But, many customers have older servers, and older operating system versions. Most likely, those servers have a different name on them, and the OS will have a different name plastered all over. Since the older server and OS combinations run for a long time, reliably, secure, and with little to no maintenance, there are MANY companies who are not yet an IBM i on Power user. AS/400, iSeries, System i, OS/400, i5/OS rule!

It is very difficult to tell a user of i5/OS running on a System i 520 that they are using IBM i, and it is often difficult to convince them that it is no longer an AS/400. I just spent two weeks at two separate customers, and they had no idea what they were running – to them it was just/still an AS/400.

It is important for many reasons, that the community of customers who use our platform know what the platform is, and call it by the correct name. Most important, an AS/400 ~is~ old, and the platform detractors can use this information to rip and replace systems. IBM i on Power is modern, and confuses those detractors. Another huge advantage of having a community that believes in the same amazing platform is the outside perception of what we have. United, they want what we have. Divided, they laugh at us…

So, the challenge is to inform, communicate and encourage customers to understand their platform is IBM i, regardless of the name on the server or displayed in the operating system. And here is where IBM can help.

This morning, I took a tour of the ibm.com website looking for information about a product called IBM i Access. I started with attempting a url that I thought should work: www.ibm.com/ibmi and I got this:

I then tried: www.ibm.com/i and got….. well….. just go look!

I resorted to: www.ibm.com/as400 and found the IBM i page!!

I found the software page, and discovered the list I was looking for:
So far, so good.

I selected IBM i Access for Windows, and navigated here:

I thought I was doing well!

A closer look reveals that the title of the page does not match the contents!!

Later, after some navigation around these related pages, I stumbled onto this:

The green arrow represents correct branding, orange represents out-of-date branding, red represents incorrect branding.

Yes, IBM. Your branding is not consistent!

Of course, this is nothing new at all. It is very obvious that with the multiple names of servers and operating systems, confusion reigns mightily. For regular readers, I have been proposing that we should all get together and call the platform by the name that IBM currently calls it – today, that is IBM i on Power Systems. After years of advocacy, many leading pundits are starting to call the platform it by its IBM branding. Even Scott Klement jumped into the fray recently, suggesting “..every time folks use an obsolete name in a formal, professional context, they look like a fool.” The truth is, when I write about it in a blog entry, comment on another blog, or am quoted on the web, there are always a lot of ‘fools’ who wish to tell me I am wrong.

And, they are right! Whether or not the ‘fools’ call it AS/400, or call it “whatever name IBM has this week”, or speculate what the next name will be, they have reason. And the reason? IBM!

Call IBM support… they will ask what IBM i is? They know what AS/400 is… This ‘problem’ was identified to IBM long before IBM i was announced. Yet, IBM has not educated their support team on IBM i. Look at IBM’s website/s – as you can see in the example above, there is no consistency in their own branding. Only recently, I overheard an IBMer at a conference spouting “When did they change the name of the AS/400?”.

Out here in the community, there is a slow tide towards a consistent message about what this platform really IS. Inside IBM, that tide has not yet begun – just a few small waves. Certainly, we can read blogs from people like Steve Will and Dawn May, who consistently use the correct branding. Presentations at user group meetings and conferences from some IBMers are up to date and consistent. Regardless, IBM is not even close to getting it right.

So, IBM, when are you going to match your websites, your internal OS documentation, your support, your brochures, your marketing.. with your branding? Here are some suggestions that may help…

For example:
IBM i – the leading business operating system available today..
Power Systems – the premier commercially available server platform today.
IBM i on Power Systems - the best combination of computing power and operating system for business on the planet.

i – not a brand, and not really searchable on google, or bing. STOP IT!
Power i – a name that Dr. Frank and many Europeans are comfortable with.
AS/400 – an amazing server, whose heritage is well demonstrated in the Power Systems architecture.
OS/400 – commonly called AS/400, it is actually an operating system that ran the best application software. Replaced with i5/OS.
i5/OS – a stupid branding mistake, but still a leading OS.
iSeries – a name on a sticker on a server that was still referred to as an AS/400.
System i – a brand name for a server to hold on to the i heritage until we sorted out what to call this thing.
eServer – we deny all knowledge that this name ever existed.

… and so on

This is not your grandfather’s AS/400 – this is IBM i on Power.

Power Systems – what your AS/400 grew up to be.

IBM i – a googlicious name for a luscious operating system.

IBM i on Power – yeah, you want to be here.

