On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Buck Calabro <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
7.2. I had to get separate Proofs of Entitlement for ADTS (which is PDM
+ SEU), Heritage compilers, ILE compilers, and RDi. To be completely
open, IBM gives away entitlements to ADTS so if you bought a compiler in
the past, you basically get X free seats for SEU here in the future.
But we pay software maintenance on ADTS, so there's that.
Interesting. I suppose some folks will bristle at the idea of paying
maintenance on ADTS when they're not getting updated RPG syntax
support in SEU. But I don't think many people know or care (that they
are paying maintenance or that SEU is crippled). Here I agree that
cost is not a big factor. I'm sure most shops consider ADTS a
necessary part of doing business on the i. Like, if you need the
compilers, it almost doesn't matter what they cost, you're going to
get them. And if you're getting the compilers, you're almost
definitely going to need something to edit source with. From what
you're saying, if you ever had ADTS before, then it seems difficult to
make the case that you should specifically *not* get ADTS now.
Especially if your several-million-line code base and centuries' worth
of combined developer experience is all pre-7.1 anyway.
But I *like* the idea of souring the SEU milk, as long as it's
combined with making the RDi proposition a complete no-brainer (low
enough (or hidden enough) price tag that people don't even have to
think about it).
Mr X has many objections to /even trying/ RDi; one of which is
apparently 'cost'. I say apparently because during the years when the
cost was actually zero that only removed one objection to even trying it
out. And of course, Mr X didn't try it because of all his other
'objections'.
You are absolutely right that Mr. X is rationalizing. But the
rationalization goes both ways. The "defenses" most people have given
for IBM's current pricing seem as ridiculous and exasperating to me as
Mr. X's excuses must seem to the folks who defend the RDi status quo.
I can't think of a single [SEU vs. graphical IDE] conversation that
doesn't look like the above. A slew of objections with cost being
the deal killer and yet Mr X didn't try WDSC when cost wasn't a
factor at all. With cost completely removed, there's always some
other deal killer to fall back on.
It's not easy to get a rise out of you, but it looks like you were
getting there. You're sick and tired of Mr. X's whining. It's
frustrating. But be careful: Don't conflate the Mr. Xs with the
folks who *really are* in that segment (even if it's small) which
*will* give RDi a fair shake. Maybe some have even given the RDi
trial a shot, and like what they see, but really *are* up against the
cost.
I would think it's worth trying to reach that segment. And in doing
so, IBM would also get a little closer to reaching the Mr. Xs. Even
if Mr. X will be long dead (never mind retired) before he is on board,
newcomers will be used to Eclipse or the like from other platforms,
and I would expect them to be put off by IBM's current position.
You said "there's always some other deal killer to fall back on". My
attitude is: Why not keep chipping away at them? If removing deal
killer A doesn't increase adoption rate, maybe removing deal killers A
and B together will work a little better. Surely adoption rate is not
going to *improve* by putting deal killer A back in place.
John Y.
midrange.com
