Re: Informix business grew by double digits in 2006 (Q1+Q2)

> Interesting to hear that. However I think that IDS is generally > better suited than DB2 for OLTP based applications, not you all know as well as i do that performance/features here was the key factor. db2cv simply could now win or get close. someone said thar apps decide what database will be chosen. get real; do you really think that cisco would buy informix if they could have bought something which was properly promoted and loved by the ones who would try and sell it??? My guess: obstacle was in the race, db2 was in the race, however they all lost it due to lack of performance and features. This is the only way to go for informix, build a database engine noone can get around !!!!!!!!!! Hang in there!!!!!!!! Superboer. eric@herber-consulting.de schreef: > Interesting to hear that. However I think that IDS is generally > better suited than DB2 for OLTP based applications, not > limited to single applications or environments without > database administrator. > > However IBM doesn't want it to be that. The main reason to > position IDS as embedded OLTP database is the fear that it > could pick up DB2 business outside the embedded area - > which is probably not too much, if I interpreted the quarter > results from IBM correctly. > > There are some customers who run hundred's and even > thousands of IDS instances with a handful of dba's. > I've also seen many single, large IDS instances with > thousands of concurrent users accessing it and only a > single dba managing the production, test and development > environment. > > If I were in marketing I would express it this way: > > "IDS is designed from the ground up for autonomic > computing. An area where our competitors still > try to play catchup with additional, chargeable > tools..." > > Just thinking about DB2 Recovery Expert, DB2 Performance > Expert, DB2 High Performance Unload... -:) > > > Serge Rielau schrieb: > > eric@herber-consulting.de wrote: > > > "Performance, Reliability, Simplicity..." this really describes > > > IDS best. > > > > > > Are those the main reasons why Cisco decided to favour IDS > > > instead of other commercial or free databases ? > > > > > > Just can't imagine that Cisco did choose IDS because of the ongoing > > > advertising and marketing campaigns for IDS from IBM -:) > > > So there have been other reasons to favour IDS. Don't know if Cisco has > > > been > > > an Informix shop in the past, but I did not hear the name in > > > conjunction > > > with Informix. > > > > > > I also could not imagine that IBM didn't try to push DB2 into this > > > account. > > > Funny, that DB2 with all the benchmarks it wins, with all the autonomic > > > features it has, with all the advertising done for it, with the large > > > market share it has, with the untouched scalability options and ease of > > > use, didn't make the race -:) > > > > > > Why is IDS better suited for this ? > > IDS is clearly better suited than DB2 for single app, embedded OLTP. > > A CISCO server fits that bill. No DBA, single minded, end customer > > neither knows nor cares what's underneath. > > > > Also DB2 can't be cracked open like IDS to be extended via data blades. > > Although I'm not aware that CISCO is using that. It would indeed be > > interesting if Nancy spoke up. > > > > Cheers > > Serge > > -- > > Serge Rielau > > DB2 Solutions Development > > IBM Toronto Lab > > > > IOD Conference > > http://www.ibm.com/software/data/ondemandbusiness/conf2006/

Superboer wrote: >> Interesting to hear that. However I think that IDS is generally >> better suited than DB2 for OLTP based applications, not > you all know as well as i do that performance/features here was the key > factor. > db2cv simply could now win or get close. > someone said thar apps decide what database will be chosen. > get real; do you really think that cisco would buy informix if they > could have bought > something which was properly promoted and loved by the ones who would > try and sell it??? Some confusion here.... CISCO is NOT the customer. CISCO is an ISV! Their "application" is their server/router/... . When the customer buys a CISCO product he doesn't ask for CISCO with IDS. Cisco is a prime example of how IDS grows through ISVs. Another example: When you pay at a cash register you do not care which DBMS is inside that register and neither does the retailer who bought the off the shelf POS solution. It's all about multipliers... Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab IOD Conference http://www.ibm.com/software/data/ondemandbusiness/conf2006/

Serge Rielau wrote: > Superboer wrote: >>> Interesting to hear that. However I think that IDS is generally >>> better suited than DB2 for OLTP based applications, not >> you all know as well as i do that performance/features here was the key >> factor. >> db2cv simply could now win or get close. >> someone said thar apps decide what database will be chosen. >> get real; do you really think that cisco would buy informix if they >> could have bought >> something which was properly promoted and loved by the ones who would >> try and sell it??? > Some confusion here.... > CISCO is NOT the customer. > CISCO is an ISV! > Their "application" is their server/router/... . > When the customer buys a CISCO product he doesn't ask for CISCO with IDS. > Cisco is a prime example of how IDS grows through ISVs. > Another example: When you pay at a cash register you do not care which > DBMS is inside that register and neither does the retailer who bought > the off the shelf POS solution. > > It's all about multipliers... > Serge What multipliers? It's all about the application. The application as you suggest is the router. But it probably doesn't need IDS to run a router. It could use BerkeleyDB to do that, or MySQL, or some ISAM product, hmmm, maybe Informix C-ISAM. But I hardly think a router needs a shared-memory engine to run. That's just silly. There's no press release to suggest they ( Cisco ) are using IDS, nor has anyone from Cisco said anything to prove or vindicate people who make such claims. I could see them using Informix SE probably, but why would that have been picked over other databases? It just doesn't make sense. Unless maybe somebody at IBM were practically giving it away, now that would be a story. There seems to be more to this story than what has been said so far.

