Official OpenMPE Directors Response to the Article of March 22, 2004 in
ComputerWorld

OpenMPE, Inc. was formed as an organization of HPe3000 users, vendors and
consultants shortly after Hewlett-Packard announced in November of 2001
that they were ending sales, development and support of the platform with
its powerful and reliable operating system, MPE/iX.  OpenMPE is more than
just an advocacy group for MPE/iX, but an organization with the goal of
obtaining a license from HP which would allow them to enhance and
distribute MPE to those who wish to go on using it in their businesses.
Over a period of more than 30 years MPE has become a steady and reliable
way of life for tens of thousands of users.  This community has in turn
produced numerous software and hardware vendors as well as many
consultants, all dedicated to extending and supporting the platform beyond
what Hewlett-Packard was able to provide.

We now find ourselves almost 2 1/2 years after that stunning announcement
and almost 6 months past the end of sale date for the platform.  HP has
committed to supporting the platform until the end of 2006 for both
software and hardware.  Thus, we are now at the midpoint between
announcement and end of support.  Meanwhile, users are being urged by
Hewlett-Packard to migrate away from the HPe3000 and towards other
platforms such as HP-UX, Linux or Windows.  Interestingly, HP makes no
claim of improved functionality or cost benefit for those that move over to
the other platforms.  HP tends to recommend and promote the HP9000/HP-UX
alternative because of its enterprise level of acceptance, not to mention
its higher profit margins compared to the other two alternatives.  To this
end HP has formed partnerships with certain business partners to perform
migration services with the objective of moving as many users as possible
from the HPe3000 to one of the other platforms.  Not surprisingly, some
significant percentage of users will find it too expensive or impractical
to migrate away from a platform as reliable and cost effective as the
HPe3000, especially within the time frame envisioned by HP.  This group of
users is known as "homesteaders".

Ever since the formation of OpenMPE, its Board of Directors has engaged HP
and the principal management, of what is now known as the vCSY business
operation, in a dialogue with the objective of obtaining the license rights
described above.  This has been a period with much discussion, few promises
and limited action on the part of HP, which we have tried to accept as
something other than a delaying action while the migration process is
underway.  We recognize that shutting down a major business (indeed the
root product line primarily responsible for the HP of today being the
second largest computer manufacturer in the world) with thousands of
customers using the product in mission critical applications as a complex
task with many aspects to be considered.

HP has told us they want to share their roadmap and strategy with OpenMPE
and has required the Board of Directors of OpenMPE to agree to a
confidentiality agreement to do this.  This of course limits the ability of
the board to communicate fully with the membership that makes up the
organizations community of users, vendors and consultants.  Without the
ability to disclose details provided by HP, the relationship between the
board and its constituents has become increasingly strained.  The board has
reasoned thus far that, although regrettable, the limitation on
communication may be a necessary cost in order to achieve our overall
goal.  Up to this point we have preferred to think of the confidentially
agreement as a prudent business requirement by HP, rather than as a wedge
strategy designed to divide and separate the board from the organizations
members.  We want HP to be able to work with us and at the same time give
ourselves an opportunity to influence HP's path with input from the
homesteading community, including vendors and consultants that stand ready
and willing to perform their historical supporting roles.  Knowing HP's
plans, to the extent that they are shared with us, enables us to plan and
budget for the task ahead, if and when HP agrees to the concept.  HP has
funded a project to explore this concept without predicting any particular
result.  We see this as a positive step.

Not only has OpenMPE conducted many survey questions of its own to get a
sense of the community's desires, but other respected organizations have
sponsored surveys, such as the Interex user group’s annual System
Improvement Ballot (SIB).  At this stage of the game it would seem more and
more likely that organizations such as ours and Interex are more in touch
with the opinions and needs of HPe3000 users than is HP itself.  We believe
this is one reason why HP continues to work with us.  The top issue cited
by survey respondents and vocal users is for HP to make a decision on the
licensing of MPE source code by the second half of 2004; i.e., "earlier"
rather than later.

