Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero

jt,

Chris makes too many good points to argue with for long.  I'd better come
argue with you <smile>.

I understand your point to be that a legal argument pales in comparison to
public opinion.  A point well taken.

I have mixed feelings about Rochester doing so much bundling.  It's a good
way to build a monopoly.  An integrated solution is a good thing.  But I
wonder if it might be hurting the iSeries now.    Bundling is hard on people
who want to provide solutions for the iSeries.  They end up competing with
IBM.  Their software may be better, but it's not given a chance.  More
importantly, bundling makes the iSeries uncompetitive in a number of
markets.  Web serving is the biggie.  Once a Wintel Web server is installed,
the next step is to use it to deploy applications.  The tools are trendy,
and some of those applications are replacing iSeries applications.

Nathan M. Andelin
www.relational-data.com



>From: "jt" <jt@ee.net>

> Nathan,
>
> You have a keen eye.  I think that's the only thing that separates you
from
> being a lawyer...  ROLFMAO...!
>
> OTOH, what Chris is saying is that IBM isn't necessarily gipping a
customer,
> because they're getting what they paid for, if you define that according
to
> measurable work, or CPW.  IANAP (not a physicist) but CPW seems like a
> reasonable measure of work.  So the question becomes, is IBM supplying a
> tangible good, or computing capability.
>
> I tend to think that legally you may be right.  I also tend to agree it
> would be better to license the thing as software.  And I don't see how it
> can be denied that "there's something slippery about using a program to
burn
> cpu cycles".  I think that view is buttressed by the fact that Mr.
Gerstner,
> at one time, denied there was such a thing as a governor inside the 400,
and
> that it wouldn't make any business sense to have one.  (I agree with half
of
> that statement, BTW...;-)  Wish I had that quote, but it was a few years
> ago...
>
> OTOH, you wrote "That's the standard IBM line.  But the properties of the
> machine are not defined by CFINT.  They're defined by hardware
components."
> Clearly the properties of just about all things are defined by perception.
>
>
> Give you an example:  IBM recently bundled Websphere with the OS.  I see
> some good in that, and some bad.  Not trying to start a new thread here...
> My point is that if M$ had done this, there'd be a swarm of media
attention
> scrutinizing this and there'd be many exceedingly long threads on the
> subject...  But I never saw this regarding IBM's announcement of the
> bundling.  That's because it's generally perceived in the iSeries
Community
> as a good thing.  That's one of the primary advantages that the iSeries
> provides to IBM.. a knowledgable Community.
>
> That's an example of what I mean about things being defined primarily by
> what is perceived.  Just some food for thought.
>
>
> jt