Thanks for the links, Kelly. IIRC, the TSM announcement notice just pointed to the passport advantage main entry and I had to log in and wander around before I found these.
It would have been nice if the announcement had linked directly to the chart. Tom Kauffman NIBCO, Inc -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kelly Lipp Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:06 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Pricing model for 5.4 OK, I've resisted as long as I could. As you can all imagine, I have numerous conflicting thoughts about this. In no particular order... The model had been one way just too darn long. Frankly, it was just time to change it up. Dual core/Quad core seemed like a good opportunity. Remco, no the pricing is not quite the same: two cores = One Processor in the new model. Cores in Solaris/IBM are worth a bit more than an Intel core so the price there did/will go up. In something I saw in the official word we got from IBM is that the price increase is between 3-5%. Some links that may or may not have been posted before... http://www-142.ibm.com/software/sw-lotus/services/cwepassport.nsf/wdocs/ pvu_table_for_customers http://www-142.ibm.com/software/sw-lotus/services/cwepassport.nsf/wdocs/ processor_value_unit_licensing_announcement I'll forward a Partner World Announcement that we got after this message. In that message, IBM claims that since no other backup product has adopted a "pay for Gigabytes" there is no reason for them to. Surely would not want to lead in this area, would we? Can you imagine the work required to actually verify license compliance? I agree with whoever said that it should not be on the customer to ensure compliance. If the product/company requires it, it should check it. That said, can you imagine the fun we would all have if TSM did check? Let's not go there. Remember, the most compelling reason our friends at TSM had for doing this was the fact that most/all other products in the portfolio did. They were not allowed to buck the trend. I'm reasonably sure that with the exception of increased revenue, they did not want to do this to us/for us/for themselves. This was probably a ginormous pain in the butt all the way around. OK everyone. Back to work... Kelly J. Lipp VP Manufacturing & CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gill, Geoffrey L. Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:50 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Pricing model for 5.4 Luckily I was at the dentist when the first response came out and I've had time to take a few breaths. I'm on the same page as Tom here. I think we all know how pricing works and that there are discounts involved, that's no surprise. Seems to me IBM wants to continually change the pricing model to keep everyone confused. Trying to "complicate things" and force companies to contact the vendor or reseller because they refuse to post pricing, to me, is like having to go to a car dealer and buy a used car. Geoff Gill TSM Administrator PeopleSoft Sr. Systems Administrator SAIC M/S-G1b (858)826-4062 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kauffman, Tom Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:53 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Pricing model for 5.4 We all know software of all types is subject to various discounts, from a quantity aspect or a concurrent purchase aspect, or whatever. And I know that we will see the 'base', pre-discount prices when we get our passport advantage renewal quote. There is absolutely no reason these 'base' prices cannot be posted for public perusal. Unless, of course, they're playing fast and loose with the base price, setting it based on industry, customer grouping, or some other consideration. I can't believe IBM/Tivoli would do that. (It could be considered illegal in a number of contexts). All I know is that the TSM prices were published in the announcement letters -- until the product was moved over to the Tivoli group. And I stand by my statement. I've got 32 years in software and software support, and I will *not* contact vendors about a software product if I can't find an indication of pricing first. Tom Kauffman NIBCO, Inc -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Stapleton Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:55 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Pricing model for 5.4 From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager on behalf of Kauffman, Tom I second that. In general, my approach is that any product the vendor is too ashamed to post pricing for is a product not worth considering. There is no issue of "shame" here. Buying software at the enterprise level is not like going to the grocery store, where the price of apples is the same for everyone. Resellers offer many levels of pricing to their customers, depending upon the relationship with the customer, whether IBM auspices are involved, what is being bought, and what kind of "deal" is in place. I did a year's work for a customer that bought a tubload of Tivoli software (reportedly $250,000USD at full retail price) for virtually nothing--but the customer had to buy a year of my services to close the deal. If you post a "standard" price publicly, that sends a message (at least in American culture) that the price is firm and not subject to dicker. In the IT world, *nothing* is not subject to dicker. -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior consultant CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
