Being snide is what Rob does best...
-sjl
"John Yeung" wrote in message
news:mailman.4484.1355429429.10847.midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx...
From: "sjl" <sjl_abc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
And how do we convince our employers/clients that RDp is a necessary
product? Bean counters run the show in many if not most shops. If IBM
truly cares about this market, they should be providing RDp at no cost
along
with the compilers.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:41 PM, <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, and if you truly cared about the market your company served you'd be
giving your customers your product for free - and giving them free
support.
No need to be snide or absurd. No one is suggesting IBM or anyone
else should become a nonprofit. Bundling RDp would be a great way to
encourage people to use ILE features and other more up-to-date
practices (or so I imagine; I've never used RDp, but what I can say is
that SEU/PDM doesn't feel like a great fit for "modern" programming)
and make the platform seem less stodgy and old-fashioned, as well as
more productive. Folks who are going to doggedly stick to SEU no
matter what wouldn't purchase RDp anyway.
Now, it's entirely possible that IBM has already considered this, but
is projecting that the good will and better competitiveness versus
other platforms isn't worth losing the RDp revenue. Fine. They could
still factor it into the price of the system (or the compilers, if
they're sold separately). In other words, make "purchase" of RDp
mandatory for new systems.
Of course I could be wrong about the bottom line. Maybe there are a
lot of customers who would wish they could buy the IBM i or compilers
for slightly less and not purchase RDp, which they will never use.
Maybe there aren't many customers and potential customers that are
thinking "what, IBM wants me to use SEU unless I pay them EXTRA for
IDE technology that everyone else has had for free for years now?".
But if this is the case, then how again is IBM trying to make the i
NOT seem antiquated, irrelevant, and out of touch?
John
midrange.com
