Re: Wednesday, bloody Wednesday ..

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > Yes the database market is growing faster than IDS. Keep in mind that > we're playing a numbers game here. What are your numbers? > The growth rate is a bit harder to track because not all of the > databases are being tracked back to sales. JavaDB is being shipped out > with Sun's tools and JDKs. (Sun has a nice netbeans combo bundle of > the IDE, glassfish, javaDB and 1.6 JDK) So while Sun can track the > downloads of JavaDB/Derby/Cloudscape, they can't really track > deployment... (Note: RIP Cloudscape). Well, right. Let's fucking pay attention to the MONETIZED database market here. There's no fucking point in comparing people who pay real money for something and people who don't. There's also no point in wondering what is happening to all those deployments. As far as businesses that want to make money are concerned, they simply don't exist. Once the inevitable slow-down in open source development comes (because people would rather eat than be able to point at an Apache module they wrote) and people start trying to make real money out of it, the closed and open source sales models will converge, and I have a fiver here that says that it will be much closer to the current closed source sales model than the open source sales model. At some point, there's going to be a big shakeup of the open source market and it's going to become as relevant as the shareware market is today. And then all those guys who have deployed on PostgreSQL or MySQL or JavaDB are going to be sitting there thinking: we're at end-of-life with this system. When we build the replacement, will we pay Oracle / IBM / Microsoft money to three blokes in an apartment in Hoboken, or will we pay that money to people who have a massive infrastructure? > Then you have MySQL. Again, you can only track those companies that > actually pay the license fees which is going to be a fraction of the > copies out there in production. And so, does it matter? Do you think if IBM got off its arse and started selling Informix, people who were happy with MySQL for free would suddenly switch over? > But I digress. > The point of this post was that IBM isn't hitting on all cylinders and > that even with no/limited marketing and sales support from IBM, its > still pulling in decent results. One has to ask... IF IBM WERE TO > ACTUALLY SUPPORT AND ACTIVELY SELL IDS, WHAT WOULD THEIR NUMBERS LOOK > LIKE? According to the rumours, maybe this year we'll find out. But since they never break the numbers out, how will we know? > Sorry to 'shout' but I wanted to be clear about the question. Yes, I > am implying that if IBM IM sales/marketing were to actually try to > sell IDS and not rely on the BPs in the SMB world, what would those > numbers look like? My guess is that you'd see a ramp up and within 3 > yrs, there would be a serious increase in growth rates. Yeah, whatever. Because, of course, the growth rates for IDS are so bloody feeble now. > Of course why would IBM want to do the heavy lifting when they make > money without having to do it ? > (Its rhetorical. Can you say cross sell / up sell?) :-) To which I reply: how any traditional Informix users actually want the stuff you can upsell or cross-sell? > But hey! Why would IBM listen to some guy who posts under a fictitious > name? Doesn't sound like they'd listen to you any more than they did under your real name. ;o) -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

