> -----Original Message-----
> From: John R. Wolff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Question
>
>
> I have always had the opinion that HP's, and some vendors,
> tiered pricing
> model was flawed.  I think this contributed to (but was not solely
> responsible for) the demise of the HP3000.
>

<snip>

> I believe that many more HP3000's would have been sold if
> this artificial
> and difficult to justify barrier had not been in place.
> Surely vendors
> would gain more revenue from a larger volume of installations
> of any size,
> than they would from extracting premiums from those few
> willing or able to
> pay it.  It is short term and dead-end thinking to impose
> barriers between
> a vendor and the potential marketplace with one-sided pricing
> models.  I
> believe this was a factor in the ebb of the "ecosystem"
> surrounding the
> HP3000.
>
> John R. Wolff
> Vice President/CIO
> LAACO, Ltd.
>

Thank you for putting it so clearly.

I have been working on a response but yours sums it up better than mine did.

The software upgrade penalty did indeed make a huge difference in the number
of 3000's that HP was able to sell. Upgrades were delayed until the 3000 was
completed bogged down and unable to complete the minimum tasks required of
it. I had many cases where it was easy to justify the purchase of new 3000
hardware to improve performance and keep things running smoothly. But, as
soon as the software upgrades were figured in, costs increased to the point
where it was impossible to justify the upgrade to myself, let alone to
senior management.


Comments are my own... not my employer's... etc.

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