Michael,
"As Joe has pointed out, the previous one-size-fits-all pricing model
wasn't making any money for IBM."
And I wonder who did this analysis and what it is based on. Microsoft
basically gave away it's development tools back in the 90's and look who
owns the market now. Sure, NOW they can charge for the tools, and they
do, but in order to establish the base, they had to use the tools as a
loss leader for quite a while.
With the GUI tools that IBM is now delivering, there are really two
classes: Those that use or leverage languages that are specific to
System i, and those that leverage platform agnostic languages. In the
former category, IBM has to decide is it worth it to have platform
specific language support *for future development*. I can understand
the need to support existing applications but since there are no "killer
applications" written in a platform specific language now (and when I
say "killer application" I mean an application that can only be found on
i and a market segment big enough to drive large numbers of NEW users to
the platform) there is little incentive for new adoption of new tools to
drive new customers to the System i. IOW, people won't be clamoring for
WDSc so they can get their hands on tools that allow them to develop on
the System i unless it has either a "killer app" or a compelling value
proposition. It seems to me that IBM tools for RPG is a backward
looking business decision: There are plenty of apps written in RPG that
currently run on i and only i, and they will probably not be rewritten
any time soon, so support for RPG tools is a maintenance issue. New
applications will be written in something else and eventually RPG will
quietly go away. That *seems* to be the rationale, at least in the
platform specific language tools arena on i. RPG is not seen as the
language of future development on i (as far as I can tell from IBM's moves).
So, from that perspective (maintenance) it makes some sense to change
pricing and bundling to maximize revenue from an ever shrinking base.
Cover your costs until you pull the plug. So I CAN understand that
approach, particularly with platform specific tools.
Things get a bit more fuzzy in the platform agnostic arena because then
the issues are two-fold: If I am not targeting a specific platform, how
does that help the System i AND, if we are platform agnostic, then
plenty other tool vendors will be competing in the space. It will be
hard to make money because the tools offered aren't easily
differentiated from others and it will be a commodity market. MyEclipse
competes well in this space. Small price, big value, and yes, as
Thorbjørn mentioned, they are integrating existing open source tools, so
development effort is relatively small.
So, to come full circle, we have either "legacy" application development
tool support, or platform agnostic "commodity" tool support as far as I
can see. And, in either case I don't see IBM's recent moves as helping
in either area.
Are they making money in tools? My answer would be, "Who cares?" as
long as the "net" of System i sales is positive when the "cost" of the
tools is factored in. So maybe my System i bigotry is showing. I want
to see increasing System i sales and I see any increase in the cost of
developing on the platform as a negative. I am probably naive as well.
I would think that the System i "group" within Rational would be working
day and night on tools that specifically raise the value proposition on
the System i relative to other platforms. I would want tools that drive
folks to i because they cannot get the results on any other platform.
And I would make those tools nearly free until the install base is
established to make it self sustaining.
Unfortunately, I don't see much of that passion for driving System i
platform sales through applications and tools that develop those
applications. So, we have only one other value proposition to offer:
That the i is the most stable, simple to manage and trouble free
platform on the planet. The question is, is that enough to sustain the i?
Too long a post, sorry (I love this platform so it's easy to write about
it, good or bad)
Pete Helgren
MichaelQuigley@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Joe et al,
I listened to the IBM Webcast presented yesterday afternoon via the
SystemiNetwork. In the Q&A, I asked about licensing. We have WDSC
standard edition and some entitlements to RBDe. I asked about our
entitlements (I guess the proper term is PoE--Proof of Entitlement) to
RBDe. Todd Britton responded, "I'll need to heck the details . . . but
RBDe licenses should entitle you to RDi SOA . . . lets keep in touch on
this."
I quote him, not to hold his foot to the fire, but the response indicates
to me that IBM definitely has not settled on what to do for customers
upgrading from previous releases.
A good point to keep in mind is that IBM is in business to make money.
That's true for just about every organization with the exception of most
non-profits--I happen to work for one. As Joe has pointed out, the
previous one-size-fits-all pricing model wasn't making any money for IBM.
If they can make some money and improve the tools, I'm all for it. Yes,
I'll have to convince management to spend something that they haven't seen
a line-item for in the past. But any business deal should be good for
both parties. IBM has been pretty fair in their dealings. I had done
some EGL work in version 6 so I pursued the entitlements IBM made
available to RBDe when version 7 came out. They came including 12 months
of software maintenance. I'm not happy that I'll have to seek approval
for the maintenance when that expires, but I understand IBM's perspective.
I don't think their trying to alienate their customer base. I'm sure
they'll do their best to take care of us.
My point is IBM is trying to make a business model that will work for the
majority of their customers and make some money they can attribute
specifically to the wonderful tooling their developing for us. As for the
cost, let's wait and see what comes of it.
wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 01/30/2008 08:21:17 PM:
date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:28:08 -0500
from: Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: [WDSCI-L] EGL vs. Java
johnking@xxxxxxx wrote:
Aaron,
RBDE (Rational Business Developer Extension) is the Rational
'plug-in'
that contains the EGL tools. This is in addition to whatever the
IDE will
end up costing.
John, there is no RBDe anymore. At least not as far as System i
developers go (although now I have to admit I'm not sure how it works
with RAD, the non-System i Rational Application Developer). Anyway,
there will be RDi which will be priced roughly equivalently with ADTS,
the green-screen tools, on a per-seat basis. So basically, they've
unbundled SEU/PDM/SDA and then given you an option on whether you want
green screen or GUI tools. Your choice. I suspect that they may even
price ADTS a bit higher, as an incentive to get you to RDi.
midrange.com
