4 ms·

>We're in the midst of launching a multi-year, billion dollar program to replace that mainframe. We've been talking about doing this for years and are just now

>We're in the midst of launching a multi-year, billion dollar program to replace that mainframe. We've been talking about doing this for years and are just now pulling the trigger on it. There's still time to tell whether we actually go through with it or not, or get $100 million into the project and realize we're looking at a $1.5 billion - $2 billion effort and abandon the project. So, you're looking at a high risk, multi-year, multi-billion dollar project to remove your own mainframe dependency. And the business isn't fully committed to it. > Most CIOs are looking for a means for retiring those assets. And finding extremely expensive, high risk, long duration software projects are the usual alternative, per your own experience. Why waste prestige and budget on that when you can keep all the critical LOB software running exactly as it is (or faster) forever? Mainframes are the OG backward compatibility and virtualization platforms. Given that, why do you think the mainframe business isn't thriving, especially given the billions in revenue that the companies you list in your post undoubtedly bring in for IBM? It's not sexy, and they're probably not winning new customers. But they're making a shit ton of money on a long lived, successful product and continuing to fund research and development on the platform.

jameshart 6y ago
Yes, the mainframe business is 'thriving' in that environment. Much like how SARS-CoV-2 has been 'thriving' in a non-immunized population who don't like wearing masks...
marcosdumay 6y ago
> Why waste prestige and budget on that when you can keep all the critical LOB software running exactly as it is (or faster) forever? Hum... Probably (and that was the case at my workplace) because business as usual has higher risks and ongoing costs than the migration. It's not like mainframes are cheap to own, or guaranteed to stay in existence in the future. > why do you think the mainframe business isn't thriving "Thriving" on my lexical implies on growing or at least sustainable. A market where new players don't want to buy at any cost and old players are all trying to get out is not this.
- meepmorp 6y ago
  Your definition thriving isn't too far from mine, I think we just differ as to the expectations we have about the platform in the future. IBM offers a compelling option: - yes, your software will continue to run, because that's what the mainframe is for - yes, it will scale with whatever transaction volume you need in the future, because that's what the mainframe is for - yes, you can get 99.999999999999999% uptime, because you have reliability built into the platform in astounding depth - yes, we'll happily help develop new functionality and support your in house staff in managing this system; the mainframe can actually detect faults and arrange a service call. It's expensive, but it's a safe bet in at very least the medium term. The alternative is quite risky in most cases, and perhaps less expensive over the medium term if it works out. Nothing is sustainable forever, but that sounds like a pretty hopeful story for IBM over the medium term. Long term, who knows, but eventually we're all dead anyway.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > - yes, your software will continue to run, because that's what the mainframe is for Maybe if you are using zos without any niche configuration. IBM has discontinued many mainframe platforms in the past, and there's no guarantee that next year they won't approach you with a 10x markup on your renting costs, that will become 50x in a couple of years and will keep going up until you decide to stop paying. > yes, it will scale with whatever transaction volume you need in the future, because that's what the mainframe is for Only if you gave-up on data dependency from the beginning. Transactions here means independent data processing, with possible rollbacks, not the relational concept people got used to on databases. If one needs relational data, it won't scale. NoSQL can scale with non-relational data too, it's not an exclusivity of mainframes. > yes, you can get 99.999999999999999% uptime, because you have reliability built into the platform in astounding depth That one is ridiculous. Uptime is limited by business code bugs, network and power outages, integration problems, and well, all that causes 90% of the downtime on a single-server shop. All the mainframe promises is that the hardware won't be a problem. > yes, we'll happily help develop new functionality and support your in house staff in managing this system; the mainframe can actually detect faults and arrange a service call. Yes, mainframes come with support contracts. You can get support for other platforms too, with the advantage that you won't need to hire IBM. Anyway, none of that changes the fact that nobody wants to start using a mainframe nowadays, and that the people using them are either looking on how to replace them or avoiding increasing their usage. IBM will certainly be able to milk that market over the medium term, even more if they keep increasing their prices. They revenue may even go up for a while. But that's not thriving.
NoSorryCannot 6y ago
If they're not gaining enough new customers to offset the losses of those that eventually leave the platform or go out of business, and if we take it as a given that over long periods of time all businesses will eventually disappear or reshuffle their technology stack, then the mainframe market is shrinking. Possibly very slowly but it's still attrition. That might make it good business for a long time but it would be a stretch to call it thriving, and it provides gentle but salient cause for businesses to consider migration.
guessbest 6y ago
No software is bug free including software written for the mainframe in JCL, REXX, Cobol, Mark IV, etc. Someone has to decide to either keep fixing the bugs as they crop up or migrate off of the platform. Turns out writing a whole new platform is very expensive.

