Re: Informix Directions

Mark D. Stock wrote in message <34DAE761.1AB24ABD@informix.com>... >Tim Schaefer wrote: >> Mark, I've had to snip because of the newserver I'm using, which complains if there is too much included from the previous post. Sorry! >So now you DO want Informix to act like a large corporate. :-) > They already *are* a large corporation. According to a recent article I saw Informix representing less than %5 of the market. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/01/20/BU64693.DTL Yet, I keep hearing lots of confusing messages coming out of Menlo. "We wanna be different." You *are* different. Get over it, and sell software like everyone else does. >> For example: >> >> 1. Developer-sensitive web-site. > >And user-sensitive. > >> 2. Developer-sensitive marketing, not managerial marketing. > >And user-sensitive. > Both your comments: If you take care of developers, like Microsoft does, you'll end up taking care of end-users. That's who developers work for. duh! >> 3. Sell from the bottom up, not the top down. > >You need both. > OK, maybe, but less of the top-down, and MORE of the bottom up. We've had to endure the past 4 years of uncertainty WAITING for Informix to pull their corporate head out. >> 4. Distribute the software where developers buy software, in >> retail outlets, web sites, and developer programs. > >Not retail outlets, same arguments as for not stocking hardware. > You might find it doesn't work in your neck of the woods, but here in the US it would work quite well. Ask Microsoft. >> 5. Leverage your "bestness" with people who understand it. > >> If Informix will simply pay attention to how Microsoft and Oracle >> sell software, they too will increase market share and mindshare. > >So...., you want Informix to act like a large corporate? > Large corporaTION. [...] >Well, Informix IS different, and there are only three players. ;-) > Not exactly, read the article I mentioned above. [...] >> Developers have certain expectations that will be met by Informix, >> or they will go elsewhere. The product renaming thang was a big >> distraction, and completely unnecessary. > >Not in the eyes of the user (and most developers I know). The product >renaming doesn't stop at the name. I think it's going to make our >marketing position easier and our technical stand point stronger. > Points well taken Mark, but in the long run maybe the new names will help, but not right now. It was completely unnecessary to diddle with this right now. A more simple approach would have been to simply enhance the engine tools for monitoring the engine, and supporting the engine on NT and UNIX. There's also this waiting game that ALL of us in the Informix community have had to go through, waiting for top Informix executives to pull their heads out of their asses and get with the program. Here we are damn near a year later on this Linux thing, and the crew at the top are still scratching and sniffing about it. Then we have to wait on Bob to get this renaming thing over with. Then we have to wait on something else. You tell ME what's up. And there are STILL promotions for stuff that don't really matter, to wit, Data Director for Java. This is a cool product, but should not be a big splash item. Or UWC. Without selling the engine above all, and building tools that manage the engine, *above-all*, it doesn't matter about these other products if their isn't any engine company to use them with. DDJ and UWC would not sell on their own merit. They take advantage of engine momentum. I want to see new engine performance analysis tools, and a competent IECC *FIRST* before I see DDJ or UWC. The engine monitoring tools as a whole are incomplete, and stunted because of the distractions and missteps of the recent past. Informix talks about being an engine company, but where are the priorities? I hear about XPS being the big gun for large operations, but this is it for engines. Or we hear about 1000 new 9.x sites. Whooopy! In the meantime, we wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait... [...] >> 2. Develop ENGINE tools and software to maintain the data base >> above any other priority, and forget about Win95 as a server >> platform. Win95 is over. > >Bob has already sorted that one. I don't think ANYONE ever considered >Win95 to be a server platform. x-| > Ub well, you might want to talk to the folks in Menlo on that one before being definite on your statements. Somebody lately thinks it's worth a shot. ( trying not to laugh too loud here ) >> 3. Market to developers FIRST, then management. Advertise clear, >> simple messages to developers, not managers. Forget about >> management, they only look at the pictures anyway. > >True and not true. Managers may only look at the pictures, but if they >like the picture they buy the product. Developers usually only get a >vote if they use their feet. The only area that developers can impact >on the sale of products is by not knowing them. Products will not sell >if there are no developers in the market. Other than that, you HAVE to >sell to management. > IF THERE ARE NO DEVELOPERS OR DBAs TO SUPPORT THE PRODUCT AFTER MANAGEMENT BUYS THE DAMN SOFTWARE, THEN MANAGEMENT WILL LOOK PRETTY STUPID. Sorry for caps on that one, but the concept seems to be hard to grasp for some people. :-) There has to be a support network of competent people to work on the software. If all these competent people move on to other products, then how does management support the software? They don't. They end up buying what they know can be supported. And they dump the software when there are no bodies to fill the support roles. [...] > >I don't think Informix has EVER truly had application tools as a >priority. Informix HAS a "damn good engine" as you put it. :-) > Look at the recent past with DDJ, UWC, and New Error. These distractions cost engine marketing momentum. Should they be scrapped? Who knows. But don't website them as great new products and STILL not come out with tools and tools-documentation for the engine, i.e. onstat. onstat is terribly undocumented, over-featured. onmonitor is still in 4GL, onperf is only available on UNIX, and very limited in what in can report. dbexport/dbimport cannot be run on NT without telnetting to the server. I have a little tools site. With a little effort I've produced a few tools. Many of my tools should have come from Informix, not me. So you tell me, where has the priority been? [...] >You're not the only customer Tim. You're not the only TYPE of customer >that buys Informix. They have to address ALL customers, and in the >process they may well concentrate on the majority. > uh huh... well, the message I'm hearing is that the typical customer is a moron who can't understand the technology. The problem is not the customer, myself included, it's the marketing. And marketing