain that IBM knows how to determine that profitability > > either...;-) > > As much as I've seen stated that agrees with you, I really feel the > opposite. I have to believe that there are people within IBM who > definetely > know the revenue produced by marketing the iSeries. But I know > that IBM may > have reasons for not wanting this to be broad public knowledge. On the one > hand, if IBM's margin is greater than 20% they'd likely face a lot of heat > from customers. On the other hand, if it is low (or projected low), they'd > likely face heat from stockholders. > > But I think the biggest point to remember is that the iSeries doesn't only > have to remain profitable, it has to remain more profitable that IBM > selling some other solution to the same customers. > > > jt > > -- > 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. >
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.