I understood the "when customer does not have a choice" in a completely different way. ( but then english is not my native language)
In this particular case or thread , I understood that it meant "a customer who cannot avoid being a z/OS customer" ( because he has a trillion z/os applications that would need 20 years to move onto another platform. Or because he has only cobol programmers or whatever expensive reason. The idea being that for these customers, the prices can be kept artificially high on whatever run on GP processors because IBM does not sell or rent z/OS on other platforms than IBM mainframe. my 0.99 euros :) Bruno Sugliani zxnetconsult(at)free(dot)fr On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:06:45 -0500, Richards, Robert B. <robert.richa...@opm.gov> wrote: >Far be it from me to play the role of IBM's defender, but I cannot let this exchange go unchallenged. Here we have a case where Eric expresses an opinion and Paul treats it as fact and raises the stake in making IBM be the bad guy. > >Enough with revisionist history. I see it all the time in this town and am loathe to put up with it in my favorite industry. > >Eric's assertion is wrong (sorry Eric, but it is...customers always have choices. They may not like them, but they have them). At the time of its introduction, the zAAP was marketed to entice the Java crowd to come play on the big boys' machines at a cost that would not break their software budget's back. One of the many benefits to IBM was bragging rights of J2EE on all platforms, a very significant thing. The big boys observed that they finally had a way to run Java on the mainframe that would not break the software usage bank because of expensive Java cycles on general purpose processors. It was a win-win for the customers that could take advantage of it and, of course, IBM. Prior to that, IBM was not very successful at promoting Java on the mainframe, so as the passage of time has shown, the new strategy clearly worked. > >Assigning ulterior motives to things IBM does can be fun, bloodsport, like politics are in this town. But sometimes, IBM really does behave like the good corporate citizens they should be and are making a profit to boot. After all, are we not still a country that admires free enterprise? Oops, that slipped out..... :-) > >One comment to add to the processor discussion; IBM started marketing the 9672s with 12 CPs in every box when they determined that it was more cost-effective to do that than to produce the 4 and 8 CP models as well (G4/G5 timeframe?). Using microcode to control the power....who ever thought of that idea should still be trying to spend the bonus for that suggestion. > >Clearly, there are going to be folks that disagree with this post. I welcome your thoughts. For me, I'm thankful that IBM's technology has provided me with a career for the last thirty plus years. > >Bob ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
