Steve Rowe wrote: Two reasons, IT policy and IBM not being obliged to help you with any issues. IT policy is often a big driver for this.
Cheers
Ok. So there is not a good reason. Only political reasons
Steve Rowe wrote: Two reasons, IT policy and IBM not being obliged to help you with any issues. IT policy is often a big driver for this.
Cheers
bihints.com wrote: Though the fact remains we are still pushed to upgrade to 9.4 with all the issues that implies.
well we can't say IBM is making it easy.Jeroen Eynikel wrote: I think you can only partially blame IBM for that, i.e. I agree that any new release should be officially supported for a longer period than is currently the case. The other part of the blame should be on stupid internal IT policy.
Our original sale contract with Applix stipulated the maintenance fee increases would be tied to the RPI. After receiving an invoice with a large renewal fee this year, I was eventually able to get them to comply to the agreement and significantly reduce our support contract fee. You all might want to check your contract to see if you have a similar term in there as well. AFAIK, this was a standard part of the Applix UK contract, not something we asked to have inserted.Jeroen Eynikel wrote:Not that bad, but still. 10% year on year increase in maintenance seems to be the standard over here. A lower maintenance increase is possible in some specific cases though, but far from guaranteed. Lowest I have seen so far was 5% year on year increase but that was the exception rather than the rule. (i.e. they really really wanted to get the deal and the client made a very big issue of the standard 10% increase (i.e. dealbreaker)).bihints.com wrote:We recently received the yearly quote for support fees, these increased by 26.50% vs last year, without any additional products or licenses.
And that is for the privilege to be forced to upgrade to 9.4. We are still on 9.0.3, so we have to skip directly to 9.4, as 9.0 support ends in December 2009 and 9.1 support ends in December 2010.
Moving to 9.1 would just land us in the current situation where we fork a load of cash to be told to upgrade to a newer version as 9.1 probably won't get anymore fixpacks next year.
So is it just us, or are you seeing a similar hike in the yearly support fees?
But that's been the plaintive cry of dinosaurs since the dawn of evolution; "You have to make allowances for us because we have too much bulk being powered by too little brain". Unfortunately for them the planet (or in this case the market) doesn't. They may rule the planet for an epoch give or take, but extinction is still their inevitable fate as smaller, more adaptable life-forms (hello, Palo) evolve.Jeroen Eynikel wrote:but a giant corporation like IBM moves slowly.. you just have to accept that.
Not only do I not disagree with you, I pre-emptively agreed earlier. You couldn't be more right there.Jeroen Eynikel wrote:And let us be honest: Applix support or roadmaps was always more a question of knowing the right people. If you had to deal with unknown helpdesk person X it was a nightmare as well.
Garry Cook wrote:I'm sure you know my personal feelings (along with a significant proportion of other forumites) about the lack of feedback on issues such as this - I was hoping that since Jason had taken such an active role in setting up that forum that posting there might actually mean he came back with a response but it's now been over a fortnight with no response. All I want is for him to recognise that there's a whole host of features/minor bug fixes there that he could easily hand to development to make some big improvements quickly to the system.
I allllmost agree with you there; I'd add just one qualification.dkleist wrote: IBM will do what benefits IBM
Esattamentedkleist wrote: (e.g., shoddy support, new features to promote marketing over stability, website) and IBM is mostly IBM Global Business Services. The products will go in the direction that will have the most benefit to the GBS side of the business. 'Tis folly to hope for anything else.
Yup, or any other Lotus product, or Via Voice, or...dkleist wrote: (If you want history on how well IBM does with commercial software, you may want to consider Lotus Notes as an example)
The problem with such an approach would be that it would be like the old form of democracy where however shouted the loudest or spoke the most emotively would get things their way.Alan Kirk wrote: However if a company was truly customer focused, what they might do is, oh, I dunno, random thought that people wearing blue suits and ties wouldn't be allowed to have... maybe have a page where enhancement requests can be submitted. A page which made such requests visible to all users. (Hey, they could use our Enhancements forum, at least people can find things on this site! ) A page where there can be discussions about the pros and cons of the requests, where such requests could be voted upon, and which could help drive the direction of the product.
That would be where the voting bit comes in. If it's a bad idea, no amount of loud shouting is going to overcome 500 votes to 10 against. Conversely, if it's a good idea with a good outcome, who cares how it gets there, as long as it gets there. I'd rather have one Julius Caesar who's capable of seeing an issue and speaking passionately on it (and cutting and thrusting if necessary) than 50 UN representative wannabes sitting around in overstuffed chairs, oh so politely and eruditely discussing all 47 sides of an issue and never reaching an accord because everyone is too concerned about the possibility of giving offence.Martin Ryan wrote:The problem with such an approach would be that it would be like the old form of democracy where however shouted the loudest or spoke the most emotively would get things their way.Alan Kirk wrote: However if a company was truly customer focused, what they might do is, oh, I dunno, random thought that people wearing blue suits and ties wouldn't be allowed to have... maybe have a page where enhancement requests can be submitted. A page which made such requests visible to all users. (Hey, they could use our Enhancements forum, at least people can find things on this site! ) A page where there can be discussions about the pros and cons of the requests, where such requests could be voted upon, and which could help drive the direction of the product.
