SGI UPGRADES/MAINTENANCE MONOPOLY

[Christopher Gunn]

In article <1991Apr9.162537.711 at odin.corp.sgi.com>, thant at horus.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
> In article <1991Apr8.154643.29535 at kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, 1k1mgm at kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) writes:
> 
>> It seems so clear to me that 'hostage' policies like you've posted
>> gain companies a few disk sales and lose many more system sales;
>> I wonder why they do this, particularly if it's basically an idle threat?
> 
> I don't work in support, and I don't speak for SGI, but I'm pretty 
> sure that the refusal to support 3rd party equipment isn't an attempt
> to gain a few disk sales.  
> 
> Silicon Graphics can't be expected to be experts on all third party 
> hardware, and SG has no influence on its quality, how it is installed,
> or how it interacts with SG equipment.  Refusing to support third 
> party hardware is the only way SG can guarantee good service and 
> good quality.

I re-read the original post, to make sure I didn't misunderstand it,
and while it's possible the original poster misunderstood what SGI
was telling HIM, his statement was NOT that SGI was declining to
undertake specific maintenance responsibilities for Brand-X gear,
but that SGI was threatening to refuse to honor existing maintenance
agreements for the SGI box if 3rd-party equipment were plugged into
it  These aren't the same thing, obviously.  I wouldn't object a bit
if SGI decided it were too small to undertake maintenance of stuff
they don't make or OEM (though DEC and IBM seem to have found it
profitable to do so).

I hope the straight story on this emerges from this thread.  It's not
only a theoretical issue, but will influence some significant purchasing
decisions.  (Course I'm not going to take anything posted here as
the absolute and final truth....)

Christopher Gunn	Molecular Graphics and Modeling Lab
SPAN--KUPHSX::GUNN	Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Malott Hall
913-864-4428 or -4495	University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS  66045