|
(moved from midrange-l) Brad: I have to start by pointing out that the comments you originally replied to were not about defending IBM's actions. For me, it started with "Consider how IBM prices interactive features separately on the iSeries. The higher price has little to do with cost." My reply to that came from thinking that points raised in a dialogue in a technical forum should be either verifiable or labelled as opinion. The second quoted sentence was worded as a fact and I'm very interested in seeing how it could be verified. I suspect the vast majority of list subscribers feel the same since it's a hot issue; but that's mostly irrelevant because it's the principle of verifiability that's the point, not the *fact* of pricing. The question I raised is whether or not anyone among us knows how the price relates to cost. So far, the answer is 'No.' more below... On Mon, 28 January 2002, "Brad Jensen" wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <thomas@inorbit.com> > > I realize this is a devil's advocate position, but I don't want > it to go unspoken, > > especially if someone can contribute a solid fact. > > Since you label everything a guess, I have to wonder what isn't a > guess. What would you accept as absolute, incontrovertible fact? > What is your standard of proof? Anything solid would be useful. For example, we've seen reports that layoffs have happened in Rochester over recent years. Usually we also hear that only a small percentage will affect OS/400 or iSeries development directly, but there are always a few. Besides layoffs, there are retirements and job changes to other companies. Some of those positions have almost certainly been from OS/400 work management and related areas. (If not, then there's clearly little personnel budget reduction and costs possibly have not decreased.) Though confidentiality agreements probably exist, a five-year restriction would likely be an upper limit. Yet I cannot recall a single comment from such a source that would support the idea that the revenues from interactive features is unreasonable in terms of what it costs IBM. I haven't seen even general comments such as "The number of related developers was cut by a third." If any such reliable statements have been made, I'm asking for references. Surely somebody out there in M-L list-land used to work in Rochester or works with somebody who used to work there. I just want to hear something solid for a change. I didn't think that was such an outlandish position and I'm surprised at how you seemed to take it. I mean, "you label everything a guess"? Isn't that a little overboard? I speak to a single issue and you see it as "everything"? I ask for something beyond educated guesswork and you take it as looking for "absolute, incontrovertible fact"? C'mon, there ought to be a reliable hint SOMEplace, don't you think? > It seems to me that we need to make our deciusions about it in the > absence of what you call a solid fact, since you haven't offered > any likely way to get those facts. But the discussion wasn't about making decisions about interactive features; it was about what was driving the price difference for the Linux-only servers. Market potential was given as a proposed reason and the 'fact' that interactive price had little to do with cost was given as if it were a supporting point. I had no problem with Nathan's given reason -- it was reasonable and I don't disagree; but I objected to the choice of support for the reasoning. Had that been presented even as a probability, I don't think I would have commented at all. > You are saying more about your own preferences for a foundation > for decisions making, Yes, you're saying it better than I did... > rather than anything about the situation > itself. ... I wasn't commenting on the 'situation', by which I assume you mean IBM's pricing practices for interactive capacity. That's because that wasn't what the discussion was about. Tom Liotta -- Tom Liotta The PowerTech Group, Inc. 19426 68th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-872-7788 Fax 253-872-7904 http://www.400Security.com ___________________________________________________ The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe Better! Faster! More Powerful! 250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now! http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
