OK ... So we are on the fringes, trying to guess what IBM is up to in the low-end (even laptop) mainframe space. But (correct me if I am wrong) it seems to be something like this: (1) IBM's mainframe strategy seems to be to keep the cash-cow going as long as possible for those customers who are already locked-in by virtue of a big code base that it would be difficult to convert. These customers have to continue to run under z/os with CICS and IMS, etc. (2) To the extent possible, keep the locked-in customers paying at the good old rates -- With minor concessions such sub-capacity pricing to soften some of the extreme problems. (3) At the same time the z/os customers are locked in, to do something for sales of mainframe hardware. The answer to this problem is the ZIIP and ZAAP processors for the newer workloads (which will otherwise go to the squatty boxes). (4) IBM does not, itself, want to make a low-end emulated-on-Intel mainframe. What is the reason for this? Presumably the bean-counters have determined that it would not be profitable enough or it might allow some clever locked-in customers to "escape?" (5) Even though they don't want to make a low-end emulated box themselves they definitely don't want someone else to make one. Who knows what kind of competition that might lead to? who knows how far up the CPU-power ladder such units might crawl? (6) To prevent this they will call on the lawyers. The first phase is to claim that it is illegal to emulate the mainframe instruction set. This set of litigation should last several years. If this litigation fails then go to phase 2, which will be to determine the pricing of the software on plug-compatible boxes. This will be good for a few more years ... With any luck at all, the would-be competitors will run out of backing. (7) While this is all going on, launch some PR campaigns, such as the "academic initiative" to give the impression that the company is concerned about the long-term viability of z/os and associated. Of course, when looked at closely, even the academic initiative seems more related to the newer workloads (vs z/os). . Wouldn't it be ironic if PSI, with Microsoft backing, turned out to be the real long-range salvation of z/OS?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
