Tom Brandt wrote:

>Two things:
>
>1. HP thinks they know their customers needs better than the customers
>themselves.
>
>2. HP values their business partners over their customers.
>
>Amazing.
---------------------------------------------

Amazing, but in view of the events of the last couple of years, not surprising.  Dave Wilde and his colleagues at HP are not stupid -- they know the damage being done to the Open MPE movement by their foot-dragging.  What his comments in this article now make clear is that the choice to delay is deliberate, and not merely bureaucratic sluggishness.

Shortly after the e3000 EOL announcement, I angrily stated in this forum that I would do everything in my power to make sure HP would not be part of our post-MPE solution.  I later backed off from that position, realizing that resentment and anger should not be part of a business decision.  HP's lack of commitment to their customers' best interests is a very valid criterion for selecting a computer vendor, however.  Considering the way HP is handling this licensing question, along with their efforts to stifle Ken Sletten's and others' open disclosure of their delaying tactics, makes me feel that I could make a very good business case for avoiding HP as a supplier in the future.

Of course, these opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

John Clogg

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