jameshart 6y ago

Yes, the mainframe business is 'thriving' in that environment. Much like how SARS-CoV-2 has been 'thriving' in a non-immunized population who don't like wearing masks...

marcosdumay 6y ago

> Why waste prestige and budget on that when you can keep all the critical LOB software running exactly as it is (or faster) forever? Hum... Probably (and that was the case at my workplace) because business as usual has higher risks and ongoing costs than the migration. It's not like mainframes are cheap to own, or guaranteed to stay in existence in the future. > why do you think the mainframe business isn't thriving "Thriving" on my lexical implies on growing or at least sustainable. A market where new players don't want to buy at any cost and old players are all trying to get out is not this.

meepmorp 6y ago
Your definition thriving isn't too far from mine, I think we just differ as to the expectations we have about the platform in the future. IBM offers a compelling option: - yes, your software will continue to run, because that's what the mainframe is for - yes, it will scale with whatever transaction volume you need in the future, because that's what the mainframe is for - yes, you can get 99.999999999999999% uptime, because you have reliability built into the platform in astounding depth - yes, we'll happily help develop new functionality and support your in house staff in managing this system; the mainframe can actually detect faults and arrange a service call. It's expensive, but it's a safe bet in at very least the medium term. The alternative is quite risky in most cases, and perhaps less expensive over the medium term if it works out. Nothing is sustainable forever, but that sounds like a pretty hopeful story for IBM over the medium term. Long term, who knows, but eventually we're all dead anyway.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > - yes, your software will continue to run, because that's what the mainframe is for Maybe if you are using zos without any niche configuration. IBM has discontinued many mainframe platforms in the past, and there's no guarantee that next year they won't approach you with a 10x markup on your renting costs, that will become 50x in a couple of years and will keep going up until you decide to stop paying. > yes, it will scale with whatever transaction volume you need in the future, because that's what the mainframe is for Only if you gave-up on data dependency from the beginning. Transactions here means independent data processing, with possible rollbacks, not the relational concept people got used to on databases. If one needs relational data, it won't scale. NoSQL can scale with non-relational data too, it's not an exclusivity of mainframes. > yes, you can get 99.999999999999999% uptime, because you have reliability built into the platform in astounding depth That one is ridiculous. Uptime is limited by business code bugs, network and power outages, integration problems, and well, all that causes 90% of the downtime on a single-server shop. All the mainframe promises is that the hardware won't be a problem. > yes, we'll happily help develop new functionality and support your in house staff in managing this system; the mainframe can actually detect faults and arrange a service call. Yes, mainframes come with support contracts. You can get support for other platforms too, with the advantage that you won't need to hire IBM. Anyway, none of that changes the fact that nobody wants to start using a mainframe nowadays, and that the people using them are either looking on how to replace them or avoiding increasing their usage. IBM will certainly be able to milk that market over the medium term, even more if they keep increasing their prices. They revenue may even go up for a while. But that's not thriving.

NoSorryCannot 6y ago

If they're not gaining enough new customers to offset the losses of those that eventually leave the platform or go out of business, and if we take it as a given that over long periods of time all businesses will eventually disappear or reshuffle their technology stack, then the mainframe market is shrinking. Possibly very slowly but it's still attrition. That might make it good business for a long time but it would be a stretch to call it thriving, and it provides gentle but salient cause for businesses to consider migration.

guessbest 6y ago

No software is bug free including software written for the mainframe in JCL, REXX, Cobol, Mark IV, etc. Someone has to decide to either keep fixing the bugs as they crop up or migrate off of the platform. Turns out writing a whole new platform is very expensive.