RE: AS/400 Server.

I think branding is the issue in the choice of a name like "IBM i". It just doesn't have the concreteness of a name such as AS/400 or System/38 or PDP11. "Watson" is better branding. "Silverlake" is good too. If forms an image in your head. There is something ambiguous and ephemeral about "IBM i on Power". It does not roll off the tongue or stick in one's memory. It doesn't create an image that one can focus on. I have used the terms 'Power 7' and 'IBM i' when talking with coworkers, both in IT and other departments. Neither term sticks with them. The term most often used and understood by the office staff is 'the 400'.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Trevor
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:47 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: AS/400 Server.

Booth,

OUR personal preferences do not matter. IBM does not market to the old
5250 RPGII programmer. IBM has branded the platform IBM i for a strong future with Power Systems. And, they have stuck with it for FIVE yearsŠ and shown us charts with a future for IBM i until 2026 - at least!

Branding is not a programmer's skill, but it seems like a lot of very old programmers cannot get with the new brand. It was simply not that problem when the AS/400 replaced the S/38 and S/36, but for some reason, it is with IBM i on Power. The only difference is the age of the programmer. All that means is that somewhere, we all got to be Tired Old Grumpies, and we no longer want to move off our comfy chair. So we complain.

If we want the future to include IBM i, we have to start referencing IBM i and all the amazing things it can do. Using old branding, complaining about the branding, complaining about the marketing, complaining, complaining, complaining, is what happens on internet forums related to our platform. But not from the YiPs, not from those who still have passion, and not from those who wish to promote the platform and continue their career with the platform.

So, when we complain about "dunderheads in IBM's marketing offices", we are showing that we are simply not connected to IBM's marketing. When we whine about how our preferred name is better than the one chosen by IBM, we are showing our lack of marketing skills. All in all, when there is a bunch of noise from a bunch of TOGs, the rest of the world perceives our platform as long dead and gone. If we simply looked where the marketing is happening, if we simply researched what the power of IBM i on Power is (yes, I said that), if we simply did a little more homework than midrange-L, we would see that IBM i on Power IS the platform we have, and it is pretty amazing.

Then, when all the negative noise stops, and we - as a community - get back to bragging about how amazing IBM i really is, then other people will want some of what we have. Shall we step up to 20i3, or stay in 1999?

Trevor




On 5/10/13 1:54 PM, "Booth Martin" <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Why not just label the platform as "Silverlake" with various models
like the AS400, the i, etc? Is there anyone who cares about the name
of the hardware? Is "Body by Fisher" really a big deal for Chevrolet owners?

heh heh... My own preference would be real names for the various models.
Like the Silverlake Gopher, Silverlake Buffalo, and the Silverlake K2.
:) There is no reason why there can't be 3 or 4 current models,
similar but distinct, in the Silverlake catalog.

The argument that the platform lost luster because the name is old
misses the evidence of the thousands of long-established brands that
are not seen as "legacy" but are instead seen as surviving because they
are "best of breed."

Our platform is still a huge player because it is "Best of Breed." Our
platform is still a competitive advantage. We have become one of the
best kept secrets in the World, thanks to incredibly good sales efforts
from talented sales people overcoming horrific obstacles put in their
way by the dunderheads in IBM's marketing offices. (there is a
difference between sales and marketing. They are not redundant or
overlapping functions.)

And no, I am not picking on Trevor. Trevor is playing the hand we were
dealt, as we all are. He's hanging his hat and his ass out on the line
for all of us, and I for one truly appreciate his energies and efforts.








On 5/10/2013 11:53 AM, Monnier, Gary wrote:

I'd really like to see IBM place their emphasis on the software
rather than the hardware. Something like...

IBM i/OS 7.1 running on Power Systems 7, 6 and 5
IBM i/OS 6.1 running on Power Systems 7, 6 and 5
IBM i/OS 5.4 running on Power Systems 4 and 5
IBM i/OS 5.4.5 running on Power Systems 4 and 5

A suggestion for what it is worth. May be trademark issues now with
Apple's iOS.

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CRPence
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:38 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AS/400 Server.

On 10 May 2013 07:08, Anderson, Kurt wrote:

I always try to call our system what it is, a Power 7 running IBM i
7.1. However, the Cumulative PTF DVD we just got from IBM says this:

System i5
OS/400 Cumulative PTFs
V7R1M0...

Made me chuckle.

I will not offer what is my guess as to why nobody has changed
the first two mis-references, but...

The conspicuous difference between V#R#M# and V.R will probably
remain. The latter was purely a /marketing/ aspect; i.e. for naming
consistency in marketing: "IBM OS\product Version.Release". The OS
however, still maintains the V##R##M## information as integral data,
and the support\service identification [e.g. PTFs] mimics that
pattern specific to the OS. There is little reason that should ever
change, and some good reasons not to change that naming; e.g. there
is no benefit for consistency in cross-platform release naming, for
the ability to search technical databases of a single platform,
especially for which the dot-separated-digits do not provide for a
well-formed search token that is conspicuously not just some decimal number or even a date.

Of course that does not mean to imply they could not
*additionally* include the proper marketing name on the service-related labeling.

--
Booth Martin
802-461-5349
http://www.martinvt.com
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.