Re: Major crackdown on Informix products/ports ?

Michael Segel wrote: > > > I think what you mean is that Informix say's one thing and then does what it says. > > Madison has a good point. Informix has neglected the high end market w.r.t. exploiting > > what they know best. They have the fastest DB in the market, and more effort should > > go into exploiting that. They are committed to providing Informix on NT and low/mid > > range systems, but are not intent to compete with People like Microsoft in terms of > > dominating the desktop. This would not be possible as they own the desktop and write > > the rules. The latest fiasco with Netscape has shown what Microsoft can do. There is no > > reason why they won't resort to giving away versions of SQL server if they can make a > > larger margin on some other area of the solutions market. > > > > Sigh.No, Bob is saying one thing in the press, Informix staff and pundits are saying the > opposite. How do you explain Informix PE aka the Win 95 port? That's my point. There is an Informix PE. There is continual development on Windows NT. There are continual improvements to the product at all levels. Informix has not deserted the non-high end platforms. > Microsoft is bundling the SQL server with NT. Where have you been? That's the point. > Re-read Bob's statements. You can do a search on Yahoo!. I should have taped his > comments on CNBC. What is bundled with NT is not what they are selling. Microsoft make a very large amount of money from SQL Server and they don't do it by 'bundling' it with their servers. They may bundle 'something' with servers, just like they hand out eval copies of stuff with no support. You can't compare the two products, neither technically, nor service associated. >> Bob says high end, non-comodity. > Pundits say SCO still on, NT has full UDO, and there's a win 95. > To me, that's the low end. You're starting to get the point. Informix has not deserted the low end market. They are putting more resource and effort into ensuring that the high end market capitalises on what they're already buying (i.e. DSA). > > : On that program, Joe K. asked him point blank about his strategy. > > : Bob F. then outlined that Informix was not going to compete in the *commodity* > > : database market but will compete in specialized segments like datawarehousing which > > > > I think the keyword there was *compete*, not commodity. > > No, the key word is commodity.Informix has competitors no matter where it goes. Too true. Competition is not a bad thing, and ultimately the customer wins out because of it. However, where the customer's don't win is when unfair 'competition' forces one of the parties out of the game. This in fact denies the end user the right to choose. I can't see that anyone could compete with Micro$oft if push came to shove. This is not about technology, its about market dominance and ensuring that customers have the technology on the platform of choice, is very different from deciding what the database of choice will be on a platform of choice. The customer chooses, and this is not always down to speed, or price. > BTW, Fastest? Doesn't always win the sale. Why is that? ;-) My mistake, I assumed you would be interested in a trivial reason behind a good database. The best technology is not always chosen. For example, I'd always chosen to buy Microsoft VC++ instead of Borland (Since version 1.0). I'd heard from *everyone* that Borland was the better product. However, I knew that invariably, VC++ would dominate and set the direction on the desktop. A lot of my choice came down to where I thought the technology would add value to my solutions, and how future proof it was. In the database case, the high end market can have these same values articulated. Not that this is not important to the low end market, but that these values have a higher bottom line impact on say a 50 million dollar investment. The low end user will either use or not use a product and price will tend to be the deciding factor. You can't beat free. If informix is to start practically giving the product away, yet have to maintain the quality of their support and service infrastructure, you can see that the business model starts to collapse. I would hate to see Informix perhaps posting the code to its (say DBDK) on the web so that customers started exploiting user defined data types. This would be good for the customer in the short term, and customers would stick with the informix back end (short term). But companies that charge a reasonable buck for their product are able to ensure that customers are happy in the long term. Unfortunnately I can't see that Netscape will have that kind of impact any more. Their move was one of desperation, and was forced upon them by trying to beat 'free'. > But what is a commodity database? What makes a database a > commodity database vs a non-commodity database. > > > : he felt that they [Informix] had an advantage over its competitors. Namely Oracle. > > : If you visit Informix's web site, Finocchio even re-itereates this message, which > > : is what the original post was about. > > > > Which is why you had another opportunity to read it again and perhaps understand it better. > > > Gee, I think that English must be your second language. ;-)I suggest you do that Yahoo! search. Actually English *is* one of my second languages. However, you seem to be more interested in English Syntax than English Semantics ;} > All the *sound bytes* are the same..So far to date, Bob has embarrassed himself by making > statements which are not clear and tend to confuse the public. I would agree that the statements have caused some confusion. I doubt whether he has embarrassed himself. > Any statement which is not intentionally meant to confuse the public is incorrect. I would think that any statement not intentionally meant to confuse the public yet does so, is simply that; 'a confusing statement', not 'incorrect'. An incorrect statement would surely have something to do with whether it was wrong or not, not with how it was perceived. > -Just a Shakesperean Fool ;-) Again you're quite close. In all seriousness though, I hope I haven't offended you but I've only taken an opportunity to show you that your statements which you feel are quite unambiguous have an alternative slant. The crux of my point, is that I don't believe that Informix have abandoned the low/mid end by placing more emphasis on the high end. Their bread and butter is the entire spectrum of the database market, but an emphasis on one is what Bob has decided is good for the company and the entire customer base. If you feel that Bob has in one sweeping statement decided to ignore the maority of Informix's clientelle, then let him know, or don't as you see fit and email him (or don't). Jon Machtynger