Don, I've been gently reminded not to over-whelm the list with posts, and gently scolded for not wearing my "househusband cap" much lately...;-) I hate to sound like a broken record, but you could probably guess my views on this subject: the best way for IBM to pull this out is the iNation... (Surprise...!) Let me explain WHY I believe this: If the 400 sold in quantities proporitional to it's value to business, it is likely to become one of the predominant forces in the industry... Not saying it WILL happen, but it could fairly easily. It's showing gains, lately, when the rest of the industry is slumping... The sands are shifting, on their own accord. Gonzo marketing, through the iNation, could turn this into a full-blown avalanche of sand...! Problem is: the market will never accept a company taking that kind of a dominant role in the industry. This is eventually what will sink MicroHard (regardless of how far the DOJ bends over and takes it.. regardless of what happens with the OSS community). IBM may have some plans to resume the halcyon days of it's mainframe glory... But that'll NEVER happen. The market will NEVER accept another company coming anywhere near the dominance of M$. Ain't gonna happen, as far as I can see... UNLESS, the effort is a collaboration of IBM and it's customers. Then it *could* happen, IMV... IBM's done it's part, to try to jump-start this collaboration. I look at the efforts of the iCitizens, and I see... ...your eServer Nation site, Don... and... ...That's it. Not to minimize the efforts of david, John Carr, Wayne Madden and all the rest of youse... But those aren't being done under the flag of the iNation. (They're still GREAT efforts, though...!) There are probably other efforts, which I haven't seen, of course. But they don't come anywhere close to what IBM has done, and the work and resources they've put into this iNation thing. That's my view... I'm asking for alternative views, or comments on this one... From you Don, or anyone else, of course. If you want to discuss the iNation, feel free to move the thread. If you see a better way.. I'm all ears...! jt | -----Original Message----- | [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of jt | Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 6:35 PM | | Don, | | I share a lot of these same concerns... Even though Microskunk DOES do | tiered pricing. They price a lot of their OS functions on a per processor | basis. (Which is essentially tiered pricing.) | | | My concern, also, is that a few gigahertz can cover up an awful lot of | incompetence... (Worked for Windoze, this far anyway...) | | | Where you wrote: "IBM has alot of work ahead of them. I think they can | pull it out...but they're gonna be busy...." | | ...how do you see them pulling this out...? | | | jt | | | | -----Original Message----- | | [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Don | | Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 6:18 PM | | | | | | Guys, let me pop the stack a bit. | | | | The Intel P-4 chipset is designed to run a 30-gigahertz cpu clock speed. | | | | Keep in mind that MOST Intel based software suppliers are not STUPID | | ENOUGH to teir their pricing schedule to the hardware it's | running on. I | | think IBM is in for one helluva continued wake up call when the faster | | (even 9 ghz!) chipsets come out...heck that in a cluster CPU environment | | will cover alot of sins usually attributed to windows/unix | ineffeciencies. | | | | Now, let your mind wonder as to how long a client will want to even | | consider the current tiered pricing ripoff schema vs a per seat schema | | for pricing....:) | | | | Then consider how long they will laugh at you when you consider a tiered | | to the hardware pricing schema of a slower, costlier box....:) | | | | IBM has alot of work ahead of them. I think they can pull it out...but | | they're gonna be busy.... | | | | Don in DC | | | | ------
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.