On Jan 22, 9:49 am, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > Yes the database market is growing faster than IDS. Keep in mind that > > we're playing a numbers game here. > > What are your numbers? > X and Y. The numbers aren't relevant. We're talking about percentages and they have to be used in context. If IDS grows at 25% and the market is growing at %15, how is it that IDS can actually lose market share? (IDS is a small percentage of the overall market.) > > The growth rate is a bit harder to track because not all of the > > databases are being tracked back to sales. JavaDB is being shipped out > > with Sun's tools and JDKs. (Sun has a nice netbeans combo bundle of > > the IDE, glassfish, javaDB and 1.6 JDK)  So while Sun can track the > > downloads of JavaDB/Derby/Cloudscape, they can't really track > > deployment... (Note: RIP Cloudscape). > > Well, right. Let's fucking pay attention to the MONETIZED database > market here. There's no fucking point in comparing people who pay real > money for something and people who don't. There's also no point in > wondering what is happening to all those deployments. As far as > businesses that want to make money are concerned, they simply don't exist. > That's not the point. The point is that the market for databases is growing at a decent clip. The more data out there, the more applications out there, the more need for a relational engine to manage the data. I'm seeing people try and use Derby in situations where Derby can't perform. (Derby/JavaDB doesn't scale). I'm seeing people trying to use SQLServer where it doesn't scale. Microsoft's answer is to cluster and hope that Moore's law continues to work in their favor. If the market doesn't know that IDS exists, do you think that it will be considered as an option? Yeah, there's a lot of people trying to make 'freebie' or lower cost databases work. But when they don't work as well, the cost disadvantage of IDS goes away. Consider SaaS apps. If they are data centric then you're going to want a database that can handle a load and decent ER. So you have a sunk cost. Scalability is an issue when you consider your co-location costs. The more users you can fit on your server, the better your cost margins per transaction are. Think Saas, think cloud. There's more to this... but you get the idea. People do start with the lowest upfront cost option and using an MVC paradigm, your persistence data layer is abstracted enough that you can swap database engines. Again, if you don't know IDS and its strengths, IDS *is* *not* *going* *to* *be* *an* *option*. > According to the rumours, maybe this year we'll find out. But since they > never break the numbers out, how will we know? > Well, that's funny that you would say that. We don't know the numbers. But you can bet that the IM execs know the numbers. The product managers and marketing managers know the numbers. The question is a bit rhetorical. It was meant more for Jerry Keesee and gang. Its funny that you say 'maybe this year we'll find out...'. That's been the mantra from IBM IM execs for the past 3 years. I guess the magic number for IBM is 3, meaning it takes 3 years for IBM to catch on to market changes and for them to change course. Too bad we're sitting in a market where they need to be a tad more agile. No offense IBM, but the big 3 in Detroit can take a car from concept to production in less time. > Yeah, whatever. Because, of course, the growth rates for IDS are so > bloody feeble now. > Ok... So lets look at it this way. Suppose IDS was growing at a nice 25% clip. Everyone's happy. Now what happens if that growth rate could be 50% or higher? Now how does that 25% growth rate look? Thats the point. You can be fat dumb and happy, but you're leaving money on the table and at the same time your competitors are gaining a foothold in customers that could have been yours. More to the point, we're talking about IBM SWG. Cross-sell / Up-sell is very important. Just ask Steve Mills. So if you lose an IDS customer, you're limiting your downstream potential. Every customer counts. Considering the history and the continuing lack of sales support, the 'rumored' double digit growth is incredible. But think of what sort of growth rate you'd have if there was sales and marketing support. NOTE: I'm not talking about IBM having to put more skin in the game but to better utilize the resources that they have at hand. In fact, I'd argue that IBM would be better off with a DB2 on Z and I, with IDS on LUW strategy.(Continued support of existing DB2 LUW customers of course...) > > Of course why would IBM want to do the heavy lifting when they make > > money without having to do it ? > > (Its rhetorical. Can you say cross sell / up sell?) :-) > > To which I reply: how any traditional Informix users actually want the > stuff you can upsell or cross-sell? > Ah quite a bit actually. While you can run a web service from your engine, you'd probably want to run an app server. So you can go with Apache, (Tomcat/Glassfish/ JBoss) combo, BEA's Weblogic (Oracle now right?), or Websphere. So that would be the cross sell. If you want to stay in the IM pillar, you have Ass-n-tail's Datastage ETL, a possible in-memory database and of course premiere services. (Ok so premium support is actually sold cross pillar now. But its still supported by each pillar.) Oh and for those Ascential folks, I'm sorry, I just love saying 'ass-n-tail'. ;-) > > But hey! Why would IBM listen to some guy who posts under a fictitious > > name? > > Doesn't sound like they'd listen to you any more than they did under > your real name. ;o) > Funny, the same was said of the former CEOs of Informix. Where are they today? One would hope that some of the IBMers would have learned from their predecessors' mistakes. ;-) :-P (And yes, I'm definitely going to hell for that dig!)

