Re: Changed to: Interactive Tax -- MIDRANGE-L

IMHO, both.

Al

Al Barsa, Jr.
Barsa Consulting Group, LLC

400>390

914-251-1234
914-251-9406 fax

http://www.barsaconsulting.com
http://www.taatool.com






                    "Adam Lang"
                    <aalang@rutgersinsu       To:     <midrange-l@midrange.com>
                    rance.com>                cc:
                    Sent by:                  Subject:     Re: Changed to: 
Interactive Tax
                    midrange-l-admin@mi
                    drange.com


                    12/28/01 02:17 PM
                    Please respond to
                    midrange-l






So is the interactive "tax" a way for IBM to get money or a way for IBM to
push people off the other technology?

I am not starting a flame war.  Just straight out curiosity.

Adam Lang
Systems Engineer
Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
http://www.rutgersinsurance.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "James W. Kilgore" <eMail@James-W-Kilgore.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Changed to: Interactive Tax


> Adam,
>
> The "interactive tax" is a phrase used by folks that don't understand
economics
> and how that economics plays into a vendors pricing schedule.
>
> It boils down to a user having two choices:
> 1) spend money in software development to abandon the 5250 data stream
and
> change to a client/server model
> 2) spend money on a "feature" to stay with the 5250 data stream
>
> In either option the user spends money.  With option #2, IBM gets that
money.
> Therefore, some consider option #2 a "tax".
>
> What gets some peoples goat is that the 5250 data stream was created for
the
> S/3x series of machines and changing to a client/server model will
require
more
> labor to do the same job that was done with 5250.
>
> More than likely that "client" is going to be a Windows based machine and
we've
> been spoiled for so long by the lack of problems with "green screen" 5250
that
> we just don't want to go there.  Instead of getting over it and moving
on,
some
> would rather pout and whine and call the cost of stagnation a "tax".
>
> I've been trying to think of some non computer related story to tell that
might
> put it into perspective and the only one that I have personal experience
with is
> kind of lame, but here goes:
>
> I used to own three vehicles that required 92->95 octane, with lead, fuel
to
> operate.  When the states changed to unleaded fuel I had a choice to
make.
Pay
> money to convert the engines to run on unleaded fuel -or- every time I
bought a
> tank of gas, also buy a lead additive. (or add a little 105 octane
airplane fuel
> <g>)
>
> I could have labeled that additive as a "tax" to keep things the way they
always
> were.  After all, the additive comes from the same company that sold the
> unleaded, and abandoned leaded, fuel.
>
> So each time I bought the additive, I got something more.  I got bitching
> rights.  I'm over it now.  I still have one vehicle that used the high
octane
> leaded fuel, but I had the engine converted.  Now, instead of bitching, I
just
> sigh and remember when.




_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.