It's easy to look for problems and faults, to identify what's wrong and different. Sesame Street teaches youngsters to pick which thing is not like the other things — which thing "does not belong." The choice might be four plates, three with two cookies and one with three cookies, or it might be three starfish and a crab. Whatever the objects, the lesson is clear — something doesn't fit.
There's a similar force at work when it comes to the iSeries, System i, and now i on Power. It's easy to find faults with IBM's i strategy, to point out the errors and issues. In this case, though, grown adults who have invested a good part of their lives using the black box are playing the blame game. Check out the comments from the early online news stories and blog posts surrounding the big COMMON i + p announcement, and you'll see the confusion and angst.
So let's get this out of our system — let's analyze the Power and i announcement and look at what stinks, what's compelling about it, what's necessary, and what, hopefully, might actually work.
Consider four things: a System i server, a Unix server, a Linux server, and a Windows server. Which one doesn't belong? We could make the case all day for the Windows server, but ask a general IT audience and System i will get the nod. Change the name to AS/400, and AS/400 will get the nod. The System i is proprietary, right? Is that why? Isn't Windows proprietary too? Yes, but Windows is more popular and, more important, it permeates the consciousness of all levels of IT professionals.
Just because something doesn't belong doesn't mean it can't sell. What if someone were inclined to take a wager and call up 10 CIOs and ask them, "If you were going to start your own small business, which you know would grow into a medium business, which platform would you lean most heavily toward?" Odds would favor anything but the System i.
Let's look at IBM's Power and i announcement. System i no longer exists in IBM's future. It is now a Power System (the box) and "i" (the operating system formerly known as i5/OS). Similarly, System p is now a Power System plus AIX.
Alongside the announcement of the consolidation and naming, IBM introduced two new Power servers and the JS12 blade. A Power 550 replaces a System i and/or a System p 550.
The first new server is the IBM Power 520 Express. It's a one-, two-, or four-core 4.2 GHz POWER6 processor-based entry server, and with i installed, it starts at under $9,000. IBM expects its most popular configuration of the Power 520 i Edition to be under $12,000. IBM also introduced the Power 550 Express server, which is a two-to-eight-core server that uses 3.5 or 4.2 GHz processors.
The blade is the IBM BladeCenter JS12 Express blade, which is a two-core 3.8 GHz POWER6 processor blade that slides into the already industry-popular SMB-sized BladeCenter S chassis. At press time, it was scheduled to be available May 30, and the JS12 blade itself is under $5,000. The JS12 blade, when placed in a BladeCenter S chassis, will be priced virtually identically to the popular configuration of the Power 520 i Edition.
As for i, the operating system has also shed its nomenclature. V6R1 is now 6.1, and you can reference it as 6.1, i 6.1, or even IBM i 6.1.
Another name change! Naysayers have bemoaned that the near constant switching from AS/400 to iSeries to System i and so on, effectively erodes any broad industry recognition of the platform. Wasn't there an eServer fiasco somewhere in the middle too? How can the i community be expected to keep up with IBM's name changes? "Our human resources department still has AS/400 in my official title," reports one IT pro.
Any brand identity that IBM may have tried to build is shattering. Is the company doing this on purpose? Is it a scheme to undermine System i and slowly force customers to migrate off the platform? Is it a poorly veiled attempt to remove products from IBM's portfolio that don't require profitable add-on service engagements?
Tied closely to the issue of labeling is the issue of marketing. Why can't IBM simply push the best business system in the world? Instead, IBM gives us i, calls it "i for Business," and tells us to inform our bosses that i is now miraculously mainstreamed and that IBM created a new name for the Power hardware so that i can now run on it alongside AIX and Linux. Oh, and we should say this with a straight face.
One argument against running multiple operating systems on the same hardware more easily and cost effectively than ever before is the idea that given a choice, what new customer is going to choose i over AIX or Linux if an application runs on other platforms? Tough question, but it's hardly new to any cross-platform application.
To get to the goodness of IBM's announcement, we have to start from reality, and the stark truth is that IT pros who don't work directly with System i are likely either mostly unaware of the black box or believe that it is old, legacy technology. They probably consider green-screen applications legacy as well.
As for new customers, IBM and its business partners would have to either hide the platform from the solution it's running on or try to convince a customer that this integrated box they've never really heard of is the smartest way to go. This is an uphill climb and, although it's possible, there's also a reason that door-to-door vacuum salespeople aren't taking over the world with $2,400 vacuum cleaners that work better than the competition. It's not just cost. If a homeowner can get the basic job done, albeit not quite as perfectly, with an $89 vacuum, why mess around with weird canisters, connecting equipment, and water?
This is another reality: IBM hires smart people who can develop leading-edge technologies. IBM's research organization is second to none, and its patent portfolio is huge. What IBM doesn't hire is leaders.
Sure, it grooms competent managers, but managers are a far cry from leaders. Look at it this way: It sometimes seems that IBM would prefer to have a dozen knowledgeable children rather than one Olympic superstar. So instead of fostering the development of one child into, say, a world-class gymnast, IBM parents all the children into competent kids who become capable adults.
For i to rise to power and prominence in the world, IBM would have to be willing to not only promote it but also appoint a leader for it and let that leader lead by saying, "Hey, this is the best. Here's why. Follow me."
This kind of action requires IBM to shift the perceptions of a very large business computing market. That takes a lot of work. IBM's upper managers are thinking of the shareholders, and they are doing the math, and they are anticipating questions such as, "If you sell a System i box, how much do you earn in return? Are there add-on sales and services? If you didn't sell a System i box and you sold something else that runs Windows, Linux, or Unix, what would be the profit?" Has IBM tried to monetize customer loyalty? I think it has, and I'm betting that IBM, although enjoying a captive i market with previously more expensive components, actually saw less revenue gain than it could have gotten from its more services-heavy solution sales and from those AIX customers who expect to have to pay for development tools and are willing to do so. Is it a sad reality? You bet. It's a reality nonetheless.