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Jan 22, 9:49 am, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> >>> Yes the database market is growing faster than IDS. Keep in mind that >>> we're playing a numbers game here. >> What are your numbers? >> > X and Y. The numbers aren't relevant. We're talking about percentages > and they have to be used in context. > If IDS grows at 25% and the market is growing at %15, how is it that > IDS can actually lose market share? > (IDS is a small percentage of the overall market.) It's not losing market share... ??? > That's not the point. The point is that the market for databases is > growing at a decent clip. > The more data out there, the more applications out there, the more > need for a relational engine to manage the data. > I'm seeing people try and use Derby in situations where Derby can't > perform. (Derby/JavaDB doesn't scale). > I'm seeing people trying to use SQLServer where it doesn't scale. > Microsoft's answer is to cluster and hope that Moore's law continues > to work in their favor. And? > If the market doesn't know that IDS exists, do you think that it will > be considered as an option? > > Yeah, there's a lot of people trying to make 'freebie' or lower cost > databases work. But when they don't work as well, the cost > disadvantage of IDS goes away. Consider SaaS apps. If they are data > centric then you're going to want a database that can handle a load > and decent ER. So you have a sunk cost. Scalability is an issue when > you consider your co-location costs. The more users you can fit on > your server, the better your cost margins per transaction are. Think > Saas, think cloud. There's more to this... but you get the idea. > People do start with the lowest upfront cost option and using an MVC > paradigm, your persistence data layer is abstracted enough that you > can swap database engines. Again, if you don't know IDS and its > strengths, IDS *is* *not* *going* *to* *be* *an* *option*. > >> Yeah, whatever. Because, of course, the growth rates for IDS are so >> bloody feeble now. > > Ok... > > So lets look at it this way. Suppose IDS was growing at a nice 25% > clip. Everyone's happy. > Now what happens if that growth rate could be 50% or higher? Now how > does that 25% growth rate look? > Thats the point. You can be fat dumb and happy, but you're leaving > money on the table and at the same time your competitors are gaining a > foothold in customers that could have been yours. Or you could be looking at a situation where IBM's flagship database looks like a monstrous pile of cunt by comparison. > More to the point, we're talking about IBM SWG. Cross-sell / Up-sell > is very important. Just ask Steve Mills. So if you lose an IDS > customer, you're limiting your downstream potential. Every customer > counts. > > Considering the history and the continuing lack of sales support, the > 'rumored' double digit growth is incredible. But think of what sort of > growth rate you'd have if there was sales and marketing support. NOTE: > I'm not talking about IBM having to put more skin in the game but to > better utilize the resources that they have at hand. In fact, I'd > argue that IBM would be better off with a DB2 on Z and I, with IDS on > LUW strategy.(Continued support of existing DB2 LUW customers of > course...) But there are a lot of DB2 LUW customers who would be exceptionally pissed off at that strategy. > While you can run a web service from your engine, you'd probably want > to run an app server. So you can go with Apache, (Tomcat/Glassfish/ > JBoss) combo, BEA's Weblogic (Oracle now right?), or Websphere. So > that would be the cross sell. You assume a lot. -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> What are your numbers? >> > X and Y. The numbers aren't relevant. The numbers are very relevant. Here are IDC's In 2002, IBM had 31.6% of the market, with rev of $4,766.6 In 2003, IBM had 31.0% of the market, with rev of $5,045.6. IDC restated IBMs 2002 number to $4,741.4 In 2004, IBM had 30.6% of the market, with rev of $4,593.5. IDC restated IBMs 2003 number to $4,253.2 In 2005, IBM had 21.4% of the market, with a rev of $3,113.0. IDC restated IBMs 2004 number to $2,923.0, and the 2003 number to $2,825.0, effectively taking $1.6 billion out of the market. This was done on advice from IBM In 2006, IBM had 21.2% of the market, with a rev of $3,483. IDC did not restate previous years numbers In 2007, IBM had 21.0% of the market, with a rev of $3,953. IDC did not restate previous years numbers Gartner's numbers for the same years are not comparable, as they changed from New License to New License, Maintenance and Subscription

