Microsoft-Backed Firm Says IBM Is Anticompetitive

BBCWatcher writes "Microsoft has long claimed that the mainframe is dead, slain by the company's Windows monopoly. Yet, apparently without any mirror nearby, Microsoft is now complaining through the Microsoft-funded Computer & Communications Industry Association that not only are mainframes not dead, but IBM is so anticompetitive that governments should intervene in the hyper-competitive server market. The Wall Street Journal reports that Microsoft is worried that the trend toward cloud computing is introducing competition to the Windows franchise, favoring better-positioned companies including IBM and Cisco. HP now talks about almost nothing but the IBM mainframe, with no Tukwila CPUs to sell until 2010. The global recession is encouraging more mainframe adoption as businesses slash IT costs, dominated by labor costs, and improve business execution. In 2008, IBM mainframe revenues rose 12.5% even whilst mainframe prices fell. (IBM shipped 25% more mainframe capacity than in 2007. Other server sales reports are not so good.) IBM mainframes can run multiple operating systems concurrently, including Linux and, more recently, OpenSolaris."

Comments

Re:a case of sour grapes?

[tomhudson]

This is just to distract people from the growing rumble that Vista SPx (a.k.a. Windows 7) pricing is way off the mark ...

Q. Top ten reason why Windows on a mainframe is like Michael Jackson:
A. Neither one can fog a mirror.
A2. Neither one of them can win by a nose.
A3. As of yesterday, you can blend either one.
A4. They both target the immature.
A5. They've both been seriously broken for a looong time.
A6. "It just looks strange ..."
A7. They both have high maintenance costs.
A8. They both have a history of instability.
A9. One's a faceless corporation, the other one's just faceless.
A10. They're both past their "best before" date.