Reader Feedback on There’s No i in Future, But Is There a Future in i?
May 12, 2008 Timothy Prickett Morgan
Well, as you might expect, Neil Palmer’s story last week, There’s No i in Future, But Is There a Future in i?, touched off some heated conversation last week about the future of the i platform.
Contrary to one item of feedback that I saw posted on the Midrange-L forum, IT Jungle did not just publish Palmer’s comments to create some sort of artificial controversy. Ever since the late 1990s, IBM created controversy around the AS/400 platform by its own actions and inactions, and all we did was give Palmer a chance to voice his concerns about the future of the i platform–concerns that I know many readers share and others do not. Being a forum for such a discussion is, in fact, the job of IT Jungle’s publications, as is bringing some pressure to bear on IT vendors to take care of their customers. We take our job just as seriously as any IT professional does and we play our part in the IT ecosystem. Period.
With that, here is one letter that Palmer received directly and his response. If you want to see the rest of the feedback, hit the Midrange-L archive.
Thanks for that beautiful article. Every word you have said is true. I just wanted to elaborate on what you mentioned. I think IBM is using the silent kill method. Use the massive AS/400 ISVs and channel to promote System p, encourage migration and kill it (the AS/400) off. The platform merger, the blurting of the fact by IBM that it views AS/400 shops as venue for other IBM products, virtually killing Lotus Domino on the AS/400, forcing us to go System p for MQ Broker. . . all points to just one ominous and obvious fact: the AS/400 is definitely going the path that OS/2 went into. I always tell my friends that Microsoft should be marketing this product and not IBM. They are only keeping this product alive so they cash in on the base. That is it. Sometimes, out of pure loyalty to this great product, I feel that AS/400 users encouraged to look into System p should opt out and select Hewlett-Packard or Sun Microsystems instead.
Thanks for the opportunity.
I think there are some in IBM management in Armonk who are unfurling a “Mission Accomplished” banner. They think they’ve finally punished Rochester for having the nerve to decades ago to bring out a range of computers that challenged their mighty mainframes. Too bad the U.S. government’s antitrust suit against IBM years ago didn’t result in the General Systems Division being spun off. How different things would have been if Rochester had been in charge of its own destiny.
RELATED STORIES AND RESOURCES
Midrange-L forum archive post relating to the IT Jungle story