Mark Townsend wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > >>> What are your numbers? >>> >> X and Y. The numbers aren't relevant. > > The numbers are very relevant. Here are IDC's > > In 2002, IBM had 31.6% of the market, with rev of $4,766.6 > > In 2003, IBM had 31.0% of the market, with rev of $5,045.6. IDC restated > IBMs 2002 number to $4,741.4 > > In 2004, IBM had 30.6% of the market, with rev of $4,593.5. IDC restated > IBMs 2003 number to $4,253.2 > > In 2005, IBM had 21.4% of the market, with a rev of $3,113.0. IDC > restated IBMs 2004 number to $2,923.0, and the 2003 number to $2,825.0, > effectively taking $1.6 billion out of the market. This was done on > advice from IBM > > In 2006, IBM had 21.2% of the market, with a rev of $3,483. IDC did not > restate previous years numbers > > In 2007, IBM had 21.0% of the market, with a rev of $3,953. IDC did not > restate previous years numbers > > Gartner's numbers for the same years are not comparable, as they changed > from New License to New License, Maintenance and Subscription > There are several problems with these statistics: For example it is unclear what is being counted to begin with. E.g things that are tossed into the database product by one vendor may or may not be by the other. The line between DBMS, tools and middleware can get blurred easily. Secondly IBM database products such as DB2 for LUW are embedded in somewhere in the order of 150 IBM products from Tivoli, over Rational to Websphere. So just like there is a dark matter of mySQL, there is also a dark matter of DB2 for LUW (and likely IDS). We did some back-of-the-napkin computations a while back and figured if each of these deployments would only be credited for a DB2 Express license DB2 for LUW would nearly triple in revenue. Uninteresting for the IBM company of course since $$ are $$. Think of it this way: If Oracle apps, Collaboration Suite (does that still exist?) etc. Would include the DBMS the DBMS revenue would shrink and the app revenue would rise. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

> There are several problems with these statistics: > For example it is unclear what is being counted to begin with. E.g > things that are tossed into the database product by one vendor may or > may not be by the other. Actually, IDC are pretty damn clear about what they count, and document it in great detail in their reports. For example, they do not include database management tools in these numbers (much to my chagrin) > Secondly IBM database products such as DB2 for LUW are embedded in > somewhere in the order of 150 IBM products from Tivoli, over Rational to > Websphere. So just like there is a dark matter of mySQL, there is also a > dark matter of DB2 for LUW (and likely IDS). > We did some back-of-the-napkin computations a while back and figured if > each of these deployments would only be credited for a DB2 Express > license DB2 for LUW would nearly triple in revenue. > Uninteresting for the IBM company of course since $$ are $$. See Obnoxio's comments on this ... > Think of it this way: If Oracle apps, Collaboration Suite (does that > still exist?) etc. Would include the DBMS the DBMS revenue would shrink > and the app revenue would rise. We are pretty clear on when additional DBMS licenses are required with Apps, over and above what is provided as part of the Apps sale. A quick check of the published Apps license will suffice. I would presume that IDC are aware of this when they come to count the Oracle revenue.

On Jan 22, 3:40 pm, Mark Townsend <markbtowns...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > >> What are your numbers? > > > X and Y. The numbers aren't relevant. > > The numbers are very relevant. Here are IDC's > > In 2002, IBM had 31.6% of the market, with rev of $4,766.6 > > In 2003, IBM had 31.0% of the market, with rev of $5,045.6. IDC restated > IBMs 2002 number to $4,741.4 > > In 2004, IBM had 30.6% of the market, with rev of $4,593.5. IDC restated > IBMs 2003 number to $4,253.2 > > In 2005, IBM had 21.4% of the market, with a rev of $3,113.0. IDC > restated IBMs 2004 number to $2,923.0, and the 2003 number to $2,825.0, > effectively taking $1.6 billion out of the market. This was done on > advice from IBM > > In 2006, IBM had 21.2% of the market, with a rev of $3,483. IDC did not > restate previous years numbers > > In 2007, IBM had 21.0% of the market, with a rev of $3,953. IDC did not > restate previous years numbers > > Gartner's numbers for the same years are not comparable, as they changed > from New License to New License, Maintenance and Subscription Thanks for the numbers Mark. To answer OTC's question... you can see that IBM's market share as a percentage of the total market is actually decreasing by the estimates provided from IDC. Yet, IBM's numbers for IM are growing. But Mark, the numbers are not relevant and are misleading. They are just estimates and they cloud the issue. We don't know IBM's breakdown and we have only heard rumors that IDS has continually been growing double digits yr/yr and qtr/qtr. So we can only assign some variable X. My point is that while X may look good and be impressive... were IBM to actually do some marketing and had an educated sales force, that number could be Y where Y > X. The difference between Y and X represents money that IBM is leaving on the table and that each latent opportunity lost represents $$$ that could have been made from cross- sell/up-sell opportunities. Thats the message that should be made to Steve Mills and Ambush. There is no excuse. Working smarter and making small investments in to marketing and PR will pay off. The IIUG is probably the best investment IBM has made. In the DB2 world, you don't have an organization like the IIUG where they are volunteering to do the heavy lifting for you. IDUG is worthless in that respect. Its a for profit machine and its not a community effort.