Some of us have arrived, and we are waiting on you…

Of course, using that advantage as an excuse to continue writing code like you have done in the past is simply unacceptable. While IT can leverage its investment in software, keeping up to date and using modern approaches to application development will mean a business can remain agile and competitive. Keeping IT costs to their effective minimum does not mean doing the same old thing, but keeping up to date, learning every day, and providing the business the best service possible.

Nothing drives this point home more than the iPad. “What?” you cry! “How can a tablet for book reading really make me want to keep my IT modern?” A simple answer is for you to go to an Apple store, and play with an iPad. Even better, borrow an iPad from a friend, acquaintance, or stranger, and spend just a couple of minutes with one of the cool apps.

The more complex answer starts with the state of computing. Just after Apple released the iPad, Bill Gates and Steve Baumer decried it as a tool that is just not what they want today. Their best excuse, among the litany of ‘complaints’, was that you could not take notes on the iPad when you are in a meeting or a lecture. I wonder if there was a stylus – similar to what Microsoft want you to use – would Gates and Ballmer like the iPad? Steve Jobs declared the iPad was end of the PC as we know it, and used trucks and cars as his analogy, and that threw Ballmer into a tizzy. It seems like something important is happening here.

In fact, Microsoft have a product called Surface, which is simply just another means of using your fingers for input. Bill Gates also demonstrated the Touch Wall a couple of years ago where both hands can be used for interacting. You would think the iPad would be their new favorite toy! I bet they both have one…

While it seems an assumption that the iPad is really a game changer in terms of computer-human interaction, this is not far from the truth. The follow-on devices from the competition are coming fast. Google’s Android OS makes life easier for device manufacturers to get in the game. Starting with the Alex from Spring Design, e-book readers are getting smarter, the nook price reduction has just caused a drop in their price across the board. Tablets are next, with Samsung and LG preparing theirs, and Cisco’s Cius causing all kinds of excitement.

With all these devices available to the public, everyone – and literally EVERYone – will have some means of human-computer interaction, and therefore human-internet interaction – in their pocket, bag, purse or iPad pocket. And next, they will want to bring them to work, and USE them in their job. Several companies are allowing users to bring their own computing devices to work to replace their supplied desktop or laptop. Kraft even provides a stipend to incent employees to participate in their BYOC program.

What does this mean to you? First, does your infrastructure and architecture allow for access to your applications with these new devices? Can executives, employees, customers, vendors, and partners access the applications they need to do their job for the business? Second, what are you doing to prepare yourself for the future of computing?

Certainly, the first question is a business problem that can be solved with some effort, but is not outside our job description. As I assist companies in their modernization efforts, as I speak on modernization to many user groups and organizations, I find that there are still a lot of questions being asked by IT departments on how to move forward. Without moving forward, our 30 year old legacy code will simply not suffice in a new world of iPads, tablets, surfaces and walls that are the future of interaction with the information to be extracted from our applications.

The second question is the most interesting to me. I see IT people who are new to our industry being excited, passionate, energetic and looking forward to the future. And some of us who have been around “for a while” – no names, no dates – retain the passion and enthusiasm that led them to IT in the first place. A large part of the IBM i skilled population seem stuck in some glorious past, where UIM and DDS reign supreme. There are definitely tools that are in your kit, but many of them should be a little dustier these days.

Ask yourself these questions.

- Do you believe you are working on an AS/400, an iSeries, or a System i?

- Are you coding with the same approach as the day/month/year you started?

- Do you have little desire to move on with your skill set?

- Are you ready to retire from your job?

- Do you complain bitterly about IBM and repeated name changes?

- Has it been ten years since you learned a new coding technique?

- Do you avoid sharing new things with other IBM i technologists?

- Do you stay at home when the local user group meeting topic is not to your liking?

- Did you forget how passionate you were about this platform in your early years?

While there are 400 more questions to be asked here, if the majority of your answers were affirmative, then you have some thinking to do. Maybe it is time to retire to your vineyard, to your garage, garden or toolshed. Or maybe, just maybe, it is time to learn something NEW. And, while you are doing it, find an intern who has learned RPG recently to be your shadow! And if there are no RPG interns to hire, ask your local colleges for them.

If the future of IT is taking so many turns, in such a short timeframe, that you cannot see far enough ahead of you, it is time. Time to take action. Time to rediscover your passion. And time to get an iPad. Purely for research, of course…

Here is my challenge to the IBM i community – in three parts.
1. Whenever there is a negative post, blog entry or news report, consider posting your positive response. Don’t engage in unnecessary debate, just say your piece and leave it there.
2. Whenever there is a positive post, blog entry or news report, post a response with your support. Make it more than rah-rah, make it more than cheerleading, talk about how it has or will affect you positively.
3. Point everyone in your IBM i address book and mailing list to the positive entries, and solicit their contribution.

