[Info-vax] Alpha to Integrity migration, license options

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax <info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com> On Behalf Of Jan-Erik
> Söderholm via Info-vax
> Sent: May 9, 2018 3:05 AM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Cc: Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Alpha to Integrity migration, license options
> 
> Den 2018-05-09 kl. 05:56, skrev Kerry Main:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Info-vax <info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com> On Behalf Of Jan-Erik
> >> Söderholm via Info-vax
> >> Sent: May 7, 2018 4:24 AM
> >> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> >> Cc: Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Alpha to Integrity migration, license options
> >>
> >> Den 2018-05-06 kl. 23:45, skrev Kerry Main:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Info-vax <info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com> On Behalf Of
> >>>> DaveFroble via Info-vax
> >>>> Sent: May 2, 2018 2:06 PM
> >>>> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> >>>> Cc: DaveFroble <davef at tsoft-inc.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Alpha to Integrity migration, license
> > options
> >>>>
> >>>> Carl Friedberg wrote:
> >>>>> Speaking as an interested third party, my client bought 3 years of
> >>>> support
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> Integrity 2800 i4 class server. With that 3 year contract, the
> >>> upgrade
> >>>> from
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> Alpha ES45 (still current) was made a part, with no charge.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> YMMV, but this is a deal that's too good to refuse IMHO
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, and if VSI is smart, they will take a payment yearly, or more
> >>> often.
> >>>> That
> >>>> way the customer is used to making support payments, probably
> >> more
> >>>> so than if
> >>>> they asked for another payment after 3 years.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd suppose that someone on support, would just keep doing the
> >> same
> >>>> thing when
> >>>> moving to x86.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> While Cust's can bury things like 3 year support when they buy a
> >> system,
> >>> it is far more common to renew support agreements on a yearly
> basis.
> >>>
> >>> This is typically true for all platforms.
> >>>
> >>> The reasons are simple:
> >>> - fits into internal Operations budget which is done yearly,
> >>> - OPS manager does not want a line item support number to be to
> big
> >> as
> >>> this might garner to much visibility. In fact, a 3 year budget
> > number
> >>> might cause a budget increase that exceeds a OPS manager's
> approval
> >>> authority. Better to bury 1 year support agreement line numbers.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Or as in our case, a 3-year agreement was signed,
> >> but it is invoiced quarterly by the reseller. Of course
> >> it had to be approved for the whole period by someone but
> >> it is not one whole clump in the budget.
> >>
> >
> > Good point.
> >
> > The Companies annual budget line item for quarterly (or yearly)
> payments
> > to VSI remains the same for 3 years. The company budget allocates
> only
> > that amount required for one year.
> >
> 
> Well, *VSI* got a three year agreement (and payment), it is the local
> reseller that handles the quarterly payments. The interest rates are
> so low so he thought he could pay it to VSI upfront and then add a few
> % to the invoices sent to the customer each quarter. Better then to have
> the same money on the bank account for the same time.
> 

Wow - very creative.

Nice idea. Win-Win-Win.

😊


Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com