On Jan 22, 4:02 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Secondly IBM database products such as DB2 for LUW are embedded in > somewhere in the order of 150 IBM products from Tivoli, over Rational to > Websphere. So just like there is a dark matter of mySQL, there is also a > dark matter of DB2 for LUW (and likely IDS). > We did some back-of-the-napkin computations a while back and figured if > each of these deployments would only be credited for a DB2 Express > license DB2 for LUW would nearly triple in revenue. > Uninteresting for the IBM company of course since $$ are $$. > Thats funny Serge. We're not counting the OEM units of IDS either. How many units of IDS were shipped by Moto, Cisco, GE Medical, Siemens ... ?

Mark Townsend wrote: > >> There are several problems with these statistics: >> For example it is unclear what is being counted to begin with. E.g >> things that are tossed into the database product by one vendor may or >> may not be by the other. > > Actually, IDC are pretty damn clear about what they count, and document > it in great detail in their reports. But are the readers, who just look at the one numbe, clear about what it means? that was my point. This thread, in the end isn't about $$ accounted. It's about some folks musing about the demise or success of products based on some ones bean counting. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >>>>>> (and likely IDS) <<<< > Thats funny Serge. > We're not counting the OEM units of IDS either. > How many units of IDS were shipped by Moto, Cisco, GE Medical, > Siemens ... ? Hello?? Same team!!! Friends like you, who needs enemies... Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

> From: srielau@ca.ibm.com > Subject: Re: Wednesday, bloody Wednesday .. > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:32:36 -0500 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > >>>>>> (and likely IDS) <<<< > > Thats funny Serge. > > We're not counting the OEM units of IDS either. > > How many units of IDS were shipped by Moto, Cisco, GE Medical, > > Siemens ... ? > Hello?? Same team!!! Friends like you, who needs enemies... > Thats funny! You're trying to defend IBM's numbers. I'm not. Now Serge, stay focused. The issue is that regardless of what that number is, its smaller than what that number could be if IBM IM had some marketing and sales umph behind it. Its not a question of spending mega bucks but rather working smarter and making key focused efforts. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009

Mark, No the numbers are not important. It doesn't matter what IDC estimates. What does matter is that the market is growing and that even though IDS is growing a remarkable rate, its not gaining ground. Lets face it. You're the competitive wonk at Oracle. You really have to admit that considering the lack of support from IBM in terms of sales force activity and marketing, having sustained growth is rather incredible. Thats the real issue. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but that IDS numbers are a fraction of what they could be if IBM's IM had put some muscle behind it. I'm not talking about the product and the development team but I am talking about the commitment from S&D and the pillar sales team. > From: markbtownsend@sbcglobal.net > Subject: Re: Wednesday, bloody Wednesday .. > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:40:36 -0800 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > >> What are your numbers? > >> > > X and Y. The numbers aren't relevant. > > The numbers are very relevant. Here are IDC's > > In 2002, IBM had 31.6% of the market, with rev of $4,766.6 > > In 2003, IBM had 31.0% of the market, with rev of $5,045.6. IDC restated > IBMs 2002 number to $4,741.4 > > In 2004, IBM had 30.6% of the market, with rev of $4,593.5. IDC restated > IBMs 2003 number to $4,253.2 > > In 2005, IBM had 21.4% of the market, with a rev of $3,113.0. IDC > restated IBMs 2004 number to $2,923.0, and the 2003 number to $2,825.0, > effectively taking $1.6 billion out of the market. This was done on > advice from IBM > > In 2006, IBM had 21.2% of the market, with a rev of $3,483. IDC did not > restate previous years numbers > > In 2007, IBM had 21.0% of the market, with a rev of $3,953. IDC did not > restate previous years numbers > > Gartner's numbers for the same years are not comparable, as they changed > from New License to New License, Maintenance and Subscription > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks_012009

