Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch -- MIDRANGE-L

Evan,

I don't think that THE answer to the System i fading into obscurity is thename. I think it is the most simple thing to do, to start YOUR brain on theright track. It is VERY easy - say it: "system i" over and over and you willget it. If you are confused (or hate it), then call it the "i". Now YOU havestarted the process, EVERYONE else will hear and understand what we areselling/working with. Vernacular IS everything - if I were to call WindowsDOS, I would be laughed at. Even Mac OS X has a name for the past release"Classic". I think we should call OS/400 "Classic" and everything elsei5/OS.

The name is not the key - it is already named System i. The BRAND is thefirst step - naming, recognition, and acceptance. That IS not the ONLYanswer, but a MAJOR step forward...

No matter what IBM does or does not do, calling it an AS/400 will only keepus in the past. Get with the System i program, and then we can start to makeheadway in other areas - like marketing where IBM does not.


Trevor

----- Original Message -----From: "Evan Harris" <spanner@xxxxxxxxxx>

To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

Hi Trevor

the name is neither here nor there in my experience, and if my
customers call it "the 400" I don't spend the time I have when they
are listening to me correcting them and educating them on the new
name. While I buy your argument that calling the box by the right
name is important, I don't agree that it is "the answer".

The one thing we cannot do - that only IBM can do - is get behind the
box THEY manufacture. It's a tough sell when you are trying to
convince a customer to go with an i and IBM won't commit to anything
better than "we'll sell p, x, or i - whatever the customer chooses".
If IBM got behind the i - and I mean right behind it and risked
actually losing their p or x sale - then the customer might actually
be convinced it was the best solution and that IBM were actually
committed to the platform. But when IBM is back in there the next day
talking about db2 on p as a viable solution and is priced better,
then why is the customer to think i is the answer when even the
manufacturer of the box is talking alternatives ?

Even better if they priced the hardware the same and sold i5/OS as a
separate offering so it could be compared more easily against
AIX/db2, Solaris/Oracle or whatever. the TCO argument would fly a lot
better if your could easily compare the components and the hardware
was taken out of the equation.

Maybe while they are getting the pricing right they could also allow
unlimited telnet sessions (otherwise known as 5250) to the box
without requiring a special feature. How many telnet sessions can you
run on a p before telnet connections run slower ?

A lot of us out there have "body parts" on the block when me make a
bid or a proposal. We need IBM to be just as committed.

regards
Evan Harris