Cisco makes more than routers. IDS is used in Cisco's Call Manager and other products. But IDS does also run in routers and switches. These types of applications certainly do not need all the features and functions of IDS. They do require high performance and extremely high reliability to ensure that network traffic is routed in the most efficient manner. One shouldn't expect vendors like Cisco to promote the fact that they run IDS inside their products any more than you'd expect Microsoft to mention that Windows still runs C-ISAM (yes, Informix's C-ISAM). These vendors use IBM's products deeply embedded within their own products and the end customer is totally unaware that IBM technology is at play in the solution. And you thought we were kidding when we said Informix is in everything you touch! On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Double Echo wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: >> Superboer wrote: >>>> Interesting to hear that. However I think that IDS is generally >>>> better suited than DB2 for OLTP based applications, not >>> you all know as well as i do that performance/features here was >>> the key >>> factor. >>> db2cv simply could now win or get close. >>> someone said thar apps decide what database will be chosen. >>> get real; do you really think that cisco would buy informix if they >>> could have bought >>> something which was properly promoted and loved by the ones who >>> would >>> try and sell it??? >> Some confusion here.... >> CISCO is NOT the customer. >> CISCO is an ISV! >> Their "application" is their server/router/... . >> When the customer buys a CISCO product he doesn't ask for CISCO >> with IDS. >> Cisco is a prime example of how IDS grows through ISVs. >> Another example: When you pay at a cash register you do not care >> which >> DBMS is inside that register and neither does the retailer who bought >> the off the shelf POS solution. >> >> It's all about multipliers... >> Serge > > What multipliers? > > It's all about the application. > > The application as you suggest is the router. But it probably > doesn't need IDS > to run a router. It could use BerkeleyDB to do that, or MySQL, or > some ISAM > product, hmmm, maybe Informix C-ISAM. But I hardly think a router > needs a > shared-memory engine to run. That's just silly. There's no press > release to > suggest they ( Cisco ) are using IDS, nor has anyone from Cisco > said anything to > prove or vindicate people who make such claims. I could see them > using > Informix SE probably, but why would that have been picked over > other databases? > It just doesn't make sense. Unless maybe somebody at IBM were > practically > giving it away, now that would be a story. There seems to be more > to this story > than what has been said so far. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list Christine Normile Analyst INFORMRme Magazine 1.800.914.8674 Ext. 713 1.210.438.7736 mobile christine@MyINFORM-me.com

Double Echo wrote: Serge > > What multipliers? > > It's all about the application. > > The application as you suggest is the router. But it probably doesn't > need IDS to run a router. It could use BerkeleyDB to do that, or MySQL, > or some ISAM product, hmmm, maybe Informix C-ISAM. But I hardly think a > router needs a shared-memory engine to run. That's just silly. There's > no press release to suggest they ( Cisco ) are using IDS, nor has anyone > from Cisco said anything to prove or vindicate people who make such > claims. I could see them using Informix SE probably, but why would that > have been picked over other databases? It just doesn't make sense. > Unless maybe somebody at IBM were practically giving it away, now that > would be a story. There seems to be more to this story than what has > been said so far. Well I've been fairly involved with the project. The project is not the router project but the voice over IP call manager. It makes extensive use of replication and IDS was chosen because when Cisco had several benchmark test involving replication solutions, IDS ER won by a significant margin. > > > > >

