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

On Sunday 11 November 2001 05:08 pm, M. Lazarus wrote:

> At 11/11/01 01:13 PM -0800, you wrote:
> >I'm afraid I just don't understand that analogy and it confuses me when
you
> >say that is "how /400 customers view..."
> >
> >IBM isn't charging more for existing systems. They do charge less for CPW
> >than they did in the past, but their price/power ration hasn't declined
as
> >rapidly as other platforms or even when compared with buying the same
> >platform but when used for other purposes.
> >
> >I'm not trying to justify IBM's pricing, I'm just looking at your analogy
> >above. I just don't see how it fits at all.
>
>   Then let's look at history.  With every release / upgrade / iteration /
> generation of hardware the price per transaction has dropped.  This is, of
> course, not unique to the IBM Midrange, it's the natural evolution of
> technology.
>
>   The 5250 interactive data stream has been around for decades.  It is
> stable and is not being improved upon (at least significantly.)  There is
> relatively little cost for IBM to support it.  So, from a customer's
> perspective, it looks like IBM has decided to halt Moore's law by
> artificially reducing the ability to do a particular type of processing or
> charging an exorbitant price to enable what should have been there in the
> first place - and traditionally always has been!!  It was up to the
> customer to decide how to split up their processing load.  Is this IBM's
> way of trying to recoup the loss of sales of their dumb terminals?

Okay, first off you did nothing at all to explain the analogy I was asking
about. Your little look at history was petty worthless in both that regard,
and in making your point. The cost for computing power for 5250 interactive
jobs still does decline.

I found your reply annoying because you started off pretending to address
the issue I was questioning, but never even got close.

Regarding your own concerns that IBM somehow has some responsibility to
provide 5250 stream processing to customers free or at commodity prices, I
think that is ridiculous.

>   How do you think a customer looking to upgrade to a new system will view
> the new pricing model?  Stunts like this cause customers to reevaluate
> continuing to use the platform when it comes time to upgrade.

Well, thank goodness for that! After all, when those customers do an actual
evaluation of the cost/value of the iSeries platform they discover that it
is a much better value than other choices. That is, those customers that
actually look at the value of what they are buying as opposed to just
whining about the cost.

>   I that clarifies my opinion.

Mark, from what I can tell your opinion is that IBM has no right to charge
for 5250 services since they are what is "supposed" to be on the iSeries. I
don't think that reflects any sort of real vendor/customer relationship.
IBM has a product of value to you and your employers. IBM would like to
make a profit on delivering that product. If IBM can't make a profit at it,
I doubt they will continue to supply it. They have other products they can
sell to other customers to make money.

Now, if you feel that the product is overpriced, you could show how it is
priced higher than its value (ie., ROI is low or non-existant). Or, show
how IBM is making an exhorbitant profit (I would consider greater than 20%
worth complaining about although Microsoft has been known to bring in
greater than 40%).

>   -mark

--
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