Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
- From: gahenke@xxxxxxxxx (George Henke)
- Date: 8 Mar 2010 11:37:54 -0800
It is comforting to know that satire is alive and well in IT. How boring
life would be without it.
However, as I recall it being explained to me by another, the "tier >based"pricings started when a big outsourcer (EDS?) would bid for >small
companies' IT business. EDS was cheaper because they had a >huge data center
which they would "parcel up". But that big data center >paid the same
software cost as the smaller ones. So, instead on "n" >small accounts (all
paying they same), the software vendor ended up >with one big account, again
paying one license instead of the "n" small >accounts. Is this "fair"? IMO,
no, it is not. Of course, now that software >is a bigger slice of the
income, the effect is magnified.
It is called "economies of scale", not price gouging, and yes, it is fair
for EDS (as much as I don't like to admit it) to realize the efficiencies of
such "economies of scale" because they have incurred the "business risk" of
building said large installations and are justified in trying to improve
their utilization, efficiency, to defray that risk.
What is not just or equitable is for IBM to view EDS' efficiency and
profits from "economies of scale" as a loss of revenue to themselves
(IBM) and then create a pricing scheme that appropriates those profits from
such efficiencies for themselves.
Since when have monopolies ever been interested in efficiencies except for
their own profitability.
Monopolies do not optimize the efficient allocation of resources in the
economy. They maximize their own profitablity at the expense of efficient
allocation of resources in the economy.
The is the basic evil of monopolies (Microeconmics 101).
It is opposite of "The greatest good for the greatest number".
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Scott Rowe <Scott.Rowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wow, what an inappropriate analogy.
Agreed.George Henke <gahenke@xxxxxxxxx> 3/8/2010 12:24 PM >>>
So the next time I fill up at the gas station the price should be based on
horsepower. All the SUV's should pay vastlly more for the same gas that I
use for my Honda Civic.
I always use high-test since high-octane is always better even for small
cars, better mileage and cooler running engines. The grade of gas used
affects the temperature of the engine. It is one reason, why airplanes use
special high octane gas.
Capacity based pricing has nothing but "greed" written all over it.
How can IBM even keep a straight face when they say "shipping capacity that
isn't used 'doesn't make sense'"
What doesn't make sense is "capacity-based pricing".
Rationalization: Completely logical, just not true.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Ted MacNEIL <eamacneil@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
limitThe contention was that IBM shipping capacity that isn't used "doesn'tmake sense".
A contention which I disagree with.
It's cheaper to build one type of chip/card, and use other methods to
capacity, which is what software pricing is based on.acts
I knew, in the mid-1980's, when IBM introduced model groups, that
capacity-based pricing was going to introduce headaches.
I told IBM this, at the time, but they didn't appear to care.
My job has been, for over 30 years, to manage, forecast, and configure
processors (and other hardware), and I do not like performing unnatural
to conform to flawed pricing models.your
That takes away any value I can bring to the business.
IBM, and the ISV's, don't get this.
Each pricing solution, IBM comes up with, seems to be more flawed (and
complex) than the previous one.
Unfortunately, when it's the only game in town, you have no choice but to
comply.
Complaining (especially to IBM), gets you nothing but a chance to vent
spleen.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
--
George Henke
(C) 845 401 5614
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains
confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If
you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received
this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing,
distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii)
reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase
or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted,
amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have
accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
--
George Henke
(C) 845 401 5614
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
- From: Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
- Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
- References:
- Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
- From: Ted MacNEIL
- Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
- From: George Henke
- Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
- From: Scott Rowe
- Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
- Prev by Date: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
- Next by Date: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s) -- OCTANE of CPUs
- Previous by thread: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
- Next by thread: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
