Re: IDS as a "legacy" system...
Not a technical support thread but a debate about IBM's marketing of Informix/IDS. Participants argue over why Informix has such low visibility outside a core user base: one view is that IBM deliberately keeps it 'stealth-marketed' so as not to dilute DB2 as the flagship product; others counter that IBM's sales force simply doesn't know IDS and therefore can't sell it, so market share erodes despite double-digit growth. Defenders note IDS has gained substantial post-acquisition features (Unicode, LBAC) and ongoing investment. Opinion piece only, with no resolution or agreement reached.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Fernando Nunes wrote: >> InDeep wrote: >> It _is_ conceivable that Informix _is_ being funding by several large >> customers, a handful, especially when those customers are already >> established. It is not far-fetched to believe that Walmart alone could >> fund Informix. The idea that IBM cannot tell us more about the success > > Jumping topic? Even assuming that big customers are "funding" Informix > what does that tell about the number of customers? Nothing. Specially > nothing about the ridiculous numbers mentioned here... And of course, > you said 100 as you could have said 10 or 10000. You obviously know that > their names will not pop up here on Usenet... > Assuming North America alone, excluding all other global markets, why is Informix an unknown quantity in 99% of the IT Market? Why is it kicked to the side or or not even mentioned? Is there something wrong with the product? Why is not Informix a household word? With the advent of the web Informix should be as ubiquitous as MySQL or Oracle. EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW ABOUT INFORMIX. But that's not the case now is it. And let's keep it real, you could really make money off of it. But you can't make money if you don't have a market. Where's the incentive? >> of Informix in the market should be troubling to you. As a developer, >> wouldn't you want to know how the market responds to a product? > > As an Informix user/fan I'm always happy to hear about good news. That > include new versions, customer success stories, new features, informix > integration in the "normal IBM processes", new course versions (covering > the latest versions and features), personal customer feedback, fun uses > for the product etc. C'mon if this were any other product out there, and the product was really good, people would really wonder why the product isn't being promoted to the extent that it should. I mean why would you push just Chevy when you have Cadillac too? What's wrong with the Cadillac, is there something we need to know? It just doesn't make sense, as if the whole of IBM has mysteriously gone stupid on product placement. I don't get it other than some kind of gas is being pumped into IBM employees, and somehow they are like people in a zombie movie or something. > And I've seen all of these. Not as much as I would like? Not as much as > you'd like? Not as much as YMG would like? More than DA would like? > Hopefully people will never be happy. That is a good sign. > WTF. > Of course to see all the above you have to really care and use the > product... This means reading about it, checking the versions, listen to > webcasts, follow some useful forums etc. > > And who will benefit from me caring about and using this product? Who will these magical entities be? Enlighten me, why are we to invest our time in Informix? Unless you have a real market with real opportunities, all the learning and personal time is worthless isn't it? Isn't it logical to assume that I'm going to get something in return for my time and energy spent on this product? If I'm a bit more capitalistic about it than you, please forgive me. Just tryin' ta make a living here! *<8o/ Sorry if my expectations are higher than yours.
"InDeep" <indeep@indeep.com> wrote in message news:h12yk.99$pb6.60@fe33.usenetserver.com... > Fernando Nunes wrote: > C'mon if this were any other product out there, and the product was > really good, people would really wonder why the product isn't being > promoted to the extent that it should. I mean why would you push just > Chevy when you have Cadillac too? What's wrong with the Cadillac, is > there something we need to know? >It just doesn't make sense The analogy is false. (I asssume that a Chevvy is a low-grade car and a Cadillac a luxury one?) In this case it would be easy for a single manufacturer to market both aggressively and simulataneously, with little overlap. But DBMSs are not market-segmented in this way; unless you want some special feature (RAC, a datablade), for most applications either will do the job. So for most functions DB2 or Informix will do the job. And IBM does not want to dilute the message of its flagship product, which is DB2. That is the reson why Informix is stealth-marketed. You might think that DB2 is the wrong horse to back, forever saddled as it is in the public's mind with its mainframe antecedents. I couldn't possibly comment. But that's the strategy - promote DB2 as the flagship product. Once you accept that this is the strategy, contrary to what you say above, everything else makes perfect sense.
