Re: Change in IBM's mainframe strategy
My reason for saying what I did is that outsourcers can offer major price benefits to a company (ABC) running it's own system by bringing ABC on board it's huge Processing complex and then (if needed) aggragating the sysplex MSUs together and thus reducing the licence fees of ABC (as well as its existing base). Then IBM has made it easier to manage the resources used by the small companies running on LPARS by introducing group capacity limits. I am not saying that IBM are doing nothing for the smaller user, but they are making it easier for them to justify outsourcing. Regards Errol -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Change in IBM's mainframe strategy
Errol Van staden writes: has anyone noticed a trend in IBMs strategy in shifting the focus of the mainframe to very large users such as outsourcers etc? I am talking about features such as IRD, group capacity limits, and sysplex aggregation pricing benefits. Could they be bolstering though outsourcing wing for the future? Oh no, not this topic again. :-) 1. The LPAR group capacity limit feature, available with z/OS 1.8 and higher, offers potential benefits if you have two or more LPARs. That would be just about everybody, right? (You are using at least two LPARs I hope!) 2. IRD offers potential benefits if you have two or more LPARs that offer the same service(s) on the same machine. For example, it could help customers of any size who have two production LPARs. Or it could help customers (which tend to skew toward smaller customers) that currently have only one production LPAR move to two production LPARs, improving the service quality delivered to their users. 3. Aggregated Sysplex pricing for MLC has been available since the mid-1990s, I believe. (Funny to describe something available for 12 years as a trend. :-)) But anyway, aggregated pricing tends to benefit the smallest Parallel Sysplex customers the most and the biggest outsourcers/service bureaus very little or even not at all. Let me also repeat a few recent facts: 4. IBM introduced z/VSE Version 4.1 and opted NOT to the raise the per-MSU price to adjust for inflation. In addition, there's now MWLC (subcapacity pricing) available for z/VSE. Previously you had to pay full capacity. Nobody pays more, and many customers pay less, for the same level of performance. 5. The operating system with the lowest entry pricing for vast numbers of IBM OTC products is now... z/OS. Products like WebSphere Application Server, WebSphere Message Broker, WebSphere Portal Server, and numerous others. You will pay more, often much more, for those products (both license and subscription/support) on a single Intel/AMD X86 core than you will on a 3 MSU LPAR (and more than on many larger LPARs, too). 6. IBM recently changed its pricing policies for memory and specialty engines on the smaller machine (the z9 BC). Those items now have a lower price on the z9 BC than on the EC. Also, IBM introduced a lower priced two-port FICON adapter recently. And I could go on. It would appear the facts support the argument that IBM is doing a lot specifically to help small mainframe customers, both functionally and financially. Are there facts that argue otherwise? - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Change in IBM's mainframe strategy
Radoslaw but it's nothing new, that poor pays more. put me in mind of a Victorian music hall song: She was poor but she was honest or It's the same the whole world over, chorus: It's the same the whole world over. It's the poor that gets the blame. It's the rich that gets the pleasure. Ain't it all a bleeding shame? Well, it's Friday, isn't it? Chris Mason -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Change in IBM's mainframe strategy
The attention to big customers (regarding new features and implementations) and big software vendors (SAP, Peoplesoft, ecc.) is quite clear in DB2 area IMHO. It's strange, IBM created a low cost mainframe (z9 BC) but no low cost software for medium to small customers, only WLC or other contract benefits. Just an opinion Max Scarpa Db2 sysprog Errol Van staden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU 28/09/2007 12.33 Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU To IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU cc Subject Change in IBM's mainframe strategy has anyone noticed a trend in IBMs strategy in shifting the focus of the mainframe to very large users such as outsourcers etc? I am talking about features such as IRD, group capacity limits, and sysplex aggregation pricing benefits. Could they be bolstering though outsourcing wing for the future? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Change in IBM's mainframe strategy
On 28 Sep 2007 06:19:16 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Mason) wrote: but it's nothing new, that poor pays more. put me in mind of a Victorian music hall song: She was poor but she was honest or It's the same the whole world over, chorus: It's the same the whole world over. It's the poor that gets the blame. It's the rich that gets the pleasure. Ain't it all a bleeding shame? Well, it's Friday, isn't it? Money is a subset of power. And power gets. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Change in IBM's mainframe strategy
Max Scarpa wrote: The attention to big customers (regarding new features and implementations) and big software vendors (SAP, Peoplesoft, ecc.) is quite clear in DB2 area IMHO. It's strange, IBM created a low cost mainframe (z9 BC) but no low cost software for medium to small customers, only WLC or other contract benefits. IMHO there is low cost software. Any price which is capacity-dependent costs less for small clients. I agree that price per MIPS is higher, but it's nothing new, that poor pays more. Answer #2 (more humouristic): Linux. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2007 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci opacony) wynosi 118.064.140 z. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchwa XVI WZ z dnia 21.05.2003 r., kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA moe ulec podwyszeniu do kwoty 118.760.528 z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym bd w caoci opacone. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Change in IBM's mainframe strategy
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:33:19 -0500, Errol Van staden wrote: has anyone noticed a trend in IBMs strategy in shifting the focus of the mainframe to very large users such as outsourcers etc? I am talking about features such as IRD, group capacity limits, and sysplex aggregation pricing benefits. Could they be bolstering though outsourcing wing for the future? I believe it is the simple result of IBM being a market driven corporation. The very large users might spend the most money, taken individually. (Then again, they might be frugal if taken in appropriately sized strata...) It isn't as if IBM is ignoring the other customers. There are plenty of things in z/OS 1.8 and 1.9 for all customers. The z/9-BC is certainly applicable to small- to-medium sized companies (and the largest, too). CICS/TS 3.2 certainly has interesting worthwhile things in it for a local insurnace company (or two). We would all like IBM to be all things to all customers... but what are the odds of that working out equally well for all? -- Tom Schmidt Madison, WI (Some people would complain even if you planned on hanging them with a silk rope.) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