There are any left in the current environment? Even former behemoths need to be watching costs very closely indeed, with the possible exception of BHP which can write off a few $billion on a nickel plant and not even feel it.Martin Ryan wrote:Now that I'm working at a large company with the afore mentioned buckets of money,
Well they're plenty responsive... where sales are concerned. Or other cashey money things like training. Once they HAVE the cashey money, though...Martin Ryan wrote:I've been finding IBM pretty responsive. Senior IBM managers were even issuing apologies when some IBM laptops showed up to training an hour late as they were very concerned it tarnished their professional image.
I think you're referring to Vizier; that's Cubewise, not Calumo.Martin Ryan wrote:They definitely have a strategy, its just not a strategy that seems to be particularly concerned with the medium sized companies that used to be Applix's target. Now they are only interested in the bohemeths. The problem is, TM1 is still not an industrial strength product. E.g. promoting objects to a live environment that requires 24/7 up time requires you to rebuild the object (unless you have Calumo's slick tool, which we can't get it due to policy.
One problem with that is that behemoths themselves are an endangered species for the same reasons described earlier, except perhaps in industries where there are high barriers to competitor entry. Also, if a company narrows its focus excessively, their products become irrelevant. A classic example is DB2. As of 2006, the last figures that I saw, DB2 still held an estimated 21% of the DBMS market by revenue. (Oracle was so far out in front on that score that it wasn't funny.) However SQL Server was closing the gap rapidly, and part of the reason that it was in 3rd place rather than 2nd was that Microsoft wasn't doing huge price gouges. It was making a decent profit for a decent product, and I'll betcha that in installed systems, SQL Server is by now streets ahead of DB2. Seriously, who even contemplates DB2 for a new installation any more unless they're running a mainframe? It's usually Oracle or SQL Server, unless something like My SQL can serve the purpose. DB2 has become so irrelevant that one IBMer from the UK even reflected on whether it might go open source. That 21% is history, and history doesn't always repeat.Martin Ryan wrote: Though building objects manually on a live instance is also, strictly, against policy, but needs must), maintaining versions of dimensions across instances is a nightmare and you can't replicate different objects at different times.
If they don't manage to produce the industrial strength tool, they're going to find they've alienated their old customer basis and do not have a tool suitable for the group they want to target. But I suspect they will, and they'll get their bohemeths, and will just the little people prop up their cashflow.
Thats exactly where i am right now. A possible large increase in users and astonomical (or is that astrocomical?) cost for doing so, and if i'm really honest i cannot say the result justifies the cost. So much so that the business case is likely to need studies done on alternative products - cue interest in Palo.Steve Rowe wrote:...If I had to write a business case for paying the maintenance invoice given the possible future benefits of development, how they apply to our application of TM1 and the level of support that is recieved, well I'm not sure where I would start....
I take it back. Been over a month waiting for a fairly simple query. It's so long that I'd forgotten about it when I made that last post. Trawling through emails I realised it was still outstanding.Martin Ryan wrote:Now that I'm working at a large company with the afore mentioned buckets of money, I've been finding IBM pretty responsive.
- The maintenance % went up yes - but TM1 on a whole became substantially cheaper and the licensing model became easier. Gone are the days when you had to pay extra to use TI, the web, 64 Bit. Gone are the days were you had to pay for several server licenses because TM1s almighty administrator was entitled to look at all data otherwise. I very well realize that this doesn't matter to you if you already had everything you needed, but even then you may want to get a quote from IBM on buying new licensens. Even replacing the current licenses with new ones without buying anything extra is often cheaper in the long run.Alan Kirk wrote: - Substantial upgrades to maintenance fees;
{Cough, choke...} You may perhaps want to explain that to my Iboglix rep who has cited me a 6 digit sum should we want to go to 64 bit.Jeroen Eynikel wrote:- The maintenance % went up yes - but TM1 on a whole became substantially cheaper and the licensing model became easier. Gone are the days when you had to pay extra to use TI, the web, 64 Bit. Gone are the days were you had to pay for several server licenses because TM1s almighty administrator was entitled to look at all data otherwise. I very well realize that this doesn't matter to you if you already had everything you needed, but even then you may want to get a quote from IBM on buying new licensens. Even replacing the current licenses with new ones without buying anything extra is often cheaper in the long run.Alan Kirk wrote: - Substantial upgrades to maintenance fees;
Not so much "mileage" as "light yearage", I think...Jeroen Eynikel wrote:Now your mileage may vary
I've said it before and I'll say it again... the lack of a transparent pricing list means that the pricing policy is "milk the cow for as much as you can get out of it". See also "Goose, Golden".Jeroen Eynikel wrote:but I am living in a country where previously a single Applix partner had an exclusive distributor partnership with Applix. Maybe their prices were always inflated vs the prices the rest of the world had to pay but I do not get the impression that TM1 became more expensive over here - rather the contrary.