Create and deliver personalized experiences across digital properties at scale
Build engaging websites with intuitive web content management
Leverage a complete UI toolbox for web, mobile and desktop development
Build, protect and deploy apps across any platform and mobile device
Build mobile apps for iOS, Android and Windows Phone
Rapidly develop, manage and deploy business apps, delivered as SaaS in the cloud
Automate UI, load and performance testing for web, desktop and mobile
Host, deploy and scale Node.js, Java and .NET Core apps on premise or in the cloud
Optimize data integration with high-performance connectivity
Automate decision processes with a no-code business rules engine
Transform your businesses in order to survive in a completely digitized and connected world driven by software innovation.
Globally scale websites with innovative content management and infrastructure approaches
Content-focused web and mobile solution for empowering marketers
Faster, tailored mobile experiences for any device and data source
UX and app modernization to powerfully navigate today's digital landscape
Fuel agility with ever-ready applications, built in the cloud
Gregg Willhoit comments on IBM's response to the Neon zPrime product. The podcast lasts for 2:57.
First of all, I’m firmly in support of IBM and their goals that they originally had with the specialty engine, the openness with vendors, with ISVs, with regard to using the specialty engine. They provided great assistance to us.
And I also completely understood IBM’s intent with regard to the use of the specialty engine by ISVs. It was clear that ISDs were given the capability of offloading work to the zip for their own code, not anyone else’s code. That was clear to me as well. So I think IBM’s response to Neon’s lawsuit makes perfect sense.
And if you take a look at our blog, take a look at anything I’ve written, basically I’ve always been in IBM’s camp on this one. I think any approach which uses someone else’s code or someone else’s hard work is dubious at best. I’m just -- I firmly believe in everyone having the ability to basically offload their own code. And they should do so as much as they want or as little as they want. But I agree with IBM 100% on this issue, and don’t think that the marketplace has been done any favors by what’s gone on with this issue with eligible and ineligible usage of the zip.
I think from our standpoint, it’s muddied the waters. Customers are confused. Some are delaying purchases or some are delaying movement, if you will, due to basically the uncertainty of the whole issue. So the sooner this thing gets resolved, the better. However, again, I’m just firmly in IBM’s corner on this one. I think they understood the need for lowering TCO. They also knew they needed to do it in a responsible manner. And I think they did everything right.
(Photo credit: Muddy Water, tuppus' photostream)
I think the only mistake they maybe made in this whole thing was that they assumed that we, as ISDs, would play by the rules, that we wouldn’t try to take shortcuts and offload somebody else’s code. And I think that that’s, you know, their only fault. They shouldn’t have assumed that all ISDs basically were willing to embrace the spirit of what IBM was attempting to achieve with regard to the zip processor.
View all posts from Gregg Willhoit on the Progress blog. Connect with us about all things application development and deployment, data integration and digital business.
Copyright © 2016, Progress Software Corporation and/or its subsidiaries or affiliates.
All Rights Reserved.
Progress, Telerik, and certain product names used herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Progress Software Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates in the U.S. and/or other countries. See Trademarks or appropriate markings.