[plug] [link] a lawyer Switches

[Craig Ringer]

> Well I can see reasoning in charging for a faster system if they 
> actually replace items such as the CPU etc to upgrade your system.  But 
> if all they are doing is removing some sort of inhibitor present in a 
> system which you already own, then thats highly questionable conduct IMHO.

Well, its a better approach for /everybody/ concerned than making many 
custom systems. By being able to ship high-power but limited hardware, 
IBM can (a) upgrade customers capacity w/o downtime or any of the usual 
stresses of a critical system change, (b) have lower per-system costs 
and hence /improve/ value-for-money for each customer. Instead, you're 
asking them to make up a custom system for each customer's needs - 
something that'd be more expensive and less reliable than the current 
method.

Sure, I'd like to get the big machine at the low price too, but it ain't 
going to happen. Go into business yourself and try it - you'll quickly 
realise there's a reason they structure things as they do.

> Because really, if this company that is providing a system to remove the 
> inhibitor, then what does IBM have to quarrel about really?  I mean just 
> because they sell you the system doesn't mean that you have to take it 
> to them to get services performed/upgraded on it.

Think about it this way. IBM doesn't sell you a physical computer, they 
sell you computing capacity. They could supply the capacity via offsite 
links if that'd work better, but due to reliability and performance 
requirements it won't. So you're buying time on IBM's computer, at your 
premises, to do your work on. Don't like it? Talk to Sun about a nice 
15k to depreciate in the back room.

> Say you buy a new Holden Commodore, that doesn't bind you to getting all 
> work done by a Holden authorised repaired or bind you to HAVING to get 
> Holden genuine replacement parts for it.  You can choose who you get to 
> work on it and what brand of replacement parts you buy.  Maybe IBM need 
> to take a different stance, because essentially they are saying no you 
> can't get someone else to perform work on a machine purchased from us, 
> or install a competitors product which makes your system perform faster, 
> you may only purchase our product/service.  Which is a load of crap to 
> put it plainly IMHO.

If you lease a fleet from someone, they expect to do all the 
maintainance etc as part of the cost. More cars or upgrades to them? you 
pay, they do the work. Why? Because the cars are theirs, not yours, and 
they don't want to have to absorb additional costs if you mess with them 
and stuff it up. Makes sense to me.

Craig