Re: Major crackdown on Informix products/ports ?

AI Group External User 2 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? 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. 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. > : 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. BTW, Fastest? Doesn't always win the sale. Why is that? ;-) 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. [SNIP] > Bob's failing was that his statement was vague, not that it was incorrect. However, > when you have an opportunity for a sound bite, it's important to get the majority > of the information in. Qualifying every word for the pedants in the audience could > take a bit too long. > > Jon Machtynger 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. Any statement which is not intentionally meant to confuse the public is incorrect. Think About it. -Just a Shakesperean Fool ;-)