Christine Normile wrote: > Cisco makes more than routers. IDS is used in Cisco's Call Manager and > other products. > Nice to know. Finally somebody from IBM speaks up and talks about it. You have to practically beat somebody over the fucking head to get the information. What a bunch. Informix went from being a company that couldn't market themselves out of a paper bag to a company that owns them that can't market themselves out of a paper bag. Impressive! > But IDS does also run in routers and switches. These types of > applications certainly do not need all the features and functions of > IDS. They do require high performance and extremely high reliability to > ensure that network traffic is routed in the most efficient manner. > Right. You don't need a shared memory engine to have a database for that. I'd like to know how they arrived at IDS vs some of the other products out there. > One shouldn't expect vendors like Cisco to promote the fact that they > run IDS inside their products any more than you'd expect Microsoft to > mention that Windows still runs C-ISAM (yes, Informix's C-ISAM). These > vendors use IBM's products deeply embedded within their own products and > the end customer is totally unaware that IBM technology is at play in > the solution. > I don't expect Cisco to say anything, I expect IBM to say something! And Christine, with your comments it explains why _YOU_ are precisely why there is a problem. _YOU_ don't think mentioning where IDS is used is important. And that's why IDS has no press! You could have made it possible to co-op the brand. "IDS Inside" or something like that with Cisco, in an ad. I'm not surprised now with your comments why IDS doesn't get any press. Not surprised at all. SQL-Server is advertised all over the place with sample companies using the product. No reason why IDS couldn't get the same advertising. > And you thought we were kidding when we said Informix is in everything > you touch! > It's not. And nobody would know even if it were true thanks to you! > On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Double Echo wrote: > >> Serge Rielau wrote: >>> Superboer wrote: >>>>> Interesting to hear that. However I think that IDS is generally >>>>> better suited than DB2 for OLTP based applications, not >>>> you all know as well as i do that performance/features here was the key >>>> factor. >>>> db2cv simply could now win or get close. >>>> someone said thar apps decide what database will be chosen. >>>> get real; do you really think that cisco would buy informix if they >>>> could have bought >>>> something which was properly promoted and loved by the ones who would >>>> try and sell it??? >>> Some confusion here.... >>> CISCO is NOT the customer. >>> CISCO is an ISV! >>> Their "application" is their server/router/... . >>> When the customer buys a CISCO product he doesn't ask for CISCO with IDS. >>> Cisco is a prime example of how IDS grows through ISVs. >>> Another example: When you pay at a cash register you do not care which >>> DBMS is inside that register and neither does the retailer who bought >>> the off the shelf POS solution. >>> >>> It's all about multipliers... >>> Serge >> >> What multipliers? >> >> It's all about the application. >> >> The application as you suggest is the router. But it probably doesn't >> need IDS >> to run a router. It could use BerkeleyDB to do that, or MySQL, or >> some ISAM >> product, hmmm, maybe Informix C-ISAM. But I hardly think a router >> needs a >> shared-memory engine to run. That's just silly. There's no press >> release to >> suggest they ( Cisco ) are using IDS, nor has anyone from Cisco said >> anything to >> prove or vindicate people who make such claims. I could see them using >> Informix SE probably, but why would that have been picked over other >> databases? >> It just doesn't make sense. Unless maybe somebody at IBM were >> practically >> giving it away, now that would be a story. There seems to be more to >> this story >> than what has been said so far. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Informix-list mailing list >> Informix-list@iiug.org <mailto:Informix-list@iiug.org> >> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > > Christine Normile > Analyst > INFORMRme Magazine > 1.800.914.8674 Ext. 713 > 1.210.438.7736 mobile > christine@MyINFORM-me.com <mailto:christine@MyINFORM-me.com> > > >

Double Echo wrote: > And Christine, with your comments it explains why _YOU_ are precisely > why there is a problem. _YOU_ don't think mentioning where IDS is > used is important. And that's why IDS has no press! I think you are being a bit harsh on Christine. I doubt IBM hired someone incapable of doing what they asked. And therein lies the issue. No doubt she is doing precisely what she is instructed. If one looks at actions rather than words the picture is consistent. There is no interest in spending money to promote Informix. Precisely what Oracle did with RDB and what Microsoft did with Fox. All the yelling and screaming isn't going to change a decision made at the executive level. Informix will survive as long as it provides a revenue stream: Nothing more. If you want a future in RDBMS you really have little choice but to expand your skill set to DB2, Oracle, or SQL Server. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org

