"Timothy Sipples" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>OK, moving on to the separate issue you raise. It's an excellent question. >As said, to a first order effect, IBM buying Candle (for example) did not >expand the mainframe market. And what I think you mean is expanding the >number of products in the mainframe market. The day before the acquisition >there were X number of Candle products, and the day after there were still >X number of the same products, so no change. By 'expanding the market', I was referring to the context of the original post - which was essentially about opportunities for entrepreneurs, not about end users. I simply cannot see how anyone, anywhere, in any position can actually claim that IBM has made it easier for a 'BT/I' to enter, or remain, in the mainframe market than it was in, say, the 1970s or 1980s. There is a term called 'barrier to entry', which seems to be getting higher all the time. This may be a natural progression, but arguing that it isn't the case seems... odd. Apologies, but I am somewhat boggled by the line of reasoning in response. While I realize nobody who works for IBM can say, "Hey, IBM doesn't think there is any chance of expanding the market, and therefore wants to consolidate/control it and milk as much revenue as possible while it can", trying to claim that the duck is a swan is a little insulting. While I realize this isn't a venue for change, it *is* a discussion group - but I also apologize if these replies annoy anyone. Regards, Dean ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
