DB2 differentiator

The main problem is, that DB2 and Informix are too similar. Not similar enough to merge, but not different enough to do marketing for both. Because DB2 has more market share, it's clear (at least for IBM) that Informix has to be in the shadow of DB2. Christine Normile said: 'So, each product has a "sweet spot" and we will enhance our servers to strengthen their value in their respective sweet spots. For IDS, this means OLTP, RFID, Spatialtemporal capabilities, and embeddability.' This is probably the only strategy we can expect from IBM. But because it's 5 to 12 for IDS, we can't wait for IDS Vnext, where some features for the "sweet spots" might be implemeted. The IBM marketing has to the best with the IDS strength right now: - OLTP: Why you don't tell customers that IDS could perform better than DB2 under certain circumstances ? - RFID: no chance, because DB2 want's this topic too - Spatialtemporal capabilities, and embeddability: This is in my opinion the datablade topic and a main differentiator. I recommend to make all IBM datablades open source and help IBM partners to build some more datablades (I think coppereye was the only one in the last 5 years). This could at least generate some attention in the market. I think the strategy to stop further datablades was because it's difficult to migrate applications with datablades and IBM wanted to migrate the IDS customers to DB2 at least in 2001 to 2004. It would be also a sign that a forced migration will never happen. Are there any other "sweet spots", I'm not aware of ?

J'rgen Buck wrote: > The main problem is, that DB2 and Informix are too similar. Not similar > enough to merge, but not different enough to do marketing for both. Similar? How about Peer? These products do not compete today because they are owned by the same company. > Because DB2 has more market share, it's clear (at least for IBM) that > Informix has to be in the shadow of DB2. This is what I'm talking about with self-fulfilling prophecy. "Informix has a paltry market share, therefore it doesn't deserve marketing." So the product goes rotting on the vine because there is no marketing. This is all too familiar from business logic presented to Informix users when Informix was hammered to port to Linux. No business case, no port. Very backwards thinking then, and today this is the underlying current. > Christine Normile said: > 'So, each product has a > "sweet spot" and we will enhance our servers to strengthen their value > in their respective sweet spots. For IDS, this means OLTP, RFID, > Spatialtemporal capabilities, and embeddability.' > I'd be willing to bet she never even saw the product. And this is considered status quo in many companies, where the sales crew or marketing never gets their hands on product. But in this game you must know what you're talking about. Her comments illustrate being out of touch with the market. > This is probably the only strategy we can expect from IBM. But because > it's 5 to 12 for IDS, we can't wait for IDS Vnext, where some features > for the "sweet spots" might be implemeted. Actually better to expect nothing, then when they come out with a whimper of a campaign you'll feel lucky. Kind of like a man in a prison cell being told he'll be shot in 1 hour. The end of the hour comes, and the warden says, "We're going to let you live, here's a crust of bread and some water. How lucky you are!!" > The IBM marketing has to the best with the IDS strength right now: > - OLTP: Why you don't tell customers that IDS could perform better than > DB2 under certain circumstances ? Why make the comparison at all? Why not let DB2 do its thing and let Informix do its thing, and who cares what the other does except the market? Let each manage their own markets, develop them independently, and forget about comparisons except on the sales floor, where you compare ALL products, including Oracle. Now it's a fair playing field, instead of this pointless exersize of one company being obviously heavy-handed towards its own product(s) and brands. > - RFID: no chance, because DB2 want's this topic too > - Spatialtemporal capabilities, and embeddability: This is in my > opinion the datablade topic and a main differentiator. I recommend to > make all IBM datablades open source and help IBM partners to build some > more datablades (I think coppereye was the only one in the last 5 > years). This could at least generate some attention in the market. Great idea. > I think the strategy to stop further datablades was because it's > difficult to migrate applications with datablades and IBM wanted to > migrate the IDS customers to DB2 at least in 2001 to 2004. > It would be also a sign that a forced migration will never happen. > > Are there any other "sweet spots", I'm not aware of ? > Informix needs to show off more of the DBA stack, ease of use, etc. DB2 I think is somewhat ahead of the curve only because of the lack of communication of what Informix DBA has today compared to recent releases.