Thanks for the links, Kelly. IIRC, the TSM announcement notice just
pointed to the passport advantage main entry and I had to log in and
wander around before I found these.
It would have been nice if the announcement had linked directly to the
chart.
Tom Kauffman
NIBCO, Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Kelly Lipp
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:06 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Pricing model for 5.4
OK, I've resisted as long as I could. As you can all imagine, I have
numerous conflicting thoughts about this. In no particular order...
The model had been one way just too darn long. Frankly, it was just
time to change it up. Dual core/Quad core seemed like a good
opportunity. Remco, no the pricing is not quite the same: two cores =
One Processor in the new model. Cores in Solaris/IBM are worth a bit
more than an Intel core so the price there did/will go up. In something
I saw in the official word we got from IBM is that the price increase is
between 3-5%.
Some links that may or may not have been posted before...
http://www-142.ibm.com/software/sw-lotus/services/cwepassport.nsf/wdocs/
pvu_table_for_customers
http://www-142.ibm.com/software/sw-lotus/services/cwepassport.nsf/wdocs/
processor_value_unit_licensing_announcement
I'll forward a Partner World Announcement that we got after this
message.
In that message, IBM claims that since no other backup product has
adopted a "pay for Gigabytes" there is no reason for them to. Surely
would not want to lead in this area, would we?
Can you imagine the work required to actually verify license compliance?
I agree with whoever said that it should not be on the customer to
ensure compliance. If the product/company requires it, it should check
it. That said, can you imagine the fun we would all have if TSM did
check? Let's not go there.
Remember, the most compelling reason our friends at TSM had for doing
this was the fact that most/all other products in the portfolio did.
They were not allowed to buck the trend. I'm reasonably sure that with
the exception of increased revenue, they did not want to do this to
us/for us/for themselves. This was probably a ginormous pain in the
butt all the way around.
OK everyone. Back to work...
Kelly J. Lipp
VP Manufacturing & CTO
STORServer, Inc.
485-B Elkton Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
719-266-8777
lipp AT storserver DOT com
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Gill, Geoffrey L.
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:50 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Pricing model for 5.4
Luckily I was at the dentist when the first response came out and I've
had time to take a few breaths. I'm on the same page as Tom here. I
think we all know how pricing works and that there are discounts
involved, that's no surprise. Seems to me IBM wants to continually
change the pricing model to keep everyone confused. Trying to
"complicate things" and force companies to contact the vendor or
reseller because they refuse to post pricing, to me, is like having to
go to a car dealer and buy a used car.
Geoff Gill
TSM Administrator
PeopleSoft Sr. Systems Administrator
SAIC M/S-G1b
(858)826-4062
Email: geoffrey.l.gill AT saic DOT com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-adsm-l AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU [mailto:owner-adsm-l AT VM.MARIST DOT
EDU] On
Behalf Of Kauffman, Tom
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:53 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Pricing model for 5.4
We all know software of all types is subject to various discounts, from
a quantity aspect or a concurrent purchase aspect, or whatever. And I
know that we will see the 'base', pre-discount prices when we get our
passport advantage renewal quote. There is absolutely no reason these
'base' prices cannot be posted for public perusal.
Unless, of course, they're playing fast and loose with the base price,
setting it based on industry, customer grouping, or some other
consideration. I can't believe IBM/Tivoli would do that. (It could be
considered illegal in a number of contexts).
All I know is that the TSM prices were published in the announcement
letters -- until the product was moved over to the Tivoli group.
And I stand by my statement. I've got 32 years in software and software
support, and I will *not* contact vendors about a software product if I
can't find an indication of pricing first.
Tom Kauffman
NIBCO, Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Mark Stapleton
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:55 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Pricing model for 5.4
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager on behalf of Kauffman, Tom I second that.
In general, my approach is that any product the vendor is too ashamed to
post pricing for is a product not worth considering.
There is no issue of "shame" here.
Buying software at the enterprise level is not like going to the grocery
store, where the price of apples is the same for everyone. Resellers
offer many levels of pricing to their customers, depending upon the
relationship with the customer, whether IBM auspices are involved, what
is being bought, and what kind of "deal" is in place.
I did a year's work for a customer that bought a tubload of Tivoli
software (reportedly $250,000USD at full retail price) for virtually
nothing--but the customer had to buy a year of my services to close the
deal.
If you post a "standard" price publicly, that sends a message (at least
in American culture) that the price is firm and not subject to dicker.
In the IT world, *nothing* is not subject to dicker.
--
Mark Stapleton (mark.s AT evolvingsol DOT com)
Senior consultant
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are
not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take
action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in
error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete
this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not
waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of
this message.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please
notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message
and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
|
