|
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
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.