Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

[Pete Helgren <Pete@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Reflecting on this oft discussed topic once again, I can't help but 
wonder if we really understand what our customers want and how we can 
meet those needs with a System i.  Here is my take:
It is dangerous for us to get too deep in analysis since, as Trevor 
pointed out we are, potentially, part of the problem.  Although, I won't 
get so wrapped around the axle on the name issue.  When is the last time 
you heard anyone actually name the brand and model of a server?  Usually 
the reference is: It's a Dell. Or it's an HP box.  Or it is a Compaq.  
Or it is a Sun box.  They might even refer to it by OS: It's a Linux 
Server.  Or, it's a Windows box.  Brand/model name usually has nothing 
to do with it.  No.  The danger is that we are already IN the "System i" 
society and many of us ONLY do System i (or iSeries or AS/400) 
development.  So we lack perspective.  Well, we lack that perspective 
until someone proposes a new hardware/OS combination.  Then, suddenly, 
we have to deal with alternatives.
Names don't sell hardware.  Applications sell hardware.  And, to be 
"relevant" today it has to be a GUI.  Now, we can continue the current 
approach which is to build applications using tools that would also be 
used on other platforms: CGI approaches, PHP, Java, .NET and many, many 
others.  These typically use an "other platform capable" language front 
end tied to an RPG back end and DB2 as the database.  The problem with 
that approach, the separation of GUI development from the System i, is 
that the System i then loses it's uniqueness.  If any platform can run 
the GUI, be it .NET, Java, PHP or other technology then the need for the 
System i is diminished.  Sure, the RPG business logic can be rock solid 
and *could* be a selling point but unless the System i GUI development 
is native, faster and more stable than other comparable approaches, we 
end up fighting the "it's just another server battle" and on that front 
the IBM System i cannot compete.  Heck, IBM can lose to itself with 
xServers and pServers being viable alternatives.
I have to agree with the fact that as long as the GUI is non-native and 
is really just a "port" of a technology that runs on other platforms, 
the ability of the System i to distinguish itself from all other comers 
is diminished.  And, that makes it hard for it to compete on the broader 
landscape of technologies.
And, don't get me wrong.  I don't think the System i is in ANY way 
inferior to any other server platform.  I don't.  It is far superior to 
just about any other box I work with.  However, the perceived value 
(read: competitiveness) in the general marketplace makes it very, very 
difficult to sell.  I LOVE this box.  IBM has just made it unnecessarily 
difficult to sell.  Give me a native GUI that I can quickly develop,
performs better than other technologies and allows me to go where other 
technologies cannot go, and we'll have not only a rockin' box, but a 
rockin' box that sells.
Pete Helgren


Neil Palmer wrote:
> Well worth a read:
>
> Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch
>
> http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh120406-story03.html
>  
> Neil Palmer, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
>  
> (This account not monitored for personal mail,
> remove the last two letters before @ for that)
>
>
> -l.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
>
>