On Sep 11, 12:29 am, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > Fernando Nunes wrote: > > Jumping topic? Even assuming that big customers are "funding" Informix > > what does that tell about the number of customers? Nothing. Specially > > nothing about the ridiculous numbers mentioned here... And of course, > > you said 100 as you could have said 10 or 10000. You obviously know that > > their names will not pop up here on Usenet... > Oh they could. They could easily pop up here. Mark Scranton knows a bunch of IDS customers (present and former customers), I know a bunch of Informix customers. (And Oracle customers too). I believe that we're beyond the time limits of our NDAs with IBM... Of course Mark can't really talk because his employer may not want him talking. Since I work for myself, I can talk, if I wanted to. ;-) But to ID's point, whether its 100, 1000, 10,000 the number is irrelevant. IBM is doing nothing to get IDS's name out there. Or rather I should say, what IBM has done (its a sekret) hasn't been effective. Just saying "wow, look, they keep adding and enhancing IDS with nifty new features..." is not enough. > Assuming North America alone, excluding all other global markets, why is > Informix an unknown quantity in 99% of the IT Market? Why is it kicked > to the side or or not even mentioned? Is there something wrong with the > product? Why is not Informix a household word? With the advent of the > web Informix should be as ubiquitous as MySQL or Oracle. EVERYBODY > SHOULD KNOW ABOUT INFORMIX. But that's not the case now is it. And > let's keep it real, you could really make money off of it. But you > can't make money if you don't have a market. Where's the incentive? > ID is talking about the Q factor. That is, how well is the brand recognized. If you were to go to the general population, you have a horrible Q number. Oracle has a much better Q number, however its much smaller than either AFLAC or IBM. Within the IT industry, IDS aka Informix still has a low Q number. If you mention IBM, the only database that comes to mind is DB2. (Since it was both the brand (pillar) and the product.) [Note: Brian Staff had some interesting comments on that...] So, the question is... "What can IBM do to get a better Q number" ? The answer is a lot of things... but its best to start with the basics. You can't sell a product you don't know. > >> of Informix in the market should be troubling to you. As a developer, > >> wouldn't you want to know how the market responds to a product? > > > As an Informix user/fan I'm always happy to hear about good news. That > > include new versions, customer success stories, new features, informix > > integration in the "normal IBM processes", new course versions (covering > > the latest versions and features), personal customer feedback, fun uses > > for the product etc. > Hearing about the good news of Informix is important. Its tough for IBM to balance the costs associated with a customer reference along with choosing which stories will have the most impact. But that's only part of the battle. A lot of IDS customers consider it their competitive advantage. So they are less willing to talk about the product. Beyond that, what solutions are being created using IDS? Can people talk about them? Outside of IBM centric publications, what stories are being published concerning IDS? These are all the questions that IBMers should know and be thinking about. No, not Serge or Fernando, but Cathy Elliot, Spang, Keesee, and let us not forget Alyse who's in charge of WW Sales. I think that's the point.
On Sep 11, 3:36 am, "Neil Truby" <neil.tr...@ardenta.com> wrote: > You might think that DB2 is the wrong horse to back, forever saddled as it > is in the public's mind with its mainframe antecedents. I couldn't possibly > comment. But that's the strategy - promote DB2 as the flagship product. > Once you accept that this is the strategy, contrary to what you say above, > everything else makes perfect sense. Neil, I agree with your statement and it makes sense. However it doesn't jibe with the message coming from IBM's IM senior management. Its as if they're merely telling the sheep what they want to hear. Under Janet, there were legal obligations to continue to maintain and support IDS. There were no obligations to promote it or convince partners to continue to develop ports for IDS. And there were no obligations to promote and sell IDS to net new customers. Under Janet, there was mention of the revamped "project arrowhead". Even after that failed, the underlying message was that IDS was going to go away. But now we have Ambush. He's the type of guy who isn't part of the "database wars". He doesn't care what IBM sells as long as it makes his pillar money. So IDS gets a bit of a reprieve. But IDS still has issues with positioning. IBM has yet to make and follow a positioning statement. Sales teams will still lead with DB2, because that the database that they know and can support. How many times does it have to be said. *You can not sell a product that you do not know.* IBM does not know IDS. IBM doesn't want to know IDS. But this message is lost because many of the "Informix faithful" see that the product is still being developed and enhanced and consider it as a good thing. IBM does not want to put skin in the game. Its sounds great that you're seeing "double digit growth" yr/yr, yet still see the overall market share shrink. Putting things in to perspective, IBM's competitors are gaining on them and taking away their market share. If you don't believe me, check out the industry analysts. IBM has an edge with IDS, however they're willing to squander it because IDS isn't DB2. Is it starting to sink in? I know I'm not the only one who sees this. Can you say "lip service"? Customers don't like that. But I guess IBM will continue to do this until certain people retire, or others get their "ticket punched" and move on to a different role within IBM. In fact the real irony is that as long as you meet your stated goals in your PBC, even if the end result is ineffective, you still get a passing mark. -G
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > Is it starting to sink in? > > > I'm not sure why you're picking a fight with Neil. He's an irritating twat, but he doesn't really have any say in what IBM does. :o) -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com
Ian Michael Gumby says... >But this message is lost because many of the "Informix faithful" see >that the product is still being developed and enhanced and consider it >as a good thing. enhanced???? it is significantly enhanced. Were would Informix be if IBM did not purchase it in 2001. Would it have the resources to enhance it like the way IBM did.
