Re: More IBM firings

[Neil Palmer <neilpalmer400mr@xxxxxxxx>]

Bruce,

Well, it may be stretching things a little, but at one time OS/2 was strategic (1987):
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_tenyears.html
(Wasn't SAA - also mentioned at the above link - also "strategic" at one point?)

OS/2 was called a "strategic network platform" as late as 1997 (page 3 below):
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg242009.pdf

In this 1995 publication at
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/books/sh126402.pdf
on page 62:
"Systems Application Architecture (SAA). Pertaining
to an architecture defining a set of rules for designing a
common user interface, programming interface,
application programs, and communications support for
strategic operating systems such as the OS/2, OS/400,
VM/370, and MVS/370 operating systems."


Lotus Domino ("another strategic application for e-business") while not dead yet certainly doesn't seem to be getting a great deal of promotion (like another product we could name):
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&supplier=897&appname=IBMLinkRedirect&letternum=ENUS200-145


There are other examples of IBM's (over) use of the word "strategic" over recent history.
Microchannel Bus, OV/400, Token Ring, Smalltalk.  
If you go back far enough wasn't twinax once "strategic" ?


Neil Palmer, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

(This account not monitored for personal mail,
remove the last two letters before @ for that)


--- On Wed, 11/12/08, Bruce Vining <bvining@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Bruce Vining <bvining@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: More IBM firings
> To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Received: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 1:17 PM
> Hi, Neil
>    
>   I'm having a difficult time with the attached
> paragraph.  To the best of my knowledge
> "strategic" is much better than "not
> strategic" (which I have heard in reference to other
> products in the past).  What word do you associate with a
> product that IBM is planning to keep around for the
> forseeable future?
>    
>   The two terms I have historically associated with 'oh
> oh' are "mature" and "tactical".  I
> readily agree that "strategic" doesn't
> guarantee success, but I've never seen strategic mean
> dead.
>    
>   Bruce (who also readily admits I generally don't pay
> much attention to this type of communication from IBM
> anyway)
>
> Neil Palmer <neilpalmer400mr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   ... 
>
> Ross Mauri's recent letter included a very unfortunate
> word in describing "i". He called it
> "strategic". Today being November 11th I hope you
> all remember your history lessons, including what that
> designation means to IBM products and initiatives.
>
>
> Neil Palmer



      __________________________________________________________________
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com