Kevin Newman wrote:
> Oh I love it! Some news starved reporter is given a deadline, so
> he/she lurks the lists trying to find some story-line!
That comment flies in the face of how newspaper reporting works. It's
something I know a little about after working in the news business for 16
years. Here on the Internet, anybody can post anything, true or not.
Because there's precious little liability established here yet, anything
goes. When you put ink on paper, it's a different story. Don't confuse the
cowboy tactics of publishing on the Internet with print reporting.
It seems like Nigel Campbell of Cognos has suggested the same thing: that
reporters are "stealing" quotes from the Internet to dream up news stories.
Both of these fellows have disclaimers after their messages that "protect"
them from such "thefts."
Any good reporter will check with a source before using something in a
story that's been taken from the net. And if you scan this newsgroup's
postings over the last six months, you won't find anything remotely
resembling the quotes from Jeff Kell and Tony Furnivall that appeared in
the ComputerWorld article. As for Bard White from Spaulding (the other
quoted source), he doesn't even post to this list. It appears the
ComputerWorld reporter actually called his sources and interviewed them. He
certainly called me. But I'm sure that Jeff and Tony can speak up if they
feel they were quoted inaccurately or out of context.
What's more troubling is the suggestion that this issue of Computerworld is
making something out of nothing. Kevin asks:
>Am I missing something here? I just love watching the press make such
>large issues over passing comments.
Yes, you are missing something. It's the struggle going on between HP's
business practices and its customers' loyalty to this product. After all
the examination, the only concrete reason HP seems to give for not pushing
the HP 3000 to anyone other than its installed base is: "It's not what
people are asking for, and we sell something else they ARE asking for."
Who's responsible for generating demand for a product, anyway? It's the
product's manufacturer. If that demand isn't created, how long before a
product loses favor within the organization that makes it? Ever wonder why
HP now admits it makes "our investment decisions very differently for the
Unix side and the 3000," according to Harry Sterling? It has a lot to do
with that customer demand. The people behind Proposition 3000 are working
to change that.
>I'll be okay in a few minutes .... when I stop laughing so much.
It's not as funny to the computer professionals reading this newsgroup when
they see their careers being altered by HP business decisions. The most
common sentiment I read here is "I love the 3000, but our company is going
to another platform." Readers that are comfortable with mothballing 15
years of expertise to follow HP business strategy can laugh. Others are
trying to do something to make HP realize how they feel about this issue.
What's most ironic is to watch this business behavior and see those that
are laughing thinking it will be different next time. We once thought that
60,000 installed business servers was too big a market to fret over. Now
the Unix installed base feels comfortable with a number 100 times bigger.
Who's to say several million machines is too big a market to mothball in a
few years when something "more popular" comes along? Last time I checked
the Apple installed base was in the millions, and that number doesn't keep
several listers here from predicting its demise.
Once you start to support the "everybody's using it" theory of system
selection, you better hope your suppliers sell like hell. If they slow, or
don't keep pace with the flavor of the month, you'll be putting them on
notice -- or mothballing the experience it took you years to build. It's
your choice.
Ron Seybold, Editor In Chief
The 3000 News/Wire
Independent Information to Maximize Your HP3000
[log in to unmask]
512-331-0075
|
