~ OpenMPE BOD Response to Dave Wilde's Comments to ComputerWorld ~

Official OpenMPE Directors Response to the Article of March 22, 2004 in ComputerWorld

OpenMPE, Inc. was formed as an organization of HPe3000 users, vendors and consultants shortly after Hewlett-Packard announced in November of 2001 that they were ending sales, development and support of the platform with its powerful and reliable operating system, MPE/iX. OpenMPE is more than just an advocacy group for MPE/iX, but an organization with the goal of obtaining a license from HP which would allow them to enhance and distribute MPE to those who wish to go on using it in their businesses. Over a period of more than 30 years MPE has become a steady and reliable way of life for tens of thousands of users. This community has in turn produced numerous software and hardware vendors as well as many consultants, all dedicated to extending and supporting the platform beyond what Hewlett-Packard was able to provide.

We now find ourselves almost 2 1/2 years after that stunning announcement and almost 6 months past the end of sale date for the platform. HP has committed to supporting the platform until the end of 2006 for both software and hardware. Thus, we are now at the midpoint between announcement and end of support. Meanwhile, users are being urged by Hewlett-Packard to migrate away from the HPe3000 and towards other platforms such as HP-UX, Linux or Windows. Interestingly, HP makes no claim of improved functionality or cost benefit for those that move over to the other platforms. HP tends to recommend and promote the HP9000/HP-UX alternative because of its enterprise level of acceptance, not to mention its higher profit margins compared to the other two alternatives. To this end HP has formed partnerships with certain business partners to perform migration services with the objective of moving as many users as possible from the HPe3000 to one of the other platforms. Not surprisingly, some significant percentage of users will find it too expensive or impractical to migrate away from a platform as reliable and cost effective as the HPe3000, especially within the time frame envisioned by HP. This group of users is known as "homesteaders".

Ever since the formation of OpenMPE, its Board of Directors has engaged HP and the principal management, of what is now known as the vCSY business operation, in a dialogue with the objective of obtaining the license rights described above. This has been a period with much discussion, few promises and limited action on the part of HP, which we have tried to accept as something other than a delaying action while the migration process is underway. We recognize that shutting down a major business (indeed the root product line primarily responsible for the HP of today being the second largest computer manufacturer in the world) with thousands of customers using the product in mission critical applications as a complex task with many aspects to be considered.

HP has told us they want to share their roadmap and strategy with OpenMPE and has required the Board of Directors of OpenMPE to agree to a confidentiality agreement to do this. This of course limits the ability of the board to communicate fully with the membership that makes up the organizations community of users, vendors and consultants. Without the ability to disclose details provided by HP, the relationship between the board and its constituents has become increasingly strained. The board has reasoned thus far that, although regrettable, the limitation on communication may be a necessary cost in order to achieve our overall goal. Up to this point we have preferred to think of the confidentially agreement as a prudent business requirement by HP, rather than as a wedge strategy designed to divide and separate the board from the organizations members. We want HP to be able to work with us and at the same time give ourselves an opportunity to influence HP's path with input from the homesteading community, including vendors and consultants that stand ready and willing to perform their historical supporting roles. Knowing HP's plans, to the extent that they are shared with us, enables us to plan and budget for the task ahead, if and when HP agrees to the concept. HP has funded a project to explore this concept without predicting any particular result. We see this as a positive step.

Not only has OpenMPE conducted many survey questions of its own to get a sense of the community's desires, but other respected organizations have sponsored surveys, such as the Interex user group’s annual System Improvement Ballot (SIB). At this stage of the game it would seem more and more likely that organizations such as ours and Interex are more in touch with the opinions and needs of HPe3000 users than is HP itself. We believe this is one reason why HP continues to work with us. The top issue cited by survey respondents and vocal users is for HP to make a decision on the licensing of MPE source code by the second half of 2004; i.e., "earlier" rather than later.