Now, in a recent article published by ComputerWorld on March 22, we get
some disturbing and contradictory statements from Dave Wilde, HP's e3000
business manager.  He states that "HP doesn't see the need to make a
decision this year ... stressing that HP must act in the best overall
interest of the HPe3000 user base".  He said that "a decision to license
the source code might prompt some customers to replace their transition
plans with an alternative that may not meet their needs, simultaneously
hurting HP business partners that provide migration services".  He further
states, "HP is sensitive to the needs of customers who will be running
HPe3000 systems beyond 2006 [homesteaders]".  This would seem to place HP
in something of a dilemma: how to migrate as many users as possible and
what to do about those that can't/won't migrate off the platform.

So far HP seems to be looking at all users as a single group that are going
to migrate sooner or later, but some just need more disincentive to remain
on the platform than others.  In this case, the disincentive would seem to
be the withholding of the prospect of MPE/iX being available to the user
community for further enhancement and distribution after 2006.  It has been
our hope to convince HP that the user base really consists of separate
groups with different interests: those that are willing to migrate and
those homesteaders that can't or won't.  Homesteaders have no need for
migration services, they need HP to help them survive this devastating turn
of events by supporting their need to continue use of MPE/iX as long as
possible.

When Dave Wilde speaks of not seeing a need to make a decision this year,
it would seem that he is really speaking of HP needs, not customer needs.
Their trying to act in the overall interest of the HPe3000 user base would
seem to be an impossibility, since not all users have the same needs, so no
single strategy will do the job.  We seem to get a glimpse of HP's true
thinking with their worry that some customers will replace transition plans
with a strategy of staying on the MPE/ix platform, somehow not acting in
their own best interests.  This is an incredibly patronizing statement for
HP to make.  Here is a company that acted primarily in its own best
interests, not its customers, when it made the decision to end the platform
in 2001.  This was a unilateral decision by HP that was unwanted, unwelcome
and unexpected and that created enormous costs and disruption for its
customers.  It is difficult to see how customers could damage themselves
more than by what HP has done already.  In addition, HP set a timetable of
its own choosing for when migration is to be completed.  Unfortunately, not
all migrating customers will be able to meet the end of 2006 deadline.  For
many customers it took many years to develop their applications on the
HPe3000, and the allotted time frame to migrate will be inadequate.

For HP to worry about customers that choose not to inflict these unplanned
costs upon their businesses is bad enough, but to then compound things with
their misplaced concern for the well being of their business partners
providing migration services is really putting the cart before the horse.
The migration business is an artificial concept forced into creation and
produced as a result of HP's regrettable decision to end the life of the
HPe3000 platform, not some strategic business need long sought by customers
that requires protection.  HP's commitment to its business partners cannot
be allowed to be more important than its commitment to its customers.
Indeed, HP seems to have a long history of misreading the needs of its
HPe3000 customers and recognizing their true best interests.  Finally, HP
throws in a confusing statement about being sensitive to the needs of
homesteaders choosing to continue on the platform after 2006, which does
not reconcile with their previously stated concerns and would seem to
simply be a statement designed to buy more time to work on those difficult-
to-convince “migration prospects”.

It is hard to see how customers would be induced to act against their own
best interests (which only they could know best) by having an additional
reasonable choice to remain on the MPE/iX platform.  Customers do not need
HP (the platform’s killer) to figure out what is best for them and advise
them as to how they can save them from themselves.  What is the basis for
HP’s claim that they know what is best for their diversified customers?
The claim itself suggests an arrogance that does not go down well.  HP
seems to see a need or obligation to protect the migration partners,
perhaps even more than the interests of the user community.  Customers do
not need HP to save them from making bad decisions; rather they need HP to
provide appropriate choices from which the users can make informed
selections.  HP’s statements create the vivid image of its migration
partners providing undertaking services for the dead platform in its coffin
waiting for cremation.

It is time for HP to stop delaying and get down to recognizing reality: the
homesteading community is not simply a collection of users who are slower
than others to realize what is best for them and that they will not go away
or disappear through starvation or divide and conquer tactics.  HP needs to
do the responsible thing and show its customers, all of them, that it truly
wants to help them with their various choices.  We have been waiting for HP
to announce its roadmap plan since the end of January, and then February,
but so far nothing has been forthcoming.  This board is frustrated in
knowing generally what HP is supposed to announce, while trying to respect
HP's request for confidentiality.  Our patience with this process is
wearing thin.

HP needs to make the licensing decision regarding MPE/iX and announce it by
the second half of this year!

The Members of the Board of Directors for OpenMPE, Inc.

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