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > These are all the questions that IBMers should know and be thinking > about. No, not Serge or Fernando, but Cathy Elliot, Spang, Keesee, and > let us not forget Alyse who's in charge of WW Sales. > > I think that's the point. > Oh... finally (or again) we have a point. If you look a bit, I don't usually post against "points". It's your view, based on what you know, and how you feel... I usually pick much more specific statements like "it doesn't have even 100 customers" or "there is no available software for developers" or "every IT specialist was forced to get DB2 certification". As I said, the feeling that IBM is not doing enough is a positive attitude. It can make people do better and more. One thing I find a bit funny is that sometimes we read here things like if Informix was ever a market leader... It leads in many aspects and many periods, but it was never "bigger" than Oracle... Someone already mentioned that LOT's of product improvements were made after acquisition... And I can not stress this enough... Not only these improvements were made, but I also believe more is planned. And I keep seeing much more initiatives than before. So, please keep telling about "points" and let's avoid other fait-divers which just make us waste time... Regards, -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently...
> From: dcruncher4@aim.com> Subject: Re: IDS as a "legacy" system...> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:39 -0700> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > Ian Michael Gumby says...> > >But this message is lost because many of the "Informix faithful" see> >that the product is still being developed and enhanced and consider it> >as a good thing.> > enhanced???? it is significantly enhanced.> Thank you for proving my point. > Were would Informix be if IBM did not purchase it in 2001.> Would it have the resources to enhance it like the way IBM> did.> Yes. Although it would have taken more effort to get Unicode in to IDS. (So J. Roy says) _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > From: dcruncher4@aim.com > > Subject: Re: IDS as a "legacy" system... > > Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:39 -0700 > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > Ian Michael Gumby says... > > > > >But this message is lost because many of the "Informix faithful" see > > >that the product is still being developed and enhanced and consider it > > >as a good thing. > > > > enhanced???? it is significantly enhanced. > > > Thank you for proving my point. > > > Were would Informix be if IBM did not purchase it in 2001. > > Would it have the resources to enhance it like the way IBM > > did. > > > Yes. Although it would have taken more effort to get Unicode in to IDS. > (So J. Roy says) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part > of your life. See Now > <http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/>; And LBAC -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently...
Sigh. It doesn't matter. The point is that IDS would have been enhanced and would have taken a different direction. IDS would have been part of a successfull arrow head project and the priorities of the enhancements would have been different. (Its a different company with different management direction.) IDS would also have had more success in the financial community because of the Financial Foundation datablade(s). (This was pretty much killed by Janet and her vision of DB2 first.) Actually if you think about a project arrowhead being completed properly (And it would have been), IDS would be in a better position to be integrated in to grid computing and cloud computing schemes. Again, this is a moot point. IBM can't sell IDS. No matter how many enhancements you make, if your primary sales force can't sell it, then you're going to continue to lose marketshare over time. Qtr/Qtr and Yr/Yr growth has to be put in to perspective. Even if you see double digit growth, if the market grows faster, you're going to see an overall loss of market share. > From: domusonline@gmail.com> Subject: Re: IDS as a "legacy" system...> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:58:32 +0100> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > Ian Michael Gumby wrote:> > > > > > > From: dcruncher4@aim.com> > > Subject: Re: IDS as a "legacy" system...> > > Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:39 -0700> > > To: informix-list@iiug.org> > >> > > Ian Michael Gumby says...> > >> > > >But this message is lost because many of the "Informix faithful" see> > > >that the product is still being developed and enhanced and consider it> > > >as a good thing.> > >> > > enhanced???? it is significantly enhanced.> > >> > Thank you for proving my point.> > > > > Were would Informix be if IBM did not purchase it in 2001.> > > Would it have the resources to enhance it like the way IBM> > > did.> > >> > Yes. Although it would have taken more effort to get Unicode in to IDS. > > (So J. Roy says)> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part > > of your life. See Now > > <http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/>>; > And LBAC> > -- > Fernando Nunes> Portugal> > http://informix-technology.blogspot.com>; My email works... but I don't check it frequently...> _______________________________________________> Informix-list mailing list> Informix-list@iiug.org> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows Mobile brings your life together—at home, work, or on the go. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/