> > With the loss of the Flex 64-bit capability for general > > use.... > Sorry to nitpick, but I don't believe there has ever been a FLEX 64-bit > capability for general use.
I'd say that the unavailability of the 64 bit FLEX *is* the loss I'm talking about. On this list (and others), we've been discussing the problems between FSI and IBM on public release of the 64 bit FLEX for months. It will not see the light of day for general customers due to IBM and FSI being unable to come to an agreement. We've seen Cornerstone and T3 present different sides of the case, and you have also responded to the discussion. I call that inability to find common ground a loss. It's an obvious loss to FSI who did follow the rules and tried to work it out with IBM, for obvious reasons. It's a loss to IBM for people who a) don't have the space for a z9, b) don't have the environmentals for a z9, and c) can't afford a z9. IBM is losing, and will continue to lose unless there is a different approach from System z marketing, those small to medium Z customers -- not to the z9 BC, pSeries or iSeries, but to *other vendors* who can deliver a solution that doesn't require a lot of renovation. Ultimately, the loser is the poor schmuck at the customer who's stuck with having to cope with the switch when some finance bozo cuts off the funding for a working solution because it would require renovating the machine room. IBM certainly has the R&D capability to out-innovate these upstarts -- the patent IP that seems to be the point of the PSI discussion makes it clear that there's plenty more brains at IBM than elsewhere. The question is how quickly it can be transformed into *something people want to buy*. Clearly there's a desire for a solution in this space that IBM is not providing. How long can IBM afford to bleed small customers that eventually might grow up to be bigger customers -- but have already switched to competing technology? That's really the open question. The current marketing strategy is killing your pipeline of new workload. (We won't raise the general dumbness of the current software marketing campaigns, although it's hardly helping the story...) IMHO, it comes down to the statement that if you can keep a small customer on z until they *are* bigger, then it becomes an inertial decision to STAY on z. The longer you keep them, the harder it is to switch either to -- or from -- System z. So, call it what you will. Loss suits me.