DE - you are not the sharpest knife if the drawer. No one from IBM spoke up. I am not with IBM. As I mentioned, IBM and IBMers are hamstrung by corporate policy and legal constraints. IBM requests that ISVs such as Cisco be references. Until the ISV agrees, IBM will not mention their names publicly. Many ISVs as well as end customers feel that the technology that drives their business gives them strategic competitive advantage. So they feel the less known of their underlying infrastructure, the better off they are. So, IBM and the Informix community needs those partners and customers who are willing to be references to do so. IBM also needs business partners to make noise. BPs do not have the same constraints that IBM does and IBM has co-marketing dollars to help offset the cost to the BP. (Paul, was the issue you had with IBM regarding references resolved?) Christine On Aug 15, 2006, at 12:58 AM, Double Echo wrote: > Christine Normile wrote: >> Cisco makes more than routers. IDS is used in Cisco's Call >> Manager and >> other products. >> > > Nice to know. Finally somebody from IBM speaks up and talks about it. > You have to practically beat somebody over the fucking head to get > the information. What a bunch. Informix went from being a company > that couldn't market themselves out of a paper bag to a company that > owns them that can't market themselves out of a paper bag. Impressive! > > >> But IDS does also run in routers and switches. These types of >> applications certainly do not need all the features and functions of >> IDS. They do require high performance and extremely high >> reliability to >> ensure that network traffic is routed in the most efficient manner. >> > > Right. You don't need a shared memory engine to have a database for > that. I'd like to know how they arrived at IDS vs some of the other > products out there. > >> One shouldn't expect vendors like Cisco to promote the fact that they >> run IDS inside their products any more than you'd expect Microsoft to >> mention that Windows still runs C-ISAM (yes, Informix's C-ISAM). >> These >> vendors use IBM's products deeply embedded within their own >> products and >> the end customer is totally unaware that IBM technology is at play in >> the solution. >> > > I don't expect Cisco to say anything, I expect IBM to say something! > > And Christine, with your comments it explains why _YOU_ are precisely > why there is a problem. _YOU_ don't think mentioning where IDS is > used is important. And that's why IDS has no press! > > You could have made it possible to co-op the brand. "IDS Inside" > or something like that with Cisco, in an ad. I'm not surprised now > with your comments why IDS doesn't get any press. Not surprised at > all. SQL-Server is advertised all over the place with sample > companies using the product. No reason why IDS couldn't get the > same advertising. > > >> And you thought we were kidding when we said Informix is in >> everything >> you touch! >> > > It's not. And nobody would know even if it were true thanks to you! > > >> On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Double Echo wrote: >> >>> Serge Rielau wrote: >>>> Superboer wrote: >>>>>> Interesting to hear that. However I think that IDS is generally >>>>>> better suited than DB2 for OLTP based applications, not >>>>> you all know as well as i do that performance/features here was >>>>> the key >>>>> factor. >>>>> db2cv simply could now win or get close. >>>>> someone said thar apps decide what database will be chosen. >>>>> get real; do you really think that cisco would buy informix if >>>>> they >>>>> could have bought >>>>> something which was properly promoted and loved by the ones who >>>>> would >>>>> try and sell it??? >>>> Some confusion here.... >>>> CISCO is NOT the customer. >>>> CISCO is an ISV! >>>> Their "application" is their server/router/... . >>>> When the customer buys a CISCO product he doesn't ask for CISCO >>>> with IDS. >>>> Cisco is a prime example of how IDS grows through ISVs. >>>> Another example: When you pay at a cash register you do not care >>>> which >>>> DBMS is inside that register and neither does the retailer who >>>> bought >>>> the off the shelf POS solution. >>>> >>>> It's all about multipliers... >>>> Serge >>> >>> What multipliers? >>> >>> It's all about the application. >>> >>> The application as you suggest is the router. But it probably >>> doesn't >>> need IDS >>> to run a router. It could use BerkeleyDB to do that, or MySQL, or >>> some ISAM >>> product, hmmm, maybe Informix C-ISAM. But I hardly think a router >>> needs a >>> shared-memory engine to run. That's just silly. There's no press >>> release to >>> suggest they ( Cisco ) are using IDS, nor has anyone from Cisco said >>> anything to >>> prove or vindicate people who make such claims. I could see >>> them using >>> Informix SE probably, but why would that have been picked over other >>> databases? >>> It just doesn't make sense. Unless maybe somebody at IBM were >>> practically >>> giving it away, now that would be a story. There seems to be >>> more to >>> this story >>> than what has been said so far. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Informix-list mailing list >>> Informix-list@iiug.org <mailto:Informix-list@iiug.org> >>> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list >> >> Christine Normile >> Analyst >> INFORMRme Magazine >> 1.800.914.8674 Ext. 713 >> 1.210.438.7736 mobile >> christine@MyINFORM-me.com <mailto:christine@MyINFORM-me.com> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list Christine Normile Analyst INFORMRme Magazine 1.800.914.8674 Ext. 713 1.210.438.7736 mobile christine@MyINFORM-me.com

>> "Christine Normile" <christine@myinform-me.com> wrote in message >> news:mailman.273.1155655241.20706.informix-list@iiug.org... >> So, IBM and the Informix community needs those partners and customers who >> are willing to be references to do so. IBM also needs business partners >> to make noise. BPs do not have the same constraints that IBM does and >> IBM has co-marketing dollars to help offset the cost to the BP. I'm not sure to the extent to which you should expect Business Partners (BPs) to do this work. Taking my own experience, we spend a substantial amount - many tens of thousands of pounds a year - promoting Informix and its success stories, but this is *all* done in targetted mail to the *existing* Informix user base to persuade them to use Ardenta rather than A N Other BP, or IBM directly. I would regard it as a waste of my company's money propagating the Informix message to non-Informix users, because the vendor support isn't there. And whilst it's true that IBM does have funding to help BPs with Informix success stories, it isn't easy for the BP. We've just particiapted in an IBM-funded press release for a major UK company that has renewed its commitment to Informix: and Ardenta is mentioned quite rarely, and only once in the first four paragraphs. In addition, IBM conmtrolled very rigidly what was and was not allowed to be included in the release. I'm not in any way complaining about this - IBM is paying and it is right that it should call the shots - but I would like to correct any impression that readers might have that a BP can simply construct its own Press Release and IBM will just hand over some or all of the cash, no strings attached.

