Re: Market Share

Michael A.P. Hill wrote: > = > tkyte@us.oracle.com (Thomas J Kyte) wrote: > = > >tbas@sybase.com (Tony Basoglu) wrote: > = > >>tkyte@us.oracle.com (Thomas J Kyte) wrote: > = > >>> > >>>Oracle 42.5% > >>>Sybase 19.7% > >>>Informix 16.5% > >>>CA/Ingres 4.8% > >>> > >>>IDC October 1995 > >>Thomas, could you please give the context to these numbers. We > >>certainly would not want to take them out of context. > = > >Sure, > = > >Each calendar year IDC surveys software vendors to determine their annua= l > >revenues. IDC then creates a quantitative market model of revenue for ea= ch > >software vendor that includes checks and balances to verify a particular= vendors > >revenue and its relationship to the total industry. If the model detects= a > >contradiction between quantitative data (annual reports and 10K reports)= , and > >qualitative data that is supplied from a software vendor (an estimate fr= om the > >vendor), IDC will publish the quantitative data. > = > >*Annual reports conform to the Financial Accounting Standards Board=92s > >guidelines. 10K reports are consistent with the security & Exchange Comm= ission > >standards. > = > >To give you more information: > = > >Worldwide UNIX RDBMS 1994 Software License Revenue > = > >Oracle $1,010.2 42.5% > >Sybase 468.6 19.7% > >Informix 392.3 16.5% > >CA/Ingres 113.1 4.8% > = > >That is what the above marketshare numbers are derived from, Overall DBM= S > >revenue in the Unix marketplace during 1994. > = > >>Sybase has 19.7% of what?? And please dont say market share. That > >>term is meaningless. Considering Oracle is still counting the > >>installed RDB sites as Oracle sites, these numbers may not indicate > >>just RDBMS values/sites/dollars/numberofUsers....... > = > >>TonyB > >>tbas@sybase.com > >>Sybase HongKong > = > >Thomas Kyte > >tkyte@us.oracle.com > >Oracle Government > = > So, let's be clear here. These figures are based on the value of the > licence revenue, not number of users or sites. If vendor A charges > twice as much for a licence as vendor B they end up with twice the > market share? > = Ahh, no. If everything else is equal, then if A charges twice what B charges, then A ends up with NO market share. A can only charge more if its product is perceived by the market to offer more. > Assuming my interpretation is right and I'm not missing something from > the above, does anyone have figures for sites/users per vendor? > = Someone may, but I don't know what you'd make of them. How would you compare a Personal Oracle licence with a licence for a large Unix server with potentially 1000s of users. I suspect while it is a crude measure, the dollars that users are prepared to pay for a product may well represent what it is worth (to them). In totality then the market share represents some scaled and weighted vote on the usefulness of products. = Note a company with a small share may produce excellent specialised product and will be able to charge a premium price, in which case the share will likely to be _over_ stated in terms of number of licenses. However in terms of 'usefulness' the share might be just about right. -- David Bellamy. Deparment of Commerce. The University of Queensland. Australia. Internet: bellamy@commerce.uq.edu.au Phone: +61 7 336 56652