-----Original Message-----
From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Chuck Ryan
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [OPENMPE] PA-RISC Emulator
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan M. Backus [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: PA-RISC Emulator
>
>
> We seem to be getting back into emotional reactions
> rather then business
> reactions. The same thing happened in the OpenMPE session.
Ahh.. so any negative reaction is obviously an emotional one and not a
rational business decision.. gotcha.
[Jon Backus]> Absolutely not.
> There started
> to be much debate about how wrong this requirement was but
> when the question
> was posed to the group of "emulator interested" people only about five
> percent had a business reaction of "We are NOT interested if
> the hardware
> MUST be HP." The question isn't "Philosophically do you like the
> restriction?". The question is would you rather that MPE
> dies if this is
> the only option? Remember, HP owns MPE and has spent a fair
> amount of money
> on maintaining and enhancing it over the years and HP (the
> company has made
> their decision). The people within HP that want to help us
> (AND THEY DO
> EXIST) must build a business case for allowing something like this to
> happen. If part of that business case is a requirement that
> it run on HP
> hardware, and that requirement helps to allow it to happen,
> then I (and
> roughly 95% of the people in the OpenMPE session) consider that a
> "live-able" solution.
>
Percentages are a wonderfull thing.
That "roughly 95%" was based on how many votes?
[Jon Backus]> There were 110 people in the session.
How many votes did you eliminate from your calculation because they were
not, in your opinion, a business decision?
[Jon Backus]> None, I didn't make that decision, the people voting did.
The voting was #1 "Are you interested in the emulator?" and #2 "Of those
interested how many would not use it if the HP hardware requirement was in
place?". The voting was not "How many of you like the HP hardware
requirement?"
> That is not to say that those of you that would
> refuse to use an emulated
> PA-RISC environment under these requirements are wrong, just
> a difference of
> what we are willing to accept and it's important to understand, from a
> business prospective, that difference.
>
Ok, from a business perspective:
[Jon Backus]> Now were talking business perspective (thank-you).
HP's track record makes me believe that if they are left any way to
"influence" those using the emulators to migrate to a new HP platform, they
will do so. And as long as they control the hardware and licensing for new
installations they have this ability.
Right now HP is looking at this from a "how can we maintain a revenue stream
from a discontinued product" perspective, instead of using it as an
opportunity to keep the goodwill and loyalty of a long term customer base.
The people I talk with, both inside and outside the 3000 community, do not
have a very positive picture of HP as a dependable vendor. Word of mouth can
kill a company faster than any CEO concerned more with the current stock
price than with long term business health.
My opinion:
HP is currently casting around looking for a golden goose that will make the
merger look like a great idea. As they do so there is no product inside HP
that they would not cut, for a short term cost savings, with the possible
exception of their ink cartidges. This phase is likely to last the next 3-5
years and does not exactly make them my vendor of choice.
An Intel based emulator running on linux, the most likely option, will not
generate a great deal of hardware or support dollars for HP and so they will
either tweak the licensing to make up for this or push harder for customers
to migrate. Either way, we lose.
Comments are my own, not my employer's... etc.
|
