Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2017-02-14, Kerry Main <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From: Info-vax [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Simon Clubley via Info-vax
>>> Sent: February 14, 2017 8:29 AM
>>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> Cc: Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
>>> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] VSI and VMS advertising, was: Re: Some
>>> additional notes from IKEA/VSI event.
>>> Well, it's a very good source of high quality leads so in hindsight it
>>> makes perfect sense that no-one in VSI marketing have done this.
>>> I just automatically assumed that VSI had done this because it's such an
>>> obvious thing to do. I know VSI are contacting the high value
>>> customers, but VSI can't be relying on a few high value customers;
>>> they need to be building a critical mass of all types of customers so
>>> they have more redundancy in their business model as and when the
>>> large customers move away from VMS.
>>> At one time DEC actually understood this as well and their product lines
>>> reflected that understanding.
>>> I wonder what portion of current HP VMS service contract customers
>>> don't even know that VSI actually exists ? Imagine what a simple letter
>>> merely telling them about the existence of VSI could have done for
>>> those customers.
>>> And once again, if the plan is to tell these customers about VSI when
>>> the x86-64 port is complete, then that's way too late because VSI will
>>> have lost customers that they may have otherwise retained.
>>> Kerry's a marketing person. If he's still reading this thread, then surely
>>> he must realise this as well.
>> Nice try. And don't call me Shirley.
>> Simon - as you appear to want to be a marketing person, you should
>> first learn how large companies work.
> I am _not_ a marketing person. What I am is someone who wants this
> port to succeed and is getting seriously frustrated at seeing
> potential opportunity over potential opportunity slipping away from
> VSI because of apparent inaction.
> Rather than just do general useless whining, I am instead trying to
> identify specific issues with VSI's approach and plans and comment on
> those specific issues to try and get a constructive discussion going.
> If that sounds like me trying to generate marketing ideas for VSI then
> so be it.
> Oh, and based on their performance around here, VSI have had to be
> pushed at every stage in order to promote themselves and to communicate
> with people.
> Sometimes, I think VSI are acting as if they are still a cog in a
> large machine and that there's whole sets of teams around them to do
> the marketing and provide product development guidance while they just
> focus on the job of building things without having to worry about all
> "that other stuff".
> Well, they are no longer a cog in a large machine but are instead now
> a small company. They _do_ have to worry about this stuff and they
> have to worry about it _now_ and not in a couple of years when the
> port is complete and it's about time they realise this.
>> Lesson #1 - inter-departmental rivalry isn't pretty. Each dept has its
>> own revenue goals and its every one for themselves.
>> What makes you think HPE Tech Support wants to provide its Cust list
>> to another company who's goal it is to get these Cust's to migrate
>> away from HPE Support?
> And that's _exactly_ why this should have been part of the initial
> contract negotiations. If I, a non-marketing person, can think of
> this, then VSI should have done so as well.
> If VSI _do_ have access to these lists, either directly or indirectly
> via HP then they should have used them by now.
>> And thereby reduce HPE's already declining support revenues?
> Those support revenues will disappear anyway in several years and HP
> might actually got _more_ money in if the customers wait for VSI to
> complete the port instead of porting away from VMS _now_.
>> Heck, when I was in HP Consulting, it was almost impossible to get
>> these HP Cust support lists for any type of initiative.
> This should have been a C-level to C-level discussion (which is
> where I assume the contract negotiations took place) and not a lower
> level manager discussion.
> Oh, and DEC have done this before. During the transition from VAX
> to Alpha, DEC decided they would no longer supply a Dibol compiler.
> A third party vendor did supply such a compiler and DEC formally wrote
> to every VAX Dibol support customer to tell them about this.
> Guess how I know this ?
>> This is not unique to HPE .. you will find the same type of infighting
>> in every large company.
>> Imagine the IBM AIX group giving up their Cust list so another group
>> or company can migrate them to Linux ...
> Have IBM announced an EOL date for AIX ? HP have for VMS.
> Yes, my comments above are a bit direct but they are motivated by my
> desire to see the port succeed and by not seeing any evidence of VSI
> doing some of the things they should be doing.
I see where you're coming from on this, and I agree. However:
VSI most likely came to HP as a supplicant, and had to accept what they could
get. Now, I don't know how this went, but I can guess that they had to convince
HP to make the deal. Probably had to mention a few things, such as HP being
able to continue to make some money on something they were going to discontinue,
and such. I'm thinking that HP had to be convinced that it was in their
interest (more money) to make the deal. Otherwise, they would have followed
their interest in milking the dying cow as long as they could.
Now, this is speculation. I know nothing.
I'm still amazed that VSI was able to get as much as they did from HP. Aren't you?
Kerry makes a lot of sense about HP perhaps holding back on some things, and not
including such in the transfer of VMS to VSI. Again, speculation.
Seeing as VSI exists solely for VMS, I'm thinking they are doing as much as they
can. If not, they will shirley fail.
So yeah, mention ideas to VSI. But don't keep beating them up over things,
which may be totally outside their control.