Note to Kate...
Not a technical problem at all — this is a community/marketing debate. Ian Michael Gumby argues that IBM isn't putting "skin in the game" for IDS: no published benchmarks, education programmes not on par with DB2's, and university outreach largely left to volunteers, so Informix users lack verifiable talking points for their employers. Others counter that IBM is investing heavily in IDS development (11.5) and that sales/renewals speak for themselves, while Neil Truby asks why R&D money is spent without real marketing. The exchange is opinion-driven and ends with no resolution or concrete commitment recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Kate, After listening to Jerry K. on the call, I can appreciate his response concerning benchmarks. You really have to be prepared to put some substantial skin in the game, even just in terms of man hours. (Assuming that your hardware partner ships a box to you and you provide a copy of the software for free. Ignoring the *charge backs* on these items) My point of arguing for benchmarks is that you have a visible 'flag' in the sand and you're making a statement. If IBM isn't prepared to make this commitment, then what are they willing to do in its place? Taking the NJ and AF school initiative, while IBM is giving its blessing, how much of a commitment are they planning on making? It sounds like again, they are relying on the community to step up and fill the gaps. I would also have to point out that IBM isn't asking this of their DB2 community. That the IDS education program isn't a parity of DB2's education program. Is that acceptable to the IIUG and the rest of the community. Now I'm not here to bash nor praise IBM's efforts. Your article raises some of the concerns of those who support IDS, yet their employers may be questioning their decision. A benchmark would be a verifiable talking point. No offense to Jerry K, but even the numbers he mentioned reflecting IDS's growth are not able to be independently verified. So the question that should be asked isn't about doing or not doing a benchmark, but rather, what is IBM willing to do so that they can show their commitment to IDS in terms of marketing and sales? -G
On 2 Feb, 19:42, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Kate, > > After listening to Jerry K. on the call, I can appreciate his response > concerning benchmarks. > > You really have to be prepared to put some substantial skin in the > game, even just in terms of man hours. > (Assuming that your hardware partner ships a box to you and you > provide a copy of the software for free. Ignoring the *charge backs* > on these items) > > My point of arguing for benchmarks is that you have a visible 'flag' > in the sand and you're making a statement. > > If IBM isn't prepared to make this commitment, then what are they > willing to do in its place? > > Taking the NJ and AF school initiative, while IBM is giving its > blessing, how much of a commitment are they planning on making? It > sounds like again, they are relying on the community to step up and > fill the gaps. > > I would also have to point out that IBM isn't asking this of their DB2 > community. That the IDS education program isn't a parity of DB2's > education program. > > Is that acceptable to the IIUG and the rest of the community. > > Now I'm not here to bash nor praise IBM's efforts. > Your article raises some of the concerns of those who support IDS, yet > their employers may be questioning their decision. A benchmark would > be a verifiable talking point. > > No offense to Jerry K, but even the numbers he mentioned reflecting > IDS's growth are not able to be independently verified. > > So the question that should be asked isn't about doing or not doing a > benchmark, but rather, what is IBM willing to do so that they can show > their commitment to IDS in terms of marketing and sales? > > -G "That the IDS education program isn't a parity of DB2's education program. Is that acceptable to the IIUG and the rest of the community. " It isn't fucking acceptable to me...
> From: david@smooth1.co.uk > "That the IDS education program isn't a parity of DB2's > education program. > > > Is that acceptable to the IIUG and the rest of the community. " > > It isn't fucking acceptable to me... > > Ok ... But you're not one of the people who are being asked to step up to the plate and try to work with the Universities. I think some appreciate my frustration on the business side of IBM's Information Management operations. One might take pleasure in that unlike DB2, Informix has a very vocal and active user group. IDUG is *for profit* and operates on its own agenda. The IIUG is a true not for profit user group and has aligned their agenda to work with IBM. The downside is that IBM hasn't really ante'd up anything to show that they are making a solid commitment to Informix. Yes I know that they've outlined the product growth and have created brands around both DB2 and IDS. However, IBM IM management hasn't done anything that is concrete that can't be flipped off like a light switch. In sales speak, IBM does not have any skin in the game. The point of my question is to ask that of those involved in trying to open the doors to universities, that they understand the position that IBM is placing them in. -G _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > Kate, > > After listening to Jerry K. on the call, I can appreciate his response > concerning benchmarks. > > You really have to be prepared to put some substantial skin in the > game, even just in terms of man hours. > (Assuming that your hardware partner ships a box to you and you > provide a copy of the software for free. Ignoring the *charge backs* > on these items) > > My point of arguing for benchmarks is that you have a visible 'flag' > in the sand and you're making a statement. > > If IBM isn't prepared to make this commitment, then what are they > willing to do in its place? > > Taking the NJ and AF school initiative, while IBM is giving its > blessing, how much of a commitment are they planning on making? It > sounds like again, they are relying on the community to step up and > fill the gaps. > > I would also have to point out that IBM isn't asking this of their DB2 > community. That the IDS education program isn't a parity of DB2's > education program. > > Is that acceptable to the IIUG and the rest of the community. > > Now I'm not here to bash nor praise IBM's efforts. > Your article raises some of the concerns of those who support IDS, yet > their employers may be questioning their decision. A benchmark would > be a verifiable talking point. > > No offense to Jerry K, but even the numbers he mentioned reflecting > IDS's growth are not able to be independently verified. > > So the question that should be asked isn't about doing or not doing a > benchmark, but rather, what is IBM willing to do so that they can show > their commitment to IDS in terms of marketing and sales? > > -G The fact is that IBM is spending more on the development of Informix now than when Informix was still Informix. Thats obvious to anyone who has seen IDS 11.5. Streets ahead of most competition now and lots more to come. Many customers who fled the product in the face of massive FUD after the IBM takeover are really wishing they could wind the clock back and quite a few are. There are still those who never dropped the product and continued to expand their installbases and have remained loyal to this day and with good reason. -- }(:
"Wikking" <Wik.King!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:gmcalj$5mu$1@news.motzarella.org... > The fact is that IBM is spending more on the development of Informix > now than when Informix was still Informix. The question I ask myself but truly cannot answer is: "Why?" *Why* are they spending all this money on R&D without seriously marketing the product?
