RE: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

One of the interesting problems is that a major benefit of the System i
is also it's drawback.  We have an integrated machine with integrated
pricing.  As a comprehensive solution it is usually hard to beat.  But
as you use the machine in more non-traditional situations it get's
tougher.  While it's not perfect the pricing methodology is much
different compared to almost everyone on the vendor.  But in simple
terms we pay for most of the machine and the capability of the OS up
front.  I know there are plenty of stories out there about people who
paid through the nose later on an iSeries but generally it can't be
argued.

A valid comparison would be those who want to use a partition or a
system for Domino or Websphere.  Ok, I pay $3000 per processor for AIX
and I pay $59,000 for i5OS.  And I'm not using any database.  That is
why IBM came out with the DSD machines. It's great but I don't think
i5OS is 20 times better than AIX (Actually I do but I tend to think
about my database product, my security product, etc.)  But come up with
a pricing mechanism that brings that down to.....something more relevant
and a huge chunk of the short sighted acquisition cost arguments go
away.

And face it.  Most people do not do valid TCO's.  Most of the people who
work at my company wouldn't know a TCO if it begged them all night long.
But we have a system that is designed and priced to work on TCO......

I think you will see some changes in this area but it's not easy.
Technically you don't want the system non-integrated but one of the best
potentials is to unbundled the pricing.  How you can fairly price it,
make it understandable, and make it controllable is a tough battle.  We
saw IBM react fairly quickly this year on customer requests for changes
on CBU machines.  They are listening and trying. 

Michael Crump
 
Manager, Computing Services
Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.
1509 S. Macedonia Ave.
Muncie, IN  47302
 
765.741.7696
765.741.7012 f 
 


Friendly fire
isn't.

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Trevor Perry
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 5:14 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

Steve,

What makes you think I have any more "in" to IBM than anyone else, in
regard 
to pricing? From what I see, IBM is working to make the System i more 
"competitive". Pricing is only one of the components.

And, from what I see, TPM may have provided an "unbiased" view, but it
was 
not a valid comparison between actual/real-life applications and servers
- 
just server specs. Unbundle the functionality of a System i and add a
price 
tag to each, compare multiple application sets on a single System i to 
multiple application sets on multiple Wintel servers, and you may have a

valid comparison.

Trevor

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Richter" <stephenrichter@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

On 12/8/06, albartell <albartell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The user and vendor community could build a new GUI that works with 
green

screen apps, but such a thing would likely go nowhere if the base i5 
remains
geared down and over priced.

This is one of the big downers of the iSeries IMO.  How does one gain

access
to one if you don't work for a company that owns one?  I don't think
timeshare services count here as most people want to "play" like they

"play"
on their PC.

I share your frustration on this Aaron. User based pricing on p5
hardware would work great for hobbyists, small software houses, SOHO
users. This is obvious to everyone with an unbiased view, from Timothy
Morgan of ITJungle to people on this list. That is why I was hoping
Trevor, with his in with the IBMers, could explain what is stopping
them from making the system more competitive.

-Steve