DA Morgan wrote: > Double Echo wrote: > >> And Christine, with your comments it explains why _YOU_ are precisely >> why there is a problem. _YOU_ don't think mentioning where IDS is >> used is important. And that's why IDS has no press! > > I think you are being a bit harsh on Christine. I doubt IBM hired > someone incapable of doing what they asked. And therein lies the > issue. No doubt she is doing precisely what she is instructed. > No doubt. > If one looks at actions rather than words the picture is consistent. > There is no interest in spending money to promote Informix. Precisely > what Oracle did with RDB and what Microsoft did with Fox. All the > yelling and screaming isn't going to change a decision made at the > executive level. Informix will survive as long as it provides a revenue > stream: Nothing more. If you want a future in RDBMS you really have > little choice but to expand your skill set to DB2, Oracle, or SQL Server. I have certainly done so. You left out MySQL, certainly a great billable opportunity for me. A genuine money maker for me. Haven't used Informix in years, but I like it, and would love it to be a market maker. It came really close to really becoming something, only to be shoved aside. Very unfortunate. As far as careers go, I'm doing very well, not identifying myself with any one database vendor, despite being quite adept at several different products, as the market demands. The system administration market is booming by the way, as well as system architect, good billable is back! We're in the midst of chaos on a global scale but the IT market is just fantastic right now.

Christine Normile wrote: > DE - you are not the sharpest knife if the drawer. No one from IBM > spoke up. I am not with IBM. As I mentioned, IBM and IBMers are > hamstrung by corporate policy and legal constraints. IBM requests that > ISVs such as Cisco be references. Until the ISV agrees, IBM will not > mention their names publicly. Many ISVs as well as end customers feel > that the technology that drives their business gives them strategic > competitive advantage. So they feel the less known of their underlying > infrastructure, the better off they are. > I understand what you're saying, however, I know a lot of companies that are using xyz database for this and that. The crux of the matter is that Informix is becoming less known over time rather than more known. But as you suggest, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I don't understand it the way you do. I just see what works for other database products and don't get why Informix doesn't get at the very least the same treatment. So my dull edge brain just doesn't get it. At one time Informix was a lot of pain to Oracle, and a definite contender. Today that is not the case, and there's no other reason for that than lack of market presence. But I'm too dull to get it I suppose. > So, IBM and the Informix community needs those partners and customers > who are willing to be references to do so. IBM also needs business > partners to make noise. BPs do not have the same constraints that IBM > does and IBM has co-marketing dollars to help offset the cost to the BP. > That's encouraging. It also suggests that nobody is interested enough as a BP to promote Informix either, since there has been little to no noise from BP's. > (Paul, was the issue you had with IBM regarding references resolved?) > > Christine > Christine Normile > Analyst > INFORMRme Magazine > 1.800.914.8674 Ext. 713 > 1.210.438.7736 mobile > christine@MyINFORM-me.com <mailto:christine@MyINFORM-me.com> > > >

Christine Normile wrote: > DE - you are not the sharpest knife if the drawer. No one from IBM > spoke up. I am not with IBM. As I mentioned, IBM and IBMers are > hamstrung by corporate policy and legal constraints. IBM requests that > ISVs such as Cisco be references. Until the ISV agrees, IBM will not > mention their names publicly. Many ISVs as well as end customers feel > that the technology that drives their business gives them strategic > competitive advantage. So they feel the less known of their underlying > infrastructure, the better off they are. I defended you in my last post but this is pure nonsense. There is zero strategic advantage is knowing a company has any specific database engine on site. And anyone that thinks one can not go to a company, of which there are many, and purchase a list of companies with any specific software installed is a fool. But if you think there is some huge strategic advantage there then let me help you out. http://www.oracle.com/customers/index.html -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org

Double Echo wrote: > Christine Normile wrote: >> DE - you are not the sharpest knife if the drawer. No one from IBM >> spoke up. I am not with IBM. As I mentioned, IBM and IBMers are >> hamstrung by corporate policy and legal constraints. IBM requests >> that ISVs such as Cisco be references. Until the ISV agrees, IBM will >> not mention their names publicly. Many ISVs as well as end customers >> feel that the technology that drives their business gives them >> strategic competitive advantage. So they feel the less known of their >> underlying infrastructure, the better off they are. >> > > I understand what you're saying, however, I know a lot of companies that > are using xyz database for this and that. The crux of the matter is that > Informix is becoming less known over time rather than more known. If it is Christine's intent to suggest that IBM doesn't have a list of every single Microsoft and Oracle customer of in sufficient size, and that Microsoft and Oracle don't have internal lists of every DB2 and Informix customer she is just plain naive. They are all sending their salesforce into the exact same customers and all gathering intelligence and all buying the commercial lists and all playing golf with "the right" people. I may have to retract my defense. ;-) -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org