Neil Truby wrote: > "Wikking" <Wik.King!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:gmcalj$5mu$1@news.motzarella.org... > >> The fact is that IBM is spending more on the development of Informix >> now than when Informix was still Informix. > > The question I ask myself but truly cannot answer is: "Why?" > *Why* are they spending all this money on R&D without seriously > marketing the product? Well, the official position would be that IBM markets the IBM brand and that should be enough. ;) Fact remains Informix product sales and license renewals are outperforming the annual dbms market growth and that is driving the renewed and intense focus on development. Its inescapable. The product that would not die despite the best efforts of many alleged genii to kill it or persuade others that it was going away. -- }(:
On Feb 4, 9:00 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > The fact is that IBM is spending more on the development of Informix > now than when Informix was still Informix. Thats obvious to anyone who > has seen IDS 11.5. Streets ahead of most competition now and lots more > to come. Many customers who fled the product in the face of massive > FUD after the IBM takeover are really wishing they could wind the > clock back and quite a few are. There are still those who never > dropped the product and continued to expand their installbases and > have remained loyal to this day and with good reason. > > -- > > }(: You're making a statement that is irrelevant and is an assertion and it is not fact. IBM doesn't release any numbers, nor did Informix. I joke about Jerry Keesee only have 50% credibility. That's mainly because of the fact that IDS is still getting enhanced and it is one of the best databases on the market. Were he solely responsible for the marketing and development of sales collateral, he'd have 0 credibility. ;-) We can talk about Janet's reign, however that's behind us. Lets focus on Ambush for a second and what's happening. While those in the lab or close to the lab tell us the wonderful news that IDS is selling, great. Yet there's still this very large nut that needs to be cracked. How to get the word out. Benchmarks serve more than just bragging rights. Jerry's comments on the last call have some merit. He is after all, responsible for the decision where and when to spend money. If he'd rather hire a couple of engineers to do development and forgo benchmarks, that's a valid reason and I for one can accept that. But the key message is that *IBM* *is* *not* *putting* *skin* *in* *the* *GAME*! That's a sales phrase that means that IBM isn't willing to put any sort of money or invest in terms of any marketing.
On Feb 4, 9:12 am, "Neil Truby" <neil.tr...@ardenta.com> wrote: > "Wikking" <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:gmcalj$5mu$1@news.motzarella.org... > > > The fact is that IBM is spending more on the development of Informix > > now than when Informix was still Informix. > > The question I ask myself but truly cannot answer is: "Why?" > *Why* are they spending all this money on R&D without seriously marketing > the product? Because they are obligated to spend the money on support of the product. ;-) (It goes back to the acquisition. ;-) But also because there's a belief that at IBM you market the brand and not the product. In this case, all marketing is on branding IBM in key general areas. Information Management hasn't jumped on the band wagon and devised ways to get on board. The real question... "What and Where is the story?" ;-)
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Feb 4, 9:00 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> The fact is that IBM is spending more on the development of Informix >> now than when Informix was still Informix. Thats obvious to anyone who >> has seen IDS 11.5. Streets ahead of most competition now and lots more >> to come. Many customers who fled the product in the face of massive >> FUD after the IBM takeover are really wishing they could wind the >> clock back and quite a few are. There are still those who never >> dropped the product and continued to expand their installbases and >> have remained loyal to this day and with good reason. >> >> -- >> >> }(: > > You're making a statement that is irrelevant and is an assertion and > it is not fact. I don't respond to trolling for information. -- }(:
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Feb 4, 9:12 am, "Neil Truby" <neil.tr...@ardenta.com> wrote: >> "Wikking" <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:gmcalj$5mu$1@news.motzarella.org... >> >>> The fact is that IBM is spending more on the development of Informix >>> now than when Informix was still Informix. >> The question I ask myself but truly cannot answer is: "Why?" >> *Why* are they spending all this money on R&D without seriously marketing >> the product? > > Because they are obligated to spend the money on support of the > product. ;-) (It goes back to the acquisition. ;-) > > But also because there's a belief that at IBM you market the brand and > not the product. In this case, all marketing is on branding IBM in key > general areas. Information Management hasn't jumped on the band wagon > and devised ways to get on board. > > The real question... "What and Where is the story?" ;-) The story is in the sales and the continued support for the product across a wide range of customers globally that manifests itself in a renewed and intense focus on the development of new features and functionality. Take it or leave it. -- }(:
In article <gmcgcl$dkf$2@news.motzarella.org>, Wikking says... >The story is in the sales and the continued support for the product >across a wide range of customers globally that manifests itself in a >renewed and intense focus on the development of new features and >functionality. Take it or leave it. the development of new features in informix is a living proof that Informix is not a dead product for IBM.