On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 05:26:21 -0700, Duane Percox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>We bought Dell because we find them to be the easiest to do
>business with. HP goes out of their way to make it difficult
>to order stuff from them via the web. Besides, every minute
>I save ordering from Dell I can apply towards migrating
>off the HP e3000. And we are going to need a lot of minutes :-)
>
>Interesting how HP forces a migration and I, a long time valued
>customer of HP, find more value in choosing non-HP products.
>
>While I respect the people of CSY and know they are doing their
>best given the circumstances I can't help but think this whole
>shutdown of the HP e3000 is being handled like the Titanic.
>
>Titanic
>-------
>1. The ship is unsinkable, lets save on life rafts as they
>   won't be needed anyway.
>2. The ship is sinking, bummer - not enough life rafts.
>3. Those that can't get off the ship are left
>   with little or no future.
>
>HP e3000
>--------
>1. Our customers have infinite talent, budget, and skills
>   to migrate - no need to give them an easy
>   'emulation under hp-ux' - why should we 'force' them
>   to 'our solution'.
>2. Customers can't find the talent, budget or
>   time to migrate, bummer - no packaged HP solution on hp-ux
>3. Those that can't get off the HP e3000 are left
>   with little or no future.

The above remarks sum up nicely exactly what I was thinking when Duane and
I were having our earlier dialogue.  It has always fascinated (astounded)
me to watch vendors (that presumably want success in the marketplace) erect
artificial barriers between themselves and present/future customer.

Vendors need to put themselves in the "shoes" of their customers and get a
feel for what it is like to be dealt with in the manner that the vendor is
offering.  How hard are they to do business with?  How satisfying is the
experience?  This is similar to doing other types of "Quality Assurance"
for customer facing aspects of an organization; such as what is it like to
call your company on the telephone and deal with an automated phone system?

HP has made any number of poor decisions with regard to the
HPe3000 "migration" (how I hate that inappropriate and misleading word):

- Timing it in the middle of the merger process
- Not having a serious migration plan in place at the time of announcement
- Assuming that these formerly happy, but now disturbed customers (even
mere owners), will select HP solutions out of habit
- Dragging out (to the point of making it moot) the agonizing non-decision
of what to do about future licensing or release of MPE for the good of the
customer base
- Assuming that customers are automatically better off leaving the HP3000
environment and that "this is really for their own good"
- That customers can afford this unforeseen and costly exercise
- Spouting statistics of what customers are doing, as though they had any
idea, with the objective of increasing the stampede for the exits
- Thinking that migration presents whole new opportunities as a profit
center

The reason for many of these bad decisions is a consequence of lost
customer contact and a complete loss of interest in the HP3000 business.
The HP3000 business would be a good niche business for a smaller, more
focused organization.  But in the "new" HP with stars in its eyes, alas it
is noise.

Wake up HP.

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