Now, in a recent article published by ComputerWorld on March 22, we get some disturbing and contradictory statements from Dave Wilde, HP's e3000 business manager. He states that "HP doesn't see the need to make a decision this year ... stressing that HP must act in the best overall interest of the HPe3000 user base". He said that "a decision to license the source code might prompt some customers to replace their transition plans with an alternative that may not meet their needs, simultaneously hurting HP business partners that provide migration services". He further states, "HP is sensitive to the needs of customers who will be running HPe3000 systems beyond 2006 [homesteaders]". This would seem to place HP in something of a dilemma: how to migrate as many users as possible and what to do about those that can't/won't migrate off the platform.

So far HP seems to be looking at all users as a single group that are going to migrate sooner or later, but some just need more disincentive to remain on the platform than others. In this case, the disincentive would seem to be the withholding of the prospect of MPE/iX being available to the user community for further enhancement and distribution after 2006. It has been our hope to convince HP that the user base really consists of separate groups with different interests: those that are willing to migrate and those homesteaders that can't or won't. Homesteaders have no need for migration services, they need HP to help them survive this devastating turn of events by supporting their need to continue use of MPE/iX as long as possible.

When Dave Wilde speaks of not seeing a need to make a decision this year, it would seem that he is really speaking of HP needs, not customer needs. Their trying to act in the overall interest of the HPe3000 user base would seem to be an impossibility, since not all users have the same needs, so no single strategy will do the job. We seem to get a glimpse of HP's true thinking with their worry that some customers will replace transition plans with a strategy of staying on the MPE/ix platform, somehow not acting in their own best interests. This is an incredibly patronizing statement for HP to make. Here is a company that acted primarily in its own best interests, not its customers, when it made the decision to end the platform in 2001. This was a unilateral decision by HP that was unwanted, unwelcome and unexpected and that created enormous costs and disruption for its customers. It is difficult to see how customers could damage themselves more than by what HP has done already. In addition, HP set a timetable of its own choosing for when migration is to be completed. Unfortunately, not all migrating customers will be able to meet the end of 2006 deadline. For many customers it took many years to develop their applications on the HPe3000, and the allotted time frame to migrate will be inadequate.

For HP to worry about customers that choose not to inflict these unplanned costs upon their businesses is bad enough, but to then compound things with their misplaced concern for the well being of their business partners providing migration services is really putting the cart before the horse. The migration business is an artificial concept forced into creation and produced as a result of HP's regrettable decision to end the life of the HPe3000 platform, not some strategic business need long sought by customers that requires protection. HP's commitment to its business partners cannot be allowed to be more important than its commitment to its customers. Indeed, HP seems to have a long history of misreading the needs of its HPe3000 customers and recognizing their true best interests. Finally, HP throws in a confusing statement about being sensitive to the needs of homesteaders choosing to continue on the platform after 2006, which does not reconcile with their previously stated concerns and would seem to simply be a statement designed to buy more time to work on those difficult- to-convince “migration prospects”.

It is hard to see how customers would be induced to act against their own best interests (which only they could know best) by having an additional reasonable choice to remain on the MPE/iX platform. Customers do not need HP (the platform’s killer) to figure out what is best for them and advise them as to how they can save them from themselves. What is the basis for HP’s claim that they know what is best for their diversified customers? The claim itself suggests an arrogance that does not go down well. HP seems to see a need or obligation to protect the migration partners, perhaps even more than the interests of the user community. Customers do not need HP to save them from making bad decisions; rather they need HP to provide appropriate choices from which the users can make informed selections. HP’s statements create the vivid image of its migration partners providing undertaking services for the dead platform in its coffin waiting for cremation.

It is time for HP to stop delaying and get down to recognizing reality: the homesteading community is not simply a collection of users who are slower than others to realize what is best for them and that they will not go away or disappear through starvation or divide and conquer tactics. HP needs to do the responsible thing and show its customers, all of them, that it truly wants to help them with their various choices. We have been waiting for HP to announce its roadmap plan since the end of January, and then February, but so far nothing has been forthcoming. This board is frustrated in knowing generally what HP is supposed to announce, while trying to respect HP's request for confidentiality. Our patience with this process is wearing thin.

HP needs to make the licensing decision regarding MPE/iX and announce it by the second half of this year!

The Members of the Board of Directors for OpenMPE, Inc.