From: Lukas Beeler
I'm sorry, there's nothing that can explain IBM's Power hardware
pricing for me. Charging five times what they charge for the exactly
same equipment but for System x is price gouging, no matter how you
put it.


Yeah, there may be cases where IBM would do better to cut component prices to reflect the commodity nature of hardware - rely more on software and services to generate revenue. They've been going in that direction for some time, but may not be where they need to be.

Nevertheless, IBM and business partners still make a good case for reducing TCO by consolidating workloads on a single server.

IBM's "Laughing Boardroom" ad campaign made a good point about the additional "staff" requirements, associated with distributed architecture. When users experience poor performance with Web applications, does that mean you need to beef up application servers, database servers, load-balancers, storage servers, or to reconfigure and redeploy application components differently? Distributed architecture is more costly to manage.

Nathan.





This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].