Christine, it is the vendor who is responsible for marketing the product, not the partners. The partners might support the vendor, but it's the vendor who needs to do the basis work, period. co-marketing dollars ? A few weeks ago I asked the IBM marketing in germany about this co-marketing fond and if it would be possible to get a small piece of it for producing Informix t-shirts, cups and pencils. -> They told me there is no way for me to get anything from this fond. I asked the same question to IBM marketing in the states. No reaction on this. business partners making noise ? You know I wrote several articles about Informix for german IT magazines . I had the idea to write something for an english spoken IT magazine and asked IBM if they could give me some contacts because I don't have them. -> This is now about 2 months ago. No contacts (-: I'm frustrated and tired of hearing any lame excuses and false promises regarding Informix marketing. The truth is that IBM is doing nothing at all for the product and is constantly telling lies to the loyal Informix customer base. I encourage everybody to read this blog entry from Bernie Spang (Director Data Server Marketing IBM Information Management) : http://jhingran.typepad.com/anant_jhingrans_musings/2006/01/information_as_.html#comment-13656408 This was in February this year. Now think about what has happened in the last 6 month regarding Informix marketing ? -> Nothing, beside the fact that they took away the 'flagship term' for IDS So there are always false promises, not more. Even the substitution of the 'DB2 graphic' with 'Information Management' is not complete. Take a look at the Informix Developer Zone at IBM: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/zones/informix/ This is antic and shows the amateurish approach of IBM regarding Informix Marketing. IBM definetely lost a lot of confidence at the Informix customer base because of those false promises and I could not imagine that the Informix customers will further accept this unfair approach. The upcoming IOD conference might proof this. Anyway, I do not count on IBM on this anymore. I've some ideas regarding Informix Marketing and will go my own way. Waiting for IBM is just a waist of time, not more. Christine Normile wrote: > DE - you are not the sharpest knife if the drawer. No one from IBM > spoke up. I am not with IBM. As I mentioned, IBM and IBMers are > hamstrung by corporate policy and legal constraints. IBM requests > that ISVs such as Cisco be references. Until the ISV agrees, IBM > will not mention their names publicly. Many ISVs as well as end > customers feel that the technology that drives their business gives > them strategic competitive advantage. So they feel the less known of > their underlying infrastructure, the better off they are. > > So, IBM and the Informix community needs those partners and customers > who are willing to be references to do so. IBM also needs business > partners to make noise. BPs do not have the same constraints that > IBM does and IBM has co-marketing dollars to help offset the cost to > the BP. > > (Paul, was the issue you had with IBM regarding references resolved?) > > Christine > On Aug 15, 2006, at 12:58 AM, Double Echo wrote: > > > Christine Normile wrote: > >> Cisco makes more than routers. IDS is used in Cisco's Call > >> Manager and > >> other products. > >> > > > > Nice to know. Finally somebody from IBM speaks up and talks about it. > > You have to practically beat somebody over the fucking head to get > > the information. What a bunch. Informix went from being a company > > that couldn't market themselves out of a paper bag to a company that > > owns them that can't market themselves out of a paper bag. Impressive! > > > > > >> But IDS does also run in routers and switches. These types of > >> applications certainly do not need all the features and functions of > >> IDS. They do require high performance and extremely high > >> reliability to > >> ensure that network traffic is routed in the most efficient manner. > >> > > > > Right. You don't need a shared memory engine to have a database for > > that. I'd like to know how they arrived at IDS vs some of the other > > products out there. > > > >> One shouldn't expect vendors like Cisco to promote the fact that they > >> run IDS inside their products any more than you'd expect Microsoft to > >> mention that Windows still runs C-ISAM (yes, Informix's C-ISAM). > >> These > >> vendors use IBM's products deeply embedded within their own > >> products and > >> the end customer is totally unaware that IBM technology is at play in > >> the solution. > >> > > > > I don't expect Cisco to say anything, I expect IBM to say something! > > > > And Christine, with your comments it explains why _YOU_ are precisely > > why there is a problem. _YOU_ don't think mentioning where IDS is > > used is important. And that's why IDS has no press! > > > > You could have made it possible to co-op the brand. "IDS Inside" > > or something like that with Cisco, in an ad. I'm not surprised now > > with your comments why IDS doesn't get any press. Not surprised at > > all. SQL-Server is advertised all over the place with sample > > companies using the product. No reason why IDS couldn't get the > > same advertising. > > > > > >> And you thought we were kidding when we said Informix is in > >> everything > >> you touch! > >> > > > > It's not. And nobody would know even if it were true thanks to you! > > > > > >> On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Double Echo wrote: > >> > >>> Serge Rielau wrote: > >>>> Superboer wrote: > >>>>>> Interesting to hear that. However I think that IDS is generally > >>>>>> better suited than DB2 for OLTP based applications, not > >>>>> you all know as well as i do that performance/features here was > >>>>> the key > >>>>> factor. > >>>>> db2cv simply could now win or get close. > >>>>> someone said thar apps decide what database will be chosen. > >>>>> get real; do you really think that cisco would buy informix if > >>>>> they > >>>>> could have bought > >>>>> something which was properly promoted and loved by the ones who > >>>>> would > >>>>> try and sell it??? > >>>> Some confusion here.... > >>>> CISCO is NOT the customer. > >>>> CISCO is an ISV! > >>>> Their "application" is their server/router/... . > >>>> When the customer buys a CISCO product he doesn't ask for CISCO > >>>> with IDS. > >>>> Cisco is a prime example of how IDS grows through ISVs. > >>>> Another example: When you pay at a cash register you do not care > >>>> which > >>>> DBMS is inside that register and neither does the retailer who > >>>> bought > >>>> the off the shelf POS solution. > >>>> > >>>> It's all about multipliers... > >>>> Serge > >>> > >>> What multipliers? > >>> > >>> It's all about the application. > >>> > >>> The application as you suggest is the router. But it probably > >>> doesn't > >>> need IDS > >>> to run a router. It could use BerkeleyDB to do t

