I can only say, "I wish I could write as good as this!"

Thanks for sharing this Tony, who knows maybe, just maybe they will listen
and re-evaluate.

L.A.Barnes

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony B. Shepherd (Tony B. Shepherd) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 4:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] HP e3000 announcement


Greetings all.

For the second time in a few years I'm de-lurking to keep you apprised of
the results of my "letter to Carly" posted here a few weeks ago. George
Stachnik replied on her behalf, and I wanted to share his reply with you. I
composed my reply to George almost immediately, but in a rare exhibition of
restraint, have just sent it a few minutes ago. I wanted to cool off and
see if what I wrote was really what I meant to say. It was.

Please don't look on this as an attack on George or Carly. Instead it's a
blend of how it will change how I do what I do for a living, and how I feel
about so-called modern business practices. I've enjoyed what I do for a
living and those I work with every since I got into this business (late
60's), and I don't look forward to that changing. But it is. So I will too.

If anyone wants to pick up the banner on this and run, feel free. The best
thing that can happen is for HP to follow a path that permits the most
reliable business system I've had the pleasure working with to survive and
prosper, somehow, somewhere. If this series of emails helps achieve that
goal, I'll be very glad. I don't expect such a miracle.

Instead, I'm going to help my employer, my friends and anyone else that
needs my help, create new business systems that can approach the HP3000 in
simplicity and reliability, and not be subject to the whims of someone who
never had to create such systems.

I would ask one favor of the list members. If you choose to reply and
discuss this post, please please please trim your replies. Many list
members do not enjoy high speed connections :)

So - back to the shadows. My correspondence is below in reverse
chronological order.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Mr. Stachnik,

Thanks for taking the time to follow up personally to the email I sent to
Carly Fiorina. During the 25+ years I've been associated with the HP3000,
the interest HP has shown in the success of this loyal group of customers
has been refreshing and reassuring.

I've quoted my original email and your reply below in their entirety. I am
also posting this to the HP3000-L mailing list as well. I posted my initial
letter to that list, and there does not appear to be any confidential
information in your reply. I apologize for being impolite and not asking
your permission first, but I feel other HP3000-L readers have an interest
in HP's decision too.

First of all, if HP carries out their plan to discontinue the HP3000, the
end dates for sales and support are, in my opinion, acceptable. Many shops
won't be able to complete their migration in 5 years for a variety of
reasons, and there may well be companies for whom this is the final straw.
Regrettable, but quite frankly, HP's approach is better than most.

Instead, I'd like to tell you how I think HP can do business better. I
don't have a lot of facts to support some of my assertions, but instead am
relying on my memories of press releases, news snippets and voices in the
hall.

Let me suggest that if all you look at is a spreadsheet with numbers, HP
should only be making inkjet cartridges. That seems to be a very high
volume, high margin business, with strong laws to punish illegal
non-licensed suppliers of black market look-alikes. The "conveyor belt" can
be throttled easily to meet market demands, and with today's distribution
systems, lots of field offices could be closed and payrolls greatly
reduced. Don't forget that other ink cartridge manufacturers could be
bought out, producing greater economy of scale benefits too.

We both know such a plan would be corporate suicide. But isn't that where
the "low-cost high-volume standards-based" argument leads us? That kind of
logic will have us all driving Kia's or Geo's soon - Buick, Jeep and
certainly Cadillac won't be around.

I've always thought of HP as an innovator - not a maker of "me too"
products. The examples are too numerous to list here, but I'm sure you're
aware of some great ones - the HP35 calculator, the HP2640 terminal, the
HP3000 minicomputer. Some didn't make it for long - the LED calculator
watch, the HP300 computer system - and weren't a commercial success.

The ones that made it shared some common qualities: they were innovative
(nothing like them before), they had purpose (businesses could justify
their expense), and they evolved to meet the needs of their users (witness
the calculator division). They offered customers value, and they were worth
the (usually) extra money.

HP will be turning their back on an innovative and successful technology if
the HP3000 is dropped. This is not at all like the HP I've admired since
they trounced IBM, DEC, Burroughs and Data General in a bid for our
business in the middle 1970's. We didn't choose HP because they were the
cheapest (they weren't) or were high-volume (they were small and growing in
the seventies) or standards-based (except for standard languages like Cobol
and Fortran). We chose HP because we recognized that with their new
product, the HP3000 Series II, we could not only replace an IBM 360/30
(batch, punch-cards) system, but we could create one of the first on-line
interactive student registration systems in the country. And we did.

I miss those kind of partners, and that way of doing business.

Now to some specific points in your letter I'd like to address. As far as
the open-source model for MPE, if the product no longer produces a profit,
why not put it in the public domain or some vendor's hands? Sell/donate the
intellectual rights and walk away. Acquire a minority interest in exchange
for the rights if you wish - but don't be guilty of allowing such a fine
piece of software to linger and die by suffocation.

Your third point included the phrase ". . . for customers who wish to
tradeup from an HP e3000." I won't speak for others, but I don't regard
this as an opportunity to "tradeup" at all - rather, a need to look
elsewhere. You might indeed convince some shops to convert their 3000's to
9000's, or buy 9000's to migrate their 3000 applications to. But I'd wager
that any HP3000 shop who has to buy new hardware today will evaluate, quite
coldly, the offerings of all manufacturers.

These days the phrase "low-cost high-volume standards-based" brings to mind
an image of a desktop PC. If it were up to me, I'd get a few PC's (probably
Compaq Presario type - middle to high end consumer or SOHO models) and some
copies of Linux and see what I could come up with that worked. HP3000
System Programmers are very creative - swimming upstream for something
worth having makes you strong. Once I got some apps to work on Linux (how
much more difficult than converting to HP-UX, really?), I'd be a lot less
concerned about relying on any particular vendor in the future.

Finally, your last paragraph closed with "I recognize that we are asking
you to make a difficult transition.  But if we continue to work together,
I'm sure we can find a way to get through the transition." Actually, I
don't recall HP asking - I think the user base would have voted to keep the
systems that were quietly and economically running their businesses.
Sarcasm aside, I hope HP understands that this action, to me at least, IS
the problem. Allowing HP to "continue to work together" to "get through the
transition" would appear to me to be a serious tactical error, and not a
path I would recommend.

Respectfully

Tony B. Shepherd

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