/soapbox on/

Well then.

Following this to the logical end suggests the server should be free, 
because you can't use it for anything without a client.  However, also 
consider under the current pricing scheme: a large n-way client with huge 
fairly static files will cost more versus a single processor client with 
lots of files changing daily such that the single client actually backs up 
more data on a daily basis.  Now tell me again why I need to pay more to 
back up less data?  To me it looks like IBM (like many others) built up 
their install base years ago by offering a low cost $100/client 'sucker' 
fee only to jack up the fees big time after 'they got ya on the hook'. 
IMHO, you want a fair pricing scheme ----- MEASURED USAGE!

Think about it this way: suppose you had to pay more per gallon/liter for 
fuel for your vehicle of choice just because it had a different numbers of 
cylinders but used the same grade of fuel.  But let's not hold our breath. 
 I think most of us who have been on TSM for a while have had witnessed 
'the return of problem x' on more than one occasion.

/soapbox off/






"Prather, Wanda" <Wanda.Prather AT JHUAPL DOT EDU>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
03/19/03 02:26 PM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"

 
        To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: License Pricing


Doesn't the new licensing scheme result in 1) higher prices for clients, 
but
2) lower prices for the server.

So that if you are just buying client licenses you get hurt. 

But if you are setting up a new TSM server you don't have that big up 
front
charge for the server end.

So if you plan to back up a just a small number of clients, you may 
actually
come out cheaper?

Can anyone confirm this (possibly erroneous) opinion?
Tivoli certainly doesn't make it easy to understand.





-----Original Message-----
From: Coats, Jack [mailto:Jack.Coats AT BANKSTERLING DOT COM] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:52 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: License Pricing


Yes, I just purchased a single processor license, it was $528 or so USD.
The ones
I purchased just before year end were about $218USD. 

Unless new customers are coming in with huge discounts, I think that TSM 
is
now
priced out of the market.

As a consultant (in a former life) I would be seriously considering taking
my customers
to other products, if I could find one that fits.

I love the TSM concept, but economics is what rules.  And there is not
enough difference
in the technological differences to make up the economic ones at this 
point.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cahill, Ricky [SMTP:Ricky.Cahill AT EQUITAS.CO DOT UK]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:46 AM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      License Pricing
> 
> Just got a quote back for some Win2k licenses and was rather surprised 
at
> the massive increase in price, ok I've not bought a license for a couple
> of
> years but this is bonkers..
> 
> single processor server         £391.98 + vat per server
> dual processor server           £783.96 + vat per server
> quad processor server           £1567.92 + vat per server
> 
> Anyone know if a license bought prior to this stupid per cpu idea is 
valid
> for one server or one cpu??
> 
> 
>        ..........Rikk
> 
> 
> 
**************************************************************************
> **************************
> Equitas Limited, 33 St Mary Axe, London EC3A 8LL, UK
> NOTICE: This message is intended only for use by the named addressee
> and may contain privileged and/or confidential information.  If you are
> not the named addressee you should not disseminate, copy or take any
> action in reliance on it.  If you have received this message in error
> please notify postmaster AT equitas.co DOT uk and delete the message and any
> attachments accompanying it immediately.
> 
> Equitas reserve the right to monitor and/or record emails, (including 
the
> contents thereof) sent and received via its network for any lawful
> business
> purpose to the extent permitted by applicable law
> 
> Registered in England: Registered no. 3173352 Registered address above
> 
**************************************************************************
> **************************