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > The issue is that regardless of what that number is, its smaller than > what that number could be if IBM IM had some marketing and sales umph > behind it. You're preaching to the choir. That's why the (re)elevation of both DB2 and Informix as brands has been so important. Maybe now I don't have to design Mark's wardrobe on the side anymore. :-) Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

On Jan 22, 8:53 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > You're preaching to the choir. That's why the (re)elevation of both DB2 > and Informix as brands has been so important. > Maybe now I don't have to design Mark's wardrobe on the side anymore. > :-) Huh? Rebranding? Sure, DB2 as the 'go to' database on the mainframe and IDS as the 'go to' database on LUW. I'm sure that once the DB2 LUW users start using IDS, they'll feel like a huge weight was lifted off their shoulders. Then all that XPS code can be merged in to IDS. Naw, who am I kidding. IBMers are in shock and are willing to promise anything, but somehow any implementation gets bogged down. Case in point. How many IM IT specialists are there that are going to get certified in IDS this year, that don't have any IDS certifications. Maybe more to the point. What's SWG's S&D team going to look like?

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Jan 22, 8:53 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > >> You're preaching to the choir. That's why the (re)elevation of both DB2 >> and Informix as brands has been so important. >> Maybe now I don't have to design Mark's wardrobe on the side anymore. >> :-) > > Huh? > Rebranding? <end thread (as far as I am concerned)> -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