The point of understanding IBM is realizing that IBM isn't likely to call out System i — or IBM i — and turn it into something amazing for the world. Even if this were IBM's intention, it might be impossible because of the company's size and fractured levels of power.
Coming from that perspective, what's left? How will i survive and thrive? How can it become something greater than it is today? It's time to get bullish.
I am bullish about IBM's latest announcements. They level the playing field among IBM's more popular kids and give Power and i a fighting chance.
IBM's coolest servers come courtesy of the hot POWER6 processor. How do we know it's hot? Just compare it with HP and Sun servers that run Unix. IBM has been kicking butt and taking names in the Unix space, and the numbers released by analyst firms such as IDC and Gartner prove it.
Now the IBM i runs on this same platform as an installable operating system. As a result, i-focused sales teams, business partners, and ISVs can use all the brand recognition that comes out of IBM's hardware line, a line that is really one of the company's strengths.
The entire System i box, which was different in terms of disk, pricing, and OS, now plays better than ever with other solutions within a business. Granted, most of this is in pricing and perception because IBM could actually have delivered everything and kept the name the same.
For a new customer who's considering an application that runs on a piece of hardware he or she has never used and doesn't have a staff for, the ability to run other applications on the same box is important. The perception of lock-in is removed. It's kind of like buying a pickup truck. Most pickup owners rarely use the bed to haul anything, but having it there is important for their peace of mind. Psychologically, having i run on Power is a huge win for the System i and anyone trying to sell new i solutions.
How will this affect existing customers? For i-loving businesses, not much. However, for i-using businesses with managers who are not particularly impressed with the System i, this openness on the hardware side may let i-based applications remain in play with less pressure for outright replacement by managers who may not know better.
The BladeCenter JS12 blade is particularly important to both new clients as well as existing System i customers. IBM has aggressively priced the BladeCenter S chassis, along with a JS12 blade running i, so that it's comparable to a Power 520 Express edition running i. IBM is now letting System i customers move to a BladeCenter environment without making price a hurdle. This is an example of fantastic customer care from IBM, and it's a solution that will work for many of IBM's SMB clients.
IBM likes the offering because it sets the stage for the addition of blades that can consolidate a company's Windows, Unix, and Linux servers on the BladeCenter. Plus, the BladeCenter plays with a broader industry-wide Storage Area Network (SAN) movement that helps companies store and back up their company-wide data in a regulator-friendly manner.
Is a BladeCenter world more complicated than a System i world? You bet it is, but it's selling well to companies that see the benefits of consolidation through a blade-running model, and IBM i is not left out of this broader industry trend.
In fact, the BladeCenter gives a System i-focused IT manager the chance to become a hero — maybe not the hero with the best possible solution — but a hero with a salable solution. A System i manager can introduce the concept of running i applications on a blade as part of the BladeCenter, which can then be used to consolidate other servers in the organization. At the very least, buying a BladeCenter S instead of a 520 gives a company the option to more easily add new workloads by adding more blades to the chassis.
Here's what's great: Companies that truly understand and value System i don't have to head down this path at all! They can continue buying Power Systems with the i operating system in editions that are closely configured to match previous System i boxes, and this time they don't have to pay the premium prices for the hardware. Everybody wins here.
The new Power and BladeCenter S give IBM business partners awesome hardware that they can sell. The partners can either downplay the fact that a solution runs on i or promote the fact that it runs on i. If there are customer concerns with i, business partners can explain the benefits of the i and let the clients know that if they are wrong, all is not lost because AIX or Linux can also run on the Power box. Throw in a BladeCenter and the i-based solution can more easily be part of the total package.
For existing i-focused professionals, new sales of applications that run on i are crucial. There's a cycle of application deployment right now in which most applications that could be sold to new buyers won't require much in the way of customization. However, if smaller clients do indeed grow into bigger customers, the likelihood that those folks will need custom development work will increase. If those clients see the value in i and applications that run on i, they'll see the value in customization and development. The alternative is that all System i-focused development remains within a shrinking pool of customers.
A final reason that creating Power and i is a great move from IBM has little to do with how it saves IBM money in terms of its own costs and everything to do with how it treats its customers. IBM is all about providing backward compatibility and many possible ways for clients to move forward. Instead of a single upgrade path, IBM now offers purchasers several paths. Although this could confuse customers who want to be told what to do, for others it provides astounding peace of mind. Applications created 20 years ago still run on Power and i. Meanwhile, I've got Microsoft Word documents that I can't even open much less share with anyone else.
Although IBM can't give every customer exactly what he or she wants, the company won't leave anyone completely in the lurch, either. Sure, it might cost a bit to tow you out of the muck, but at least the tow service is available. There are plenty of enterprise-class companies that will haul you from the grime, but only if they're conducting an upgrade process.
There's far more potential good than bad that can come from Power and i. That's what the i community should focus on.
Chris Maxcer is the news editor for SystemiNetwork.com. As for the pesky name change to i, he says, which is hardly innovative or useful, at least IBM didn’t go the route of Prince and try to change the moniker to an unpronounceable symbol. "The inclusion of i on Power is already starting to pay off in IBM marketing materials," he adds. "IBM i is at least mentioned next to AIX and Linux, and that’s a step forward toward greater recognition as a mainstream operating system that runs on the hottest server hardware in town."
Links:
[1] http://systeminetwork.com/author/chris-maxcer