One final note -remember to send this blog entry to everyone in your IBM i address book and mailing list. Click here to send the email.

We can change the world by overwhelming the loud and negative traffic with our positivity and showing our support for the best platform on the planet – IBM i on Power Systems.

At the COMMON Annual Conference in Orlando, I was talking with a group at an evening event, and someone brought Shannon over to talk with me. Seems like she was one of my ‘late’ victims at the last conference. Her response was to prepare a little better for this conference, and in case she became a repeat offender, she brought this note..

I am still laughing. Thanks Shannon!

Aaron Bartell and I had a blog conversation where the misinformation and speculation being spread was stepped on with some actual information. It seemed that RPG OA really did stir a lot of people, and Aaron talked further about it on his blog while attending COMMON.

For me, there was some interesting perspective about my RPGOA blog entry. I had conversations with many people during the week expressing both sides of the fence about RPG OA. The general consensus was positive, with many people talking with me about how they were going to use it. The price did not feature as an issue outside of those who already complained. There were many people who said IBM was ten years late with this solution, and I do wonder how different our world would be if there had not been ten years of detractors railing against a perceived lack of native GUI capability. Other than that, many people told me they agreed wholeheartedly with my blog and they felt that LANSA and BCD had made a marketing blunder.

That led me to talk with Eric Figura from BCD and Steve Gapp from LANSA. Our conversations were passionate, and I found that the press had not represented their complete position. I am going to discuss ~my~ conversations with them, however, remember as you read this, that in writing this blog I am now acting as press. What you see on this page is my interpretation of the conversations. While I will attempt to represent the conversations fairly, this is written from my perspective.

Steve and I had a great discussion. I now understand the perspective that LANSA has, and in my opinion, it needs a better position than the one represented in the press. The architecture of the LANSA product suite supports many things that RPG OA can provide. Simply put, for them to write RPG OA handlers means they would essentially be replicating functionality contained in their own toolset. That makes sense to me, but I asked Steve if some of the other reported statements might have been more than they needed to say. I suggested that if their architecture is built in such a way, it should be an easy step to plug in anyone’s handler into their architecture. If they reached a customer who were already using an RPG OA handler, there could be an elegant integration of that existing code into the LANSA toolset. I don’t know for sure, but I swear I could see Steve’s brain working on that suggestion.

My conversation with Eric was similar, and he had two requests. First, he told me adamantly that BCD is not against RPG, and I should represent that. This was a response to the question I asked “Does this mean that they are against the future of RPG – in this case, RPG OA?” Without a previous response from them to my blog, or to other questions asked online and in the press, people were taking this question as a statement of fact, and Eric tells me that this is not true. I have worked with BCD and their toolset in the past, and do know for a fact that their support of the IBM i platform is strong. There is no question about their commitment to the customer base and the community in that regard, and with Eric’s statement, we now have a response to the RPG question.

The second request from Eric was that I publicly declare my affiliations. I will address this topic in another blog entry, but any affiliations I do have did not impact my questioning their position. When I pressed, he told me there was speculation that I had been spoonfed a position by one of his and LANSA’s competitors. While I did hear the question about being against RPG from some other vendors in this space, I can tell you categorically that my question about being against RPG was my own. Speculation among everyone I spoke with – customer, vendor, partner, independent consultants and i developers alike – was rife, and added to my confidence that it was the right question to ask. I was disappointed not to get a response, but happy to have been able to chat with Steve and Eric at the COMMON Annual Conference.

I stand by my previous blog entry. I believe the argument about state is a moot point, and can be handled with RPG OA without effort. And I strongly believe that the technical geniuses at BCD and LANSA will be able to incorporate RPG OA handlers into their architecture with ease. I would suggest, and I did to both Steve and Eric, that a simple statement such as “we can support RPG OA handlers in our architecture”, would have gone a long way to alleviate the perception that they had made a marketing blunder.

In the end, any press is good press, and the buzz about RPG OA is wonderful for IBM i. I think IBM needs more positive buzz about their contributions to our platform, along with constructive and informative debate. If we continue to rail against the efforts of IBM on our platform, our competitors will ultimately succeed. Which, in an ironic twist, would prove the naysayers correct. While I don’t subscribe to that theory, the circle of i-life continues.