DA Morgan wrote: > Double Echo wrote: >> Christine Normile wrote: >>> DE - you are not the sharpest knife if the drawer. No one from IBM >>> spoke up. I am not with IBM. As I mentioned, IBM and IBMers are >>> hamstrung by corporate policy and legal constraints. IBM requests >>> that ISVs such as Cisco be references. Until the ISV agrees, IBM >>> will not mention their names publicly. Many ISVs as well as end >>> customers feel that the technology that drives their business gives >>> them strategic competitive advantage. So they feel the less known of >>> their underlying infrastructure, the better off they are. >>> >> >> I understand what you're saying, however, I know a lot of companies that >> are using xyz database for this and that. The crux of the matter is that >> Informix is becoming less known over time rather than more known. > > If it is Christine's intent to suggest that IBM doesn't have a list of > every single Microsoft and Oracle customer of in sufficient size, and > that Microsoft and Oracle don't have internal lists of every DB2 and > Informix customer she is just plain naive. > > They are all sending their salesforce into the exact same customers and > all gathering intelligence and all buying the commercial lists and all > playing golf with "the right" people. > I'm not sure if they're buying lists, but they are indeed paying attention to the market. Every vendor who comes to me and pitches their warez points to the broader market in most of their statements. They can do that when they have vendor support _in_the_market_ with advertising and marketing money spent on the product. Who in their right mind is going to go to a substantial customer and pitch Informix without some kind of marketing momentum behind the product? Why would they do that? What's in it for the sales force? Sales people have quotas to meet, and bills to pay. > I may have to retract my defense. ;-) People who cheer-lead the vendor cost the vendor nothing. People who stand up to the vendor cost the vendor money and time ( and get the faithful pissed off at them :-) Applications drive database sales. Developers build market share. These two foundation principles apparently work with every other database product out there except Informix. It appears that Informix doesn't need developers, it doesn't need advertising, co-op branding, marketing, or any kind of effort put into the product other than technologists, and a paltry little road show for the faithful. By sheer will Informix will succeed without any marketing and by magic it will become a visible product in the market. Obviously us mere mortals can't understand how this works, only the faithful chumps who cheer-lead IBM/Informix, and Christine, who is smarter than everyone. We're just too dumb to get it. Tragic really. So many examples of successful marketing opportunities by the big successes in this business and Informix can't even get a web page without being diluted with DB2 content.

>DE - you are not the sharpest knife if the drawer. No one from IBM spoke up. >I am not with IBM. As I mentioned, >>IBM and IBMers are hamstrung by corporate >policy and legal constraints. IBM requests that ISVs such as Cisco be >references. Until the ISV agrees, IBM will not mention their names publicly. >Many ISVs as well as end customers feel that the technology that drives their >business gives them strategic competitive advantage. So they feel the >less known of their underlying infrastructure, the better off they are. > >So, IBM and the Informix community needs those partners and customers who >are willing to be references to do so. IBM also needs business partners >to make noise. BPs do not have the same constraints that IBM does and >IBM has co-marketing dollars to help offset the cost to the BP. (Paul, was the issue you had with IBM regarding references resolved?) [cutting] No, not resolved yet, we are with legal at the moment :-) AND sometimes a customer doesn't want to tell their competitors how they got what they consider to a competitive advantage Paul Watson Tel: +44 1414161772 Mob: +44 7818003457 Web: www.oninit.com GO FURTHER with DB2 GET THERE FASTER with Informix. Attend the IDUG 2006 European Conference. Vienna, Austria. 2-6 October 2006 Visit http://www.iiug.org/conf for more information.

