(An addition to John Korb's frustration)
Why is HP neglecting the 3000 from their marketing efforts? There may be
more reasons than these, but I'll drop a few.
1) You do not need expert sales reps to sell 9000s. The media, colleges, and
word of mouth become your partners in advertising your products (ask Bill
Gates), so almost EVERYONE have heard the word UNIX interpreting it as a
synonym of OPEN SYSTEMS. Since you do not need expert sales reps, you can do
quite good with a bunch of good Radio-Shack type salespersons. Then it does
not matter if they are highly trained or if they quit. You can get a
replacement EASY. These means a lot of $$$$ in savings. On the other hand,
you need very good skilled and trained personnel in order to convince
potential buyers of the superiority of the 3000s and MPE/iX. They need
statistics, up-to-date supporting war stories, etc. and a solid advertising
campaign to convince customers. Again, more bucks.
2) For the same reasons, you need very well trained and skilled personnel
for technical support. Then you must invest many $$$$s to protect your
employees and reduce personnel turnover. Now everyone is doing part of their
business with contractors. HP3000 experienced contractors are harder to get
and more expensive. Due to its popularity, the 9000s and UNIX have more
resources available, and numbers do count.
3) My third argument is a direct consequence of the above. Since it costs a
lot less to keep 9000s sales rolling, they can be sold cheaper. This means
that mid size businesses do not have to think in "long term hardware
investment". Most can live with the power they need for just the next two or
three years, and if by then more horsepower is needed, they are even willing
to REPLACE the equipment instead of UPGRADING. I call this the Desktop
Buying Syndrome. If we buy an upgradeable desktop now, by the time most of
us need to upgrade, it is cheaper to replace the whole thing.
I know there is more, but this is real. A superior product may never climb
the popularity ladder. The question is, can something be done from HP's
management and marketing to change this picture? Sure. The next question is,
will they?. Judging by the last 5 years trend, I don't think so.
To "revive" the 3000s on the market, HP needs to take a risk that I am not
sure they are willing to. Look at what IBM has done to the AS/400 (yack!)
after fall. To their credit, IBM decided that their installed base was
crucial for recovery and took the chance. Now we have a healthier evolving
AS/400, still running a proprietary operating system, using RISC processors,
with a VERY GOOD marketing strategy, and selling hot!
No computer company has ever had such a faithful user community as HP on the
3000s. How much value does this represent to their future? Only time will
tell.
Rodolfo Lopez
[log in to unmask]
****************************
My point of view does not necessarily mean others think the same way, my
employer included. :-)
***************************
|
