Re: database market share 2003
Larry <Larry@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<pAcuc.64$DC1.81837@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>... > And why wouldn't Oracle's results be skewed by it's heritage on UNIX, > and Microsoft's be skewed by its heritage on Windows? What does that > prove? As long as you are growing on the relevant platforms (which IBM > is), and as long as you maintain a significant overall market share ... > that proves that you are going to be around as a company and more > importantly, as a database company for the foreseeable future. This is > what's most important about market share. Otherwise, I don't understand > your point. It's like saying that because Nabisco has a higher overall > market share in the cookie market ... and that this is skewed by them > having the leading market share in Oreo sandwich cookies, you won't buy > Keebler cookies. > > Larry Edelstein > > robert wrote: > > > "rkusenet" <rkusenet@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<2hmh03Fdir3uU1@uni-berlin.de>... > > > >>http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_database_marketshare_1.html > >> > >>Interesting to see that database sales for windows is more than > >>Unix. > > > > > > what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps) > > IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the > > fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful > > of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant > > DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to > > demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use > > the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at > > my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i > > gather this is quite common. > > > > robert growing??? there was a news report a couple of days ago that IBM's MF business was about $3 (or $4) billion annually. and that 10 years ago it was $12 billion. i didn't attempt to verify this, of course. anyone is welcome to do so. but, on the face of it, DB2/MF is NOT the future. robert
> growing??? there was a news report a couple of days ago that IBM's > MF business was about $3 (or $4) billion annually. and that 10 years > ago it was $12 billion. i didn't attempt to verify this, of course. > anyone is welcome to do so. but, on the face of it, DB2/MF is NOT the > future. > > robert If one is running an application on a mainframe (even with web clients) then DB2 for mainframe is the future. Why can't a company make good database servers for multiple platforms? Is that impossible? I don't think software licenses for DB2 on mainframes has decreased to same extent as the hardware (for obvious reasons). In fact they probably have not decreased at all. Hardware costs have come down, and mainframes are now using enterprise storage devices instead of "mainframe" storage devices. What do you mean by "the future"? Most of us are in the business of providing solutions to customers right now, and sometimes DB2 for mainframe is the best solution. Right now. In the future, hardware platforms will tend to merge. Windows Servers, and UNIX servers are getting more powerful and more robust. Mainframes are getting much cheaper, physically smaller, and capable of running multiple OS's. IBM mainframes already run Linux instead of OS/390 if that is what you prefer.
Don't know where you're getting this information, but it's not accurate for DB2. Perhaps it is referring to mainframe hw ... not sure. But DB2 continues to grow on the mainframe every year. Larry Edelstein robert wrote: > Larry <Larry@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<pAcuc.64$DC1.81837@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>... > >>And why wouldn't Oracle's results be skewed by it's heritage on UNIX, >>and Microsoft's be skewed by its heritage on Windows? What does that >>prove? As long as you are growing on the relevant platforms (which IBM >>is), and as long as you maintain a significant overall market share ... >>that proves that you are going to be around as a company and more >>importantly, as a database company for the foreseeable future. This is >>what's most important about market share. Otherwise, I don't understand >>your point. It's like saying that because Nabisco has a higher overall >>market share in the cookie market ... and that this is skewed by them >>having the leading market share in Oreo sandwich cookies, you won't buy >>Keebler cookies. >> >>Larry Edelstein >> >>robert wrote: >> >> >>>"rkusenet" <rkusenet@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<2hmh03Fdir3uU1@uni-berlin.de>... >>> >>> >>>>http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_database_marketshare_1.html >>>> >>>>Interesting to see that database sales for windows is more than >>>>Unix. >>> >>> >>>what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps) >>>IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the >>>fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful >>>of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant >>>DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to >>>demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use >>>the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at >>>my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i >>>gather this is quite common. >>> >>>robert > > > growing??? there was a news report a couple of days ago that IBM's > MF business was about $3 (or $4) billion annually. and that 10 years > ago it was $12 billion. i didn't attempt to verify this, of course. > anyone is welcome to do so. but, on the face of it, DB2/MF is NOT the > future. > > robert