IBM boasts Sun-HP server pact pillaging

Now that IBM has reported its financial results for the first quarter of 2009, the company can brag a little bit about competitive takeouts for server deals. To that end, Big Blue says that in the first quarter it landed 102 deals that displaced servers made by rivals Hewlett-Packard and Sun Microsystems. IBM has been …

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM =

It's Broke Mate

Out of 6 new X-series servers recently delivered 3 worked. The SAN system lost a controller less than two weeks later.

I know its a small sample but thier support org managed to send the wrong parts 3 times too.

Anon because I don't think my employer would want to be associated with these comments.

[Matthew Barker]

And...?

Not to pick nits, but you know there are also customers moving in the opposite directions as well.

Also, if one is considering only HP & Sun, it seems funny to also add EMC to the pool...unless

it's being added to inflate the numbers of course. They wouldn't do that, would they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch out TPM

You know that Matt B will be attacking you soon saying that HP is taking

share away from both Sun and IBM, and not the other way around. I pity you...

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM Deal we couldn't refuse

We were such a customer. We were looking at either Sun or IBM high end servers but when IBM threw in a DS8300 (Tier 1) Storage for less than a HDS AMS2500 (Tier 2) we were looking at, well my company decided on IBM. They even threw in a couple of SVC IO groups and man, I love the SVC. I wish I had it a few years back. I'm throwing everything (well mostly) under the SVC control.

[Grail]

IBM Gains vs. Losses?

And how many server deals do IBM admit losing to Sun & HP? They say they gained 150 mainframes, but how many went away?

[Lord of Dogtown]

We are borg

Soon once we have all of you under the IBM cosh we shall change your terms and conditions just like AMEX in the spring of 2009......MUHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!! *cough* HAHAHAHHAAAAA

[Andrew Fraser]

IBM... Naah bro

We dropped IBM at the last position I was in, because as soon as they outsourced the parts manufacture to China, the server quality dropped like a rock.

Servers that would either fail out of the box with bad controllers, and broken mainboards. Or servers that would run fine, until you put them under load, then crap out consistantly.

We swapped to HP, and all those issues disappeared. The HP's were similar in price, and in some cases cheaper.

Even if they were a bit more pricey, it was worth it for the complete lack of problems we had.

HP even offered to buy our faulty IBM boxes off us, if we replaced them whith HP's.

IBM reps still come around and take us out to lunch, and we always promise to start buying IBM, when the quality improves. Still yet to happen .

[David Halko]

Odd Conclusion...

Writer says, "IBM says that through 2008, nine out of ten competitive takeouts across the company involved competitive wins against HP or Sun, and this ratio is probably not going to change."

With SUN on the cusp of releasing 2 new CPU architectures in 1-2 quarters, that could reverse the trend.

If SUN stalls on releasing 2 new CPU architectures in 1-2 quarters, the trend could become more aggressive.

The ratio, as far as SUN is concerned, is really dependent upon RoCK and T3 execution.

[Matt Bryant]

RE: IBM Deal we couldn't refuse

Careful on that storage deal! IBM had something similar with the early Sharks, they would cut a server deal along with a Shark for next to nothing or even nothing for a year, you'd take it thinking what a lovely deal it was, and then a year later when you had your bizz crit data on there IBM would tell you the real annual support costs - ouch! They tried it with us, they hoped we'd replace some old EMCs, but we didn't like the Shark and so just used it for archives. At the end of the year we simply backed the archives off to tape and let IBM take it back. Most amusing!