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

Nathan,

Ya...  I've tusseled with Chris' inscrutable logic a time or two, myself...!
But if you're looking for an argument from me, your out of luck.  You make
too many good points, yourself...!

But still, I feel there is room for niche players, in the iSeries software
market.  I sure wouldn't want to go toe to toe with IBM.  But I know you've
been around long enough to have witnessed what Windoze did to OS/2...
Finding the right balance between price, performance, and perception is the
key.  Having the technically superior product is a help, but that obviously
doesn't mean it gonna take the market by storm.

We may end up with a dozen or so massive computer utility suppliers, to
handle all the industry's needs.  But that day ain't here yet...  I hope to
be retired before that day, and/or the day they pull the plug on the last
400 on the planet...;-)

BTW, Nathan...  I don't recall that you've ever posted how long you've been
on the platform.  But I can gather you've been around long enough to have
witnessed the imminent demise of the 400, several times over.  Remember when
the web, NT, C/S and LANS, Windoze and even IBM's own RS/6000 were all
projected to put the 38/400/i into the grave...?  I show my age, but I
vaguely remember something called an RT/PC that threatened the 38...  (I
thin...?)  Anyhoo, the platform has nine lives, there's no doubt.  No
crystal balls to tell if it's currently on it's ninth life now, or not.

But what do you think, Nathan:  Doesn't this mostly depend on whatever the
follow-on product is to the iSeries...?

jt



> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Nathan M. Andelin
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 10:04 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>