Peter Farley writes:
>But Tim, there *aren't* any "smaller" mainframe customers
>any more (at least not in the USA).
There are, and very many. I don't know where you're getting your
information.
In my previous post it should be obvious that "smaller" means anybody with
capacity below a hypothetical non-kneecapped 7-way System z9 BC. That
includes the very smallest customers up through...well, that forms the huge
*majority* of customers!
By the way, IBM substantially reduced the price of z/VSE for many/most
customers (including smaller ones) via the new MWLC sub-capacity licensing
for Version 4, so again I have no idea where you're getting your
information. Same with z/VM: IBM has slashed the price, big time. A zNALC
z/OS license at 3 MSUs starts way, way, way down in the 3 figures per month
U.S. (And then there are the Solution Edition offerings.) IBM has never
done anything like that before.
Have mainframe technologies ever been more affordable? Heck no. (I've
looked up a lot of historical prices.) And it's long past time we stop
perpetuating mainframe pricing myths, because it isn't helping anyone.
>AFAIK, there is no way for IBM to bring z/OS on a z10 to a
>customer with a yearly IT budget in the 5- to (very) low
>6-figure range, including software and staffing costs and
>necessary 3rd-party software.
That sounds like an annual IT budget of about $150,000 U.S. (to be
generous). And you're right: when it comes to a dedicated/on-site mainframe
installation (or, gosh, business computing in general), that's a very tight
budget. (However, IBM and/or other organizations could likely provide such
an organization with hosted/"cloud" z/OS services well within that budget.)
But I'm not sure when those greener pastures and fonder memories ever
actually existed, because $150,000 in 2010 dollars didn't go too far in the
1970s, 1980s, and 1990s either. For example, you would be very fortunate to
hire two U.S. FTEs for your IT organization within that budget, but then
you'd have no money left over.
For reference, when you convert $150,000 in 2009 to 1975, you get $38,040.
That is, a total IT budget of $38,040 in 1975 would be equivalent, in
Consumer Price Index terms, to a $150,000 budget in 2009.
I don't know.... Did anybody work for an organization in 1975 which had a
total annual IT budget of $38,040 or thereabouts...and which owned and
operated a dedicated mainframe on-site with licensed software? I think that
would have been much *tougher* than it is in 2010. ("I remember when
Hershey bars cost a nickel....")
By the way, a lot of businesses cannot afford to buy a tractor-trailer
truck either. Between the truck itself, maintenance, driver, fuel,
insurance, tolls, etc. it costs a lot more than $150K per year to own and
operate one. Yet there are huge numbers of them plying American roads. IBM
does not recommend a dedicated/on-site mainframe to *every* business. Just
to many/more of them.
Charles Mills writes:
>Now there you go being logical again.
Goodness knows I try. :-) But I speak only for myself, so maybe that's why
I'm logical. :-)
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Architect for
New, Advanced, and/or Innovative Solutions (VCT)
Based in Singapore & Serving the "Growth Markets"
E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