Hi Neil - If I had my way, IBM would have run full page ad's regarding Informix weekly in the Wall Street Journal touting it's benefits and IBM's commitment to the product. That way Business Partners could leverage IBM's global influence to move more product than IBM will ever be able to move on its own. Unfortunately, I won't be seeing any full page ads in WSJ for Informix. I accidently ran a full page Informix ad in a smaller publication in May and nearly gave management a heart attack! So I merely recommend that Business Partners do what IBM will not do which is to advertise and promote Informix in their regions. Bytec, a very successful Informix business partner in Germany, does this on a regular basis in major IT publications in Germany and is growing their business. I don't want to minimize or trivialize any of the hard work and the battles Bytec had with IBM to get support for what they are doing. And I don't think this way is as effective as if IBM were to get more air for Informix. However, it has helped Bytec's business grow and helped the Informix business grow. Growth of the Informix business has caused IBM to change it position (not enough and not loudly enough IMHO). Continued growth will cause more change. Is this the "right" way to do things? NO! Is this the fastest way to do things? NO! But it can help grow the Informix business and that is good for Informix business partners and the Informix community. Yelling, ranting and complaining will not grow the Informix business and will not change IBM's behavior. On Aug 15, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Neil Truby wrote: >>> "Christine Normile" <christine@myinform-me.com> wrote in message >>> news:mailman.273.1155655241.20706.informix-list@iiug.org... >>> So, IBM and the Informix community needs those partners and >>> customers who >>> are willing to be references to do so. IBM also needs business >>> partners >>> to make noise. BPs do not have the same constraints that IBM >>> does and >>> IBM has co-marketing dollars to help offset the cost to the BP. > > I'm not sure to the extent to which you should expect Business > Partners > (BPs) to do this work. Taking my own experience, we spend a > substantial > amount - many tens of thousands of pounds a year - promoting > Informix and > its success stories, but this is *all* done in targetted mail to the > *existing* Informix user base to persuade them to use Ardenta > rather than A > N Other BP, or IBM directly. I would regard it as a waste of my > company's > money propagating the Informix message to non-Informix users, > because the > vendor support isn't there. > > And whilst it's true that IBM does have funding to help BPs with > Informix > success stories, it isn't easy for the BP. We've just particiapted > in an > IBM-funded press release for a major UK company that has renewed its > commitment to Informix: and Ardenta is mentioned quite rarely, and > only once > in the first four paragraphs. In addition, IBM conmtrolled very > rigidly > what was and was not allowed to be included in the release. I'm > not in any > way complaining about this - IBM is paying and it is right that it > should > call the shots - but I would like to correct any impression that > readers > might have that a BP can simply construct its own Press Release and > IBM will > just hand over some or all of the cash, no strings attached. > > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list Christine Normile Analyst INFORMRme Magazine 1.800.914.8674 Ext. 713 1.210.438.7736 mobile christine@MyINFORM-me.com

>> Yelling, ranting and complaining will not grow the Informix business and >> will not change IBM's behavior. Yes, you're right, I know. That's why I concentrate my spending on increasing Ardenta's market share amongst the existing, but declining, client base. This is quite achieveable. Increasing Informix's overall market share is, without IBM's support, impossible.

Christine Normile wrote: > Unfortunately, I won't be seeing any full page ads in WSJ for Informix. Why? > I accidently ran a full page Informix ad in a smaller publication in May > and nearly gave management a heart attack! Why? > So I merely recommend that > Business Partners do what IBM will not do which is to advertise and > promote Informix in their regions. Why? How can they hope to compete with Microsoft and Oracle? How does this not qualify as throwing good money down the flusher? If IBM won't step up to the plate with dollars then I would expect there will be a rush to certify employees on Oracle or SQL Server. > And I don't think this way is as effective as if IBM were to get more air for Informix. > Is this the "right" way to do things? NO! > Is this the fastest way to do things? NO! A restatement of the obvious. ;-) > But it can help grow the Informix business and that is good for Informix > business partners and the Informix community. But without IBM's active participation ... so what? Do you really think partners are going to make so many sales in the next 12 months that IBM is going to say "Wow look at all the new license revenue pouring in we should change our strategic direction?" We are talking about IBM here not some hotdog stand. > Yelling, ranting and complaining will not grow the Informix business and > will not change IBM's behavior. If you truly believe that then you are saying that Informix is just another RDB, another Fox, another Ingres, another Sybase. A good product entering its twilight years. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org

eric@herber-consulting.de wrote: > just a waist of time, not more. Hey - I have one of those too. Speak about double digit growth.