$1.$ Scenario: You are meeting with a customer and delivering a technical demo for Red Hat OpenShift.

During this demonstration you showed how Routes can simplify ingress for their applications.

Your customer immediately responds with an objection: $$Routes are OpenShift only. That will just lock us into Red Hat and OpenShift.$$

You have already acknowledged this objection and asked some clarifying questions. You now know that the customer has had bad experiences with vendors forcing proprietary and non$-$standard tooling on them.

Question: What is the strongest way to position Red Hat OpenShift in response to this objection?

$$We have a wide ecosystem of certified $3$rd$-$party ingress tools if you would prefer to use $1$ of them.$$

$$You do not have to use Routes if you do not want to$.$ You could use ingress instead.$$

$$Red Hat OpenShift is $100\%$ certified Kubernetes. We provide a number of productive abstractions and tooling, such as Routes, but you are not required to use them. You can use native Kubernetes ingress if you prefer, or use a $3$rd$-$party ingress provider from our certified ecosystem.$$

$$Ingress is not a suitable replacement for Routes for a variety of reasons. Our customers tend to prefer Routes.$$

$2.$ Scenario: You are watching a more junior associate practice a technical pitch in the office. You are pretending to be a customer. During their pitch, you give them the following objection:

$$Listen$,$ Red Hat OpenShift sounds great, but it is very complex and opinionated. Those technologies you listed sound great, but I do not think we are anywhere near ready for them.$$

The junior associate responds to your objection like this:

$$In our experience, Kubernetes is just the starting point. Very quickly an organization needs more and more components that all need to be tested, integrated, validated, and supported.

Red Hat OpenShift provides the common set of components for a full application platform, along with the enterprise$-$grade support and life cycle that you expect. It can grow with you on your Kubernetes journey.$$

This was everything the associate said in response to the objection.

Question: Considering the acknowledge, question, position, check $($AQPC$)$ model, which parts of AQPC did the junior associate not include in their response? Select all that apply.

Acknowledge

Check

Question

Position

$3.$ Scenario: You are meeting with a customer that has a new $$public cloud $1$st$$ mandate from the CIO.

You are delivering a technical pitch on the potential value of Red Hat OpenShift to their organization. During this pitch, they say the following to you:

$$We have a lot invested in our public cloud vendor, and we are gradually moving our operations there. I would prefer to make full use of that investment rather than introduce a new technology like Red Hat OpenShift.$$

Question: Of the options below, what would be the best thing to say next?

$$When you are just starting out on a cloud modernization journey, using plain Kubernetes is often a viable starting point for many organizations. It can keep things fairly simple early on$.$

$$If you like, you can use $1$ of the managed Red Hat OpenShift offerings. This allows you to draw down on your committed spend agreement with your cloud vendor.$$

$$Making full use of the technologies that you have chosen to invest in is crucial to generating a meaningful return on the investment in those technologies.$$

$$What technologies from your cloud vendor are you most interested in consuming?$$