Inside System Storage -- by Tony Pearson

Tony Pearson Tony Pearson is a Master Inventor and Senior IT Specialist for the IBM System Storage product line at the IBM Executive Briefing Center in Tucson Arizona, and featured contributor to IBM's developerWorks. In 2011, Tony celebrated his 25th year anniversary with IBM Storage on the same day as the IBM's Centennial. He is author of the Inside System Storage series of books. This blog is for the open exchange of ideas relating to storage and storage networking hardware, software and services. You can also follow him on Twitter @az990tony.
(Short URL for this blog: ibm.co/Pearson )
  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

Comments (8)

1 localhost commented Trackback

Tony - you just can't write a post mentioning EMC without irrelevant and unsubstatiated FUD. Not sure why you insinuate conspiricy or SEC investigations, perhaps you could elaborate?<div>&nbsp;</div> And odd- you've exposed EMC's old VP pricing, but last time I checked EMC's price lists where all marked EMC Confidential. How strategy...<div>&nbsp;</div> For the record, VP on V-Max and DMX are being made available to all custoemrs beginning this quarter AT NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE. The price of the base product is not being increased, in fact, the price of the current licenses are in fact being set to $0.00<div>&nbsp;</div> And indeed - pricing strategies are complex. EMC didn't decide to set VP to zero just last Friday...and whether you believe it or not, when I published my post last Friday, I had no idea that IBM would be announcing thin provisioning for the DS8000 this week.<div>&nbsp;</div> Coincidences happen.

2 localhost commented Trackback

Interestingly enough I have just posted on the wierd and byzantine pricing models which are put together by storage vendors which appear to exist to only obsufucate the cost of the features. I appreciate that pricing is an art and not a science but perhaps some of those artists should take a look at some of the minimalists.<div>&nbsp;</div> And TCA is merely half the story; it'd be interesting to see the TCO model for a DS8K with TP. As one of the first non-IBMERs in the UK to be trained on Shark all those years ago; simplicity of configuration was not one of it's strengths and moving through the generations up to DS8K, it hasn't got massively simpler and is a bit of a pig to manage. <div>&nbsp;</div> A lot can be learnt from the XIV team on how to design a great and easy to use management interface; hiding as much as the complexity of the underlying architecture from the user as possible.<div>&nbsp;</div> And how did EMC get away with charging so much for so long for VP? I don't think that they did, I'm not sure that the take-up was huge; for both technical limitations of the initial releases but also commercial reasons. I am just speculating but I know it was a major blocker for at least one customer.

3 localhost commented Trackback

BarryB, until you announced that EMC had reduced the price of Virtual Provisioning, I had not seen that anywhere in any other EMC press releases. Did I miss it? Can you point me to the actual EMC press release that indicates that EMC decided to lower the price of VP prior to last Friday?<div>&nbsp;</div> Are you telling me that the "No additional charge" for EMC Virtual Provisionin is EMC confidential, and that I am not to mention it? Are you not violating your own rules publishing EMC Confidential information telling everyone the new price of this feature? If the new Virtual Provisioning prices are just temporary, and you plan to go back to the previous prices next quarter, or if the "no additional charge" comes with some strings attached, then please clarify.<div>&nbsp;</div> If you feel that the previous list prices posted are incorrect, perhaps you can provide corrected numbers. Otherwise, if you are going to start putting IBM prices on your blog, as you have done with "69 thousand clams", and comment on how that is different than what EMC charges, expect similar in return.<div>&nbsp;</div> -- Tony

4 localhost commented Trackback

Many features and price changes are effected without a press release, this change for VP pricing among them. You'll also note that many of the V-Max features were discussed in my blog posts that were not covered in the announcement press releases.<div>&nbsp;</div> I have tried to be consistent by saying "beginning this quarter," when means this is a permanent change, not a temporary promotion. To be very specific, the "no extra charge" price change for VP is not temporary, and there are no strings attached other than the fact you have to be sure to consider the cache requirements of VP when configuring it on your arrays. <div>&nbsp;</div> For clarity, the term "no extra charge" specifically means you will be able to order and use VP on V-Max or DMX3/4 beginning this quarter without any additional charge over what you would have paid for the same system last quarter without VP. And if you already have a V-Max/DMX3/DMX4, you can order the VP licenses for "no extra charge", both the SW license and the maintenance fees are $0.00 going forward.<div>&nbsp;</div> And no, the price change itself isn't confidential - I would have violated my confidentiality agreement if it was. <div>&nbsp;</div> But there is a significant difference between me announcing that VP will be free vs. you as an IBM (non-EMC) employee publishing content of EMC's price list, which I believe is not published anywhere without the "EMC Confidential" notation.<div>&nbsp;</div> On the other hand, I quoted the "69,000" clams directly from David Raffo's coverage of your announcement - I did not get that number from any materials that were marked IBM Confidential. (Raffo's article indicates $69.000 is the base price - would you care to share how that price scales up?).<div>&nbsp;</div> No threats, it's up to you how you want to handle this but you might want to identify your non-Confidential source for the EMC pricing you display above; if you can't, then you might reconsider honoring the confidentiality agreement between our two companies.

5 localhost commented Trackback

BarryB,Fair enough. Since you asked nicely, I have removed all EMC confidential information, and replaced with rough estimates instead. The argument is the same, and does not affect the comparison.<div>&nbsp;</div> So customers of V-Max or DMX3/DMX4 that previously ordered Virtual Provisioning for a price continue to pay yearly maintenance going forward? Or is EMC letting them off the hook also?<div>&nbsp;</div> I have also added a table for IBM's full 4-year TCO, including the yearly maintenance, so that readers can make their own apples-to-apples comparison.<div>&nbsp;</div> -- Tony

Add a Comment Add a Comment