Re: AIX - i5/OS feature comparison was the notorious Steve's soapbox -- MIDRANGE-L

Steve Richter wrote:


   3. Re: AIX - i5/OS feature comparison was the notorious Steve's
      soapbox (Steve Richter)

On 9/7/06, qsrvbas wrote:

Mike Cunningham wrote:
>    4. Re: AIX - i5/OS feature comparison was the notorious Steve's
>       soapbox (Mike Cunningham)
>
> And IBM isn't in the hardware business, they're in the
> consulting/support/services business. And IBM can sell a lot more AIX
> services than they can sell OS/400 services.

IMO, out of everything ever said on this subject, the above paragraph
says about all that's needed.

Think about it. If IBM can't find significant revenue from services for
our platform, what does that say about what the platform capabilities
are? IBM could choose to reduce price _if_ services could pick up the
difference.


<snip>

I dont think the "system is so great IBM can
make any aftermarket profit on it" argument flies.


Steve:

IBM has been making services bucks for many years. AS/400s were sold forpremium prices long ago and the cost has gone down as successors havecome along. It hasn't been that long since the number of installedsites was an impressive number and the number of actual users was huge.(In fact, there are a lot of both still today.)

IBM might not market our system anything like what we'd like, butthey're not idiots in this particular game. If they could make goodbucks from services -- ANY category of services -- they would do it.

The statement stands whether you like to accept it or not: IBM couldchoose to reduce price _if_ services could pick up the difference.

I'll go even farther: IBM _would_ reduce the price if they felt thatthere was services profit that could be brought to life from it thatwould offset the reduction. IBM certainly gives no hint that theybelieve it would happen.

If you believe that a lower price point will make a difference in salesand market share, you ought to come up with some reason to support yourbelief and it needs to be a reason that would make a difference to IBM,not just to us on this list. "We might find jobs easier" isn't going tofly with IBM.

Cutting profit margins by 90% won't fly unless sales rise by(essentially) 900%... unless, of course, some alternative revenue streamtakes its place. If that wouldn't be services, just exactly where wouldyou be expecting it to come from for IBM?

You regularly argue the price issue. Please explain why IBM as acorporation should lower the price. Surely you don't expect largenumbers of Windows systems to be displaced. Or perhaps you're thinkingAIX would fade instead?

Note that if you _really_ have a point, I am more than interested inlearning it. There's just been nothing that I've seen from you that goesto the issue beyond "Cheaper is better."

IMO, the _best_ way to promote System i is by _us_ providing apps thattake advantage of what i5/OS provides. Developer access has been cheapfor a long time through various time-share services. I wonder howcrushed those systems are due to demand from developers? If developersflat out _don't_ develop, it isn't due to high prices.

Further, there are always small systems available; you can get a simple170 on eBay under $1000 with V5R1 right now. I bought one for $1500 fouryears ago. A time-share account can give access to developer tools andyou can have a system at home to do additional testing, etc.

Fifteen hundred bucks just ain't enough for a developer to complainabout even if it's not a business-class system. I spent more than thaton my main home PC some seven or eight years ago.

The problem isn't IBM pricing regardless of how much you'd like it to becheaper. (BTW, so would I.)


Tom Liotta