On Jan 22, 11:02 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Mark Townsend wrote: > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > >>> What are your numbers? > > >> X and Y. The numbers aren't relevant. > > > The numbers are very relevant. Here are IDC's > > > In 2002, IBM had 31.6% of the market, with rev of $4,766.6 > > > In 2003, IBM had 31.0% of the market, with rev of $5,045.6. IDC restated > > IBMs 2002 number to $4,741.4 > > > In 2004, IBM had 30.6% of the market, with rev of $4,593.5. IDC restated > > IBMs 2003 number to $4,253.2 > > > In 2005, IBM had 21.4% of the market, with a rev of $3,113.0. IDC > > restated IBMs 2004 number to $2,923.0, and the 2003 number to $2,825.0, > > effectively taking $1.6 billion out of the market. This was done on > > advice from IBM > > > In 2006, IBM had 21.2% of the market, with a rev of $3,483. IDC did not > > restate previous years numbers > > > In 2007, IBM had 21.0% of the market, with a rev of $3,953. IDC did not > > restate previous years numbers > > > Gartner's numbers for the same years are not comparable, as they changed > > from New License to New License, Maintenance and Subscription > > There are several problems with these statistics: > For example it is unclear what is being counted to begin with.  E.g > things that are tossed into the database product by one vendor may or > may not be by the other. The line between DBMS, tools and middleware can > get blurred easily. > Secondly IBM database products such as DB2 for LUW are embedded in > somewhere in the order of 150 IBM products from Tivoli, over Rational to > Websphere. So just like there is a dark matter of mySQL, there is also a > dark matter of DB2 for LUW (and likely IDS). > We did some back-of-the-napkin computations a while back and figured if > each of these deployments would only be credited for a DB2 Express > license DB2 for LUW would nearly triple in revenue. > Uninteresting for the IBM company of course since $$ are $$. > > Think of it this way: If Oracle apps, Collaboration Suite (does that > still exist?) etc. Would include the DBMS the DBMS revenue would shrink > and the app revenue would rise. > > Cheers > Serge > -- > Serge Rielau > DB2 Solutions Development > IBM Toronto Lab We shouldn't doubt these numbers. There might be some inaccuracy but the overall trend is visible. IBM is not really increasing it's marketshare in the DBMS market which is probably not the fault of IDS. This is the consequence of an inefficient non- product related marketing strategy that has currently found it's peak level in the absurd "Smarter Planet" campaign. Many of us have again and again advised IBM that more product-specific marketing strategy is needed. It has been simply ignored. Instead we have been consecutively told that things will improve. From my point of view almost nothing has really improved during the last 3 years and I like many of my colleagues are loosing our patience: a) still no clear positioning of DB2 and IDS While IBM tells the Informix people that IDS is the data server of choice for OLTP, it still performs and publishes OLTP benchmarks with DB2 (LUW). Outside of the Informix world, IBM tells a different story: Take DB2 LUW for everything ! If this fails, which is often the case in environments where database clustering, high availability and replication are key factors, IBM sales might show "Cinderella" (IDS) to the customer before the deal is completely lost. However this tactic doesn't make IBM trustworthy. Customers expect from my IBM a well-funded advice about which IBM product will meet their requirements best. Unfortunately IBM isn't able to do that because of b) b) missing education/certificaton of IBM technical sales specialists on IDS As Mike pointed out several times in the past: There is a GREAT discrepancy in the number of DB2 and IDS certified IT specialists. Allmost all of the heritage Informixer's have been certified on DB2, but not the other way round. And Mike numbers aren't that wrong, I see exactly the same picture here in Germany as well as in the UK. This lack of education results in wrong recommendations to the customer and probably lost deals. How can IBM sales recommend the right product depending on the customer needs if they don't know their own portfolio of data servers ? This is a point that needs to be fixed immediately by the management ! I already pointed that out to IBM management at the IIUG conference last year. "Yes, we know that and we will work on this..." It seems just like another lip service. c) IBM sponsored academic initiatives for DB2, but not for IDS It is obvious that IBM has at least one dedicated employee which job is to travel around the universities worldwide and promote/teach DB2 as already pointed out several times (see http://www.informix-zone.com/node/569). I wonder why this guy can't promote IDS too during his world tours ? Ok, he like any other heritage IBMer, never got certified on IDS (:- But there are many smart Informix people inside IBM that could do the same job for IDS. So it is just a matter of investment from IBM to the same for IDS as they do for DB2. There are many other issues that are suboptimal and need to get improved like the IBM (Informix) website, the lack of Informix specific advertising materials (like cups, pencils, caps, t-shirts...), the still sluggish integration of IDS with other IBM products and and.... The new "branding" - funnily enough nobody outside of IBM heard about that - might be a step in the right direction. But measured on the agility and cleverness of the IBM marketing machine in the past, I'm not really confident that we see a real change. Maybe just another flicker of hope that will probably emerge as an empty promise (:- - no education and certification of the IBM

> - no education and certification of the IBM oops, just forgot the last sentence, it was only a reminder will writing the text :-)

On Jan 23, 6:24 am, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > On Jan 22, 8:53 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > > >> You're preaching to the choir. That's why the (re)elevation of both DB2 > >> and Informix as brands has been so important. > >> Maybe now I don't have to design Mark's wardrobe on the side anymore. > >> :-) > > > Huh? > > Rebranding? > > <end thread (as far as I am concerned)> > Serge, If you mean that IM is now considering IDS and DB2 as brands and not products, that idea was given to them over 2 years ago. And reiterated again. The concept was to get around IBM's marketing rules that say you can market a brand but not an individual product. IDS would be a brand if you consider IDS, and the IDS datablade libraries. Same for DB2 since you have DB2, DB2 CM. (Not to mention the different releases like express, through enterprise edition. Note that the names have changed with each release.. But again this is a moot point and a no brainer. If IBM Unix boxes can market X and P separately then they should be able to market the 'brand' IDS and DB2. (Lets be fair, as ugly a pig DB2 is, you still need some lipstick. ;-) Again this is getting way off topic. I'm still waiting to hear what people have found out about this resource action and if it has hurt IM.