Re: Modernization?

["Dr. Syd Nicholson" <sydnic@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the problem revolves around the fact that most businesses have 
an Intel based server farm that they are committed to. They cannot see 
this ever going away. If the system i can be replaced by Intel, this 
looks attractive and cost effective. The cost impact of adding another 
Intel server is less than the cost saving of getting rid of the system i 
and its staff.

Of course, it would be a lot more cost effective if the system i was to 
replace the Intel server farm. But this is a very difficult sell - 
company politics, entrenced attitudes, etc, all come into play.

The migration of Intel to System i will only be posible if a very 
positive short term cost benefit can be shown. Ultimately it all comes 
down to money.

Syd


Nathan Andelin wrote:
> From: Dr. Syd Nicholson
>   
> > Yes - we can "modernize" on system i -- but what sets it apart from Intel?
> > What makes the i sufficiently different?
> >     
>
> It seems to me that there's quite a bit that sets IBM i apart, but it's harder to know what things are most relevant to individual prospects or customers.  Windows viruses may be a hot button for some people, but not for others.  The cost of IBM i platforms and applications is often sited against.
>
> I formerly worked for a small IBM i Business Partner that was selling an average of 2 new systems per month, where the most relevant selling point was not the platform itself, but the fact that we had a high customer satisfaction rating for the applications we developed and supported.  Customer retention was 100% during my 8-years with them, and we invariably received positive recommendations from just about every one of them.
>
> But that was before the Internet.  After the Internet, the growth of that firm has been in a holding pattern mostly - doing a pretty good job holding on to existing customers, but not converting many new.
>
> -Nathan.
>
>
>
>       
>