Re: Casino switches to AIX -- MIDRANGE-L

Scott,

That conversation is definitely heard on a daily basis. And, it is important
for the iBigots in all of us. Your point on applications is the key, of
course.

My iWorld is all about applications. I was fortunate enough to spend time
working with hardware and configurations, but I know that applications are
key. And, I am engaged in making the iApplications into something modern and
with a strong and relevant user experience. When it all boils down to it,
the user should not know that an AS/400 is running their applications. Nor
should they care about IBM i, PHP, etc. They should only know that their
application allows them to perform ~their~ job efficiently and effectively.
Businesses should know that their investment in the application has a
qualifiable and measurable ROI.

In the world of midrange, we have wrapped our whole identity around an
AS/400. We have, in the past, told users that their 'job' is not finished
yet, we let them see 'work with submitted jobs', asked them to 'sign on to
the 400', etc. All of these things are IT and midrange specific, and no
other platform engages their users into this technical world. Why should
users know about 'spool files'? We have propagated a virtual world of AS/400
that really does not exist anywhere else. And boy, are we loyal. But only on
our own terms - individually.

When it comes to selling applications, platform should never matter. A
software vendor should be able to provide the platform without the user ever
knowing. This can be done, but for most AS400 software vendors, it is a
struggle to become platform agnostic in appearance, at least.

So now, the conversation about IBM i should be with software vendors. And
they should never be quite as confused, one would hope. Your a)-e) are all
the points that need to be sold to the people who are building the
applications.

On this forum, we are talking to the techies. It is they who can help change
the world. If they were clear about it, and all spake with one voice (haha),
then the confusion could be removed. Problem is, most of them are extremely
smart, and extremely iBigotted (yes, I wrote that) - but on their own terms.
And, it is obvious that some of them cannot be pushed.

The joy is, when someone takes the approach that you do. You are positive,
straight, and you reason the arguments well. This list has many subscribers
who are in that vein. When it comes down to complaining, and "I told you
so", etc. then we all lose. While I am definitely in-your-face, and have
been asked not to use the word "whining", it seems that few people push back
on the naysayers. Their noise contributes to the confusion, and the name
debate comes up one more time.

And yes, I would like IBM to help clear up the confusion. Personally, I
cannot see it happening the way midrange-L wants it to happen. And so, the
name confusion will remain rampant.

All I ask is, what will you choose to replace your AS/400/iSeries/System i
when your lease is up? What would you encourage another techie to buy? The
answer is, IBM i on Power Systems. And that, to me at least, is not
confusing.

Trevor

On 11/18/08 2:50 PM, "Scott Klement" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Trevor,

There was an opportunity when the name was changed from AS/400 to
iSeries that they could've created the perception that it was a whole
new generation of system. I don't think they were successful in that.
I suppose they had the same opportunity when they changed the name to
System i -- but it was less likely to have that impact, because people
had already been through it with iSeries, and had already determined
that it was just a name change, not a change of technology.

At this point, people are so confused, they don't know what to think.
When they go to a customer, and have a conversation:

Vendor: "we have this great application, and one of the things that puts
it ahead of the competition is that it runs on the IBM i"

Prospect: "IBM i? I'm not familiar with that. What kind of computer is
that?"

Vendor: "Err, sorry, I should've said that it runs on the IBM i
operating system on a POWER system"

Prospect: You lost me.

Vendor: "IBM i is an operating system, similar to Windows, except it
doesn't run on a PC, it runs on an IBM Power System"

Prospect: "I've never heard of that. Are there many of them used?"

Vendor: "You may have heard of the name AS/400?"

Prospect: "ahhh... so it runs on an AS/400?"

Vendor: "Well, not really, the IBM i operating system is the newest
generation. The old generations were known as i5/OS, and the older
generations were OS/400 and they ran on AS/400"

Prospect: "This is very complicated. Can't it just run on a regular
computer?"

Vendor: "Well, the IBM i computer... err... I mean, environment... is
really stable, immune to viruses, has an integrated database that makes
it cost less to run and support with a higher up-time"

Prospect: "Well, I have an AS/400 and Windows. But I don't really want
to buy a new PowerSystem just to run your software".

Vendor: "Oh, well... actually our software can also run on System i and
iSeries".

Prospect: "Will it run on my AS/400?"

Vendor: "Most likely you have a newer system, like an iSeries or System
i. IBM hasn't made the AS/400 in 8 years. So yes, our system will run
on that."

Prospect: "Then why didn't you say it runs on iSeries to begin with?"

You don't want your prospective customer to be frustrated with just
trying to understand what platform your apps run on! Plus, this assumes
you're having an interactive discussion with your customer. How do you
write ads?

Imagine the tag line: "Acme ERP! The best ERP. You can count on it
always working, because it runs on the IBM i operating system on a Power
System".
"Oh yeah, it'll also run on System i -- if you already have that you
don't have to buy a PowerSystem"
"If you don't know what System i is, it's a newer generation of the
iSeries, or AS/400"

Suddenly, instead of a tag line, you have a tag paragraph.

Bah, you're making me do exactly what I didn't want to do. You're
making me sit here and put the system down. Now I'm just as bad as
these other people.

We need to forget about the name of the system. The name is a problem,
it causes a lot of confusion, and does NOTHING to make people perceive
of the system as modern. Perceiving of it as modern comes from using
it, or at least seeing it, and seeing the modern stuff. Not from the name.

We need to SHOW them that it's modern. We need to produce applications
that work better in the i environment because of it's superiority.

Simply showing them that it can be a web server, or that it can run open
source apps that exist on other platforms doesn't show off the
superiority of the system.

For me, the reason I use this computer system is RPG and DB2. These are
the things that make it better than other platforms. But, I'm a
programmer.

For non-programmers (who are the vast, vast majority out there) the
advantage of a system comes from it's applications. Are there apps out
there that are better on IBM i than they are on Windows, Mac or Linux?
If so, I've never once had a vendor tell me that. I've had lots of
vendors tell me the opposite. I've had lots of vendors market their
apps at users in my organization, suggesting how nice it would be to get
off of the old AS/400 environment. Indeed, every single software
project I've done has had at least one vendor who made that pitch to
some of the users who were on the committee. Never once has a vendor
shown the users the advantage of IBM i instead of Windows -- the burden
to prove that has always been on me, despite that I'm not the one
selling it.

We need to be the advocates. We need to be the folks out there showing
the advantages of:

a) Having a business-oriented programming language, with proper decimal
arithmetic and deeply integrated database logic. (Not useful for end
consumers, but useful when marketing to programmers)

b) Having an integrated database. What are the advantages of deep
integration? Why does that make applications better to the end user.
(Tell the users, not me!)

c) The technology independence of hardware vs software.

d) The design of the single-level store. How does that help the end users?

e) The design of the system so that it's virtually virus-proof.

All of these things need to be translated into actual examples of where
they save businesses time and money and solve problems and presented to
the user as part of a vendor selling their application. Their
application is better because of these things, right? Tell the end-user!

Trevor Perry wrote:

Scott,

The bulk of the community does consider them new names for the same thing.
And, there is the rub... If ~we~ continue to propagate that perception, in
an industry where change is rapid and desired, then ~we~ continue to fade
into the past.