The only thing they (CSY) forgot to do was to hire somebody with competence
and knowledge of marketing and sales.

Running ad's in 3000 magazins or newswire isn't marketing.
And reading other comments, the 3000 salesforce is-was non-existing.

and please excuse our "poor" English as some of us are not native speakers.

Michael
These of course is my own personal opinion.


On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:39:21 -0600, Jerry Fochtman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>At 07:47 AM 1/22/02 -0600, you wrote:
>>Greg Terterian schrieb:
>> >>
>>Dear Mr. Winston,  I would like to know what the hell did you do to keep
>>those vendors happy (those vendors who had applications for MPE/iX).
>><<
>>I can second that.
>
>FYI...it's "Mr. Prather"....
>
>And what makes 'those vendors' happy is selling their products.  HP
>can provide the opportunity and help them with consulting/etc. to
>port their application as well as co-marketing.  But unless the
>customer's pony up to the bar and purchase the products there is
>little incentive for the vendors to continue to pour resources
>into a particular market, no matter how good the solution is.
>
>Oracle pulled off the HP3000 simply because it couldn't sell
>enough of their product to warrant the cost of continuing to
>invest resources into it.  It indeed was difficult for them
>to sell something when the HP3K essentially came with its own
>DBMS which the user community enthusiastically promoted over
>all others.  Sure, we can go into a lengthy discussion as to
>all the reasons why, but the point is they simply didn't sell
>a lot of product.
>
>In the meantime, many application vendors focused on supporting
>the major DBMS products, in particular Oracle, because the Oracle
>relational DBMS was/is a very large market.  So their marketing
>opportunity was much larger and this is where they would be able
>to make a better return on their investment along with much better
>growth opportunities.
>
>Sure, maybe HP could have done things better/different; but then
>again, HP3000 users also had choices to make which also affected
>the growth of these other application products.  Regardless, I
>believe everyone made choices based upon their needs, resources, and
>what was in their best interests.  Users decided that the costs
>for other DBMS products was too high an investment, Oracle decided
>that they weren't getting the return on their investment to
>support/maintain this market; application vendors felt that their
>future growth would be tied to supporting the Oracle/Sybase/etc.
>markets which were much larger than HP/IMAGE, and so forth.
>
>But trying to pin the blame on any one person or event really
>doesn't serve any purpose, nor does it demonstrate a potential
>acknowledgement of the many things that indeed do impact the market.
>I don't profess to know everything, but I do feel that HP/CSY did
>their sincere best given the resources and information the had to
>work with.
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *