SPAM

In article <mailman.1608.1219847141.20610.informix-list@iiug.org>, Ian Michael Gumby says... > > >Indeep=2C >The answer is a bit more complex and I'll respond later tonight. >-G > >> From: indeep@indeep.com >> Subject: Re: SIS: Talk about a shift in partners... >> Date: Wed=2C 27 Aug 2008 07:16:41 -0700 >> To: informix-list@iiug.org >>=20 >> Gumbi=2C >>=20 >> In the global on-line market=2C everything sells. IBM knows this=2C and >> even the dolts on Informix's marketing staff know this. They know >> they are getting sales=2C but it is clear that they want to go through >> the VAR channel. This is where I think and insist that they have really >> missed web 2.0=2C which is a much larger market than just pushing product >> to VARs. If you put it out there=2C it will sell=2C this is the mantra o= >f >> the long tail=2C however=2C what I think IBM has failed to realize is tha= >t >> IDS and DB2 are on a combined or merged shopping list=2C instead of just >> the IBM list. IDS and DB2 are on the same shopping list as Oracle and >> MySQL=2C this is where I think the problem lies. Most of the hands-on >> developers out there will pay little effort to becoming a channel >> partner=2C especially if they have to pay for it=2C and the same is true >> about the databases they choose to work with. This is why if you're >> going to charge money for a program that it fits in line with what >> people are willing to pay--especially for a product that is essentially >> an emerging market. Informix has basically to start over from scratch=2C >> since the Informix market was basically ruined. Now all those >> 20-somethings out there that are looking at products are going to go for >> the easy=2C cheap products. The colleges and schools are not going to pa= >y >> for big $$$ items to teach in schools either=2C despite there being >> educational discounts. Developers are smarter than that anyway and are >> going to hunt down real product that equates to real work and real >> money. Until IBM gets this concept they will continue to push into top >> tier markets and miss the biggest market of all=2C web 2.0. >>=20 >> -ID- >>=20 >>=20 >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> > On Aug 26=2C 10:41 pm=2C InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: >> >> Gumpy=2C >> >> >> >=20 >> > [SNIP] >> >=20 >> > InDeep=2C >> >=20 >> > Glad you spoke up. Yeah the sockpuppets pop up=2C but unfortunately you >> > have to address them because ignoring them doesn't work. >> > And you are right to talk about focus on the topic. >> >=20 >> > Trying to push IDS in to the "offshore" market is a joke. Sure you >> > need a global base=2C and I don't disagree there. However=2C its not >> > "offshore" but "on shore" in those countries. >> >=20 >> > You can't focus on the "start up" marketplace. Sure one can download >> > IDS and learn it for "free"=2C however=2C when you put your product out >> > the door=2C you now have a high percentage of your software margin goin= >g >> > to cover your "slightly" discounted IDS that you purchased from IBM. I >> > think the best you can do is 25% off list. Looking to larger >> > companies=2C try percentage discounts off a level J. Big difference. So >> > you the small startup look towards databases that meet your need that >> > have a much lower price tag. PostgressSQL and MySQL are much less >> > where Postgress is "free". As long as you don't push the product=2C >> > you're ok. Then you can worry about scalability down the road. Need to >> > improve performance beyond tuning? Buy/lease a bigger box. >> >=20 >> > IBM needs to know where and how to hit a niche that will open other >> > doors. >> > I asked splintard if he new SIAC and the deal done back in December of >> > 2003. He seems to think he knows a lot about me=2C but I wonder what hi= >s >> > "friends" in IBM know. He also doesn't know who I know/knew and who I >> > spoke to within the company. >> >=20 >> > But getting on track with this thread=2C sales reps will always take th= >e >> > least resistant path. (hmmm just like an electron) So not pushing a >> > product=2C in the favor=2C of even a competitor's product so that they = >can >> > still take away part of the deal... That's life. As OTC points out=2C >> > nothing new under the sun there. And that's the point. Oracle pushes >> > the hardware deal to IBM who can then capitalize on everything that >> > doesn't interfere with Oracle and heck I think IBM is even a reseller >> > of Oracle so they can take some margin off the top too. But even if >> > they don't. They capture the hardware/services portion of the deal=2C >> > then also get a new relationship with the customer. >> >=20 >> > IMHO=2C SIAC was a failure because IBM IM didn't capitalize on the door >> > that was opened. And that was a huge mistake. Efforts to re-open doors >> > elsewhere have fallen on deaf ears. Why? Because it would have >> > required some work and well lets face it. Today's US corporate >> > "leaders" focus on the current quarter and not the deals down the >> > road. No investment in to the future. And that logic is taking hold in >> > B-Schools and corporate middle management. >> >=20 >> > If IBM IM was *truly* interested in seeing IDS succeed=2C they would >> > have made those investments. The media says that Hillary Clinton's >> > speech was ok=2C going through the motions=2C but it wasn't from the he= >art >> > and many of her supporters where skeptical. That pretty much sums up >> > my feelings about IBM IDS's strategy. Doing things so that you can >> > check off your PBC list saying you at least tried something. >> >=20 >> > So the saleforce partners with Oracle and IDS loses. (As if the IBM >> > salesteam knows IDS exists....) >> >=20 >> >=20 >> > -G >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Informix-list mailing list >> Informix-list@iiug.org >> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > >_________________________________________________________________ >See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts. >http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=3DTXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008= > ><html> ><head> ><style> >.hmmessage P >{ >margin:0px=3B >padding:0px >} >body.hmmessage >{ >FONT-SIZE: 10pt=3B >FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma >} ></style> ></head> ><body class=3D'hmmessage'> >Indeep=2C<br>The answer is a bit more complex and I'll respond later tonigh= >t.<br>-G<br><br>&gt=3B From: indeep@indeep.com<br>&gt=3B Subject: Re: SIS: = >Talk about a shift in partners...<br>&gt=3B Date: Wed=2C 27 Aug 2008 07:16:= >41 -0700<br>&gt=3B To: informix-list@iiug.org<br>&gt=3B <br>&gt=3B Gumbi=2C= ><br>&gt=3B <br>&gt=3B In the global on-line market=2C everything sells. IB= >M knows this=2C and<br>&gt=3B even the dolts on Informix's marketing staff = >know this. They know<br>&gt=3B they are getting sales=2C but it is clear t= >hat they want to go through<br>&gt=3B the VAR channel. This is where I thi= >nk and insist that they have really<br>&gt=3B missed web 2.0=2C which is a = >much larger market than just pushing prod