Re: Informix left standing
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 00:39:19 -0600, Michael Segel <Mikey@NOSPAM.KingofMyDomain.MAPSON.Segel.com> wrote: > > >Nils Myklebust wrote: > >> John C wrote: >> >Oracle and Sybase are integrating tools and apps into their marketing >> >strategy. Informix is focusing on the database itself without tools or >> >apps. If you're looking for 'one-stop shopping', would you consider >> >Informix? >> >> You could buy Symantec Visual Cafe from Informix for developing Java >> applications and would get a 'one-stop shopping' solution with the >> benefit of best of breed (or at least almost) for the development tool >> as well. > >Oh, very true, and no one is arguing that OEMing a tool is not a viable way >togo. Oracle has been doing that for years..... ;-) > > >> [SNIP] > >> Even though Visual Cafe may not have the main focus of attention from >> Informix, reselling it is a much better strategy than trying to >> compete in a bussiness that's overflowing with excelent tools at low >> prices. The NewEra flop shows how hard it is and it's very likely that >> Sybase will feel the heat on Powerbuilder as well if they do not >> allready do that. Java, with the right tools, are so much better by >> now, and growing better by the day, so I wouldn't bet much on that >> product. >> > >New Era flopped because it was done half assed. There are two aspects to a >OO languageenvironment. The language itself and the class libraries. Too >much time was spent on the >language, and not the class libraries. If you remember, New Era 1.0 was >delivered over 2 years >late.... Yes, this is so right. It wasn't the class libraries alone but support for components as well. At that time they where called VBX's, later OCX's and now ActiveX components. Informix never understood that either. Their one and only option now is to resell tools made by others as they are doing. >> With this situation for Informix to try to compete in the tools >> bussiness would be crazy. This doesn't mean they shouldn't maintain >> 4GL and some other products, but trying to do a major new tool would >> be a waste of resources. Another thing might be to buy a significant >> tools vendor, but I don't think they are even considdering something >> like that right now. Sybase would be a real bad choice in this respect >> of course. >> > >Buy another company? Look around. They are prime potential for being eaten >up.Besides, they had to "beg, borrow, or *steal*" to get the money. (Ok, >they sold their >first born, but you get the point. ;-) AFAIK, they filed the papers so that >they could make >a public offering of a perferred stock. (I'm not sure I read the Edgar >report correctly. I'm an >engineer Captain, not a damn lawyer/accountant!) I don't think it would be a >prudent investment >idea, considering the *last* procurment. And I don't think they could muster > >shareholder support. Remember that there still is a pending SEC >investigation and shareholder >litigation. > >Also, if they had the cash, they would have done a Linux port. Far cheaper >and potentially a >better gain. Especially in light of the DoJ vs Microsloth that is currently >going on. >(If Informix was smart they and Oracle would side with McNealy and >Barksdale! But that >is another story.) > > >> Should they go after applications? >> The can't in the traditional markets as that would destroy their >> important relationship with SAP, Baan and others. > >No, what they should do is try to rekindle that deal with people >soft.License Informix to the app vendors. Sybase did this with Cisco and >I don't think it hurt Sybase. Granted the margins aren't there, but >then people who want the app and don't care about the DB will >become Informix customers. (And that would be a good thing.) They have licensed Informix to Baan. If you buy Baan the default database that comes in the box is Informix. This isn't enough though. They still have to do marketing and sales even to Baan customers. Resently there was a big campaign in Scandinavia where Baan and Microsoft did cooperative marketing of Baan used with Microsoft Back Office. Of course Informix could hope that buyers would eventually find out they got an Informix engine in the box, but it's hardly a viable marketing strategy. With such deals you have to do a lot of follow up marketing. If the money isn't in the deal for that you have a problem. >> They seem to be doing some interesting things in specialized >> applications in cooperation with other companies as described in >> http://www.informix.com/informix/corpinfo/ifxnews/press/1998/rai.htm >> and >> http://www.informix.com/informix/corpinfo/ifxnews/press/1998/bbc.htm >> as just two examples in one area. >> > >What you are pointing to are press releases *from* Informix.Its a bunch of >hot air. A few years ago, someone from MCI gave >a keynote at the WWIUC praising Informix for the PDQ and XPS technology. >That was a hell of a lot more sincere than some back office dweeb writing >copy to put out on *PR Wire*. I think you missed the point here. The point was *not* marketing. The point was that Informix is selling to a new market that didn't exist before and requires high end technology. If such a type of application is successfull with these two organizations every other large TV and radio organization will need the same thing. Informix may then have a standard application they can sell and where it is hard for others to compete due to the technology involved. This market by it self is large enough to give Informix some significant revenue. If Informix does this real well even small TV and radio producers will need this and eventually perhaps every TV and radio station for the purpose of airing the productuions. This is high end applications to big customers in the first place, but that may even be made interesting to large numbers of small customers which could add to the revenue to Informix. >> For this reason Bob F.'s strategy for going after the "high end", >> meaning just such specialized applications, not neccessarily big >> customers (as the examples are, but other similar cases may not be), >> is exactly right. >> > >Big customers? Define Big? Thats the point.What Bob is doing is chasing >after the customer who still needs to build >a custom app. But if you look at the trend, all industries are looking to >make off the shelf products/technologies fit. Its still a small niche. >And both Oracle and Sybase are still chasing it. Hey, I said "specialized" applications, not "custom" applications. Specialized was simply meant to say they require some special technology over and above the run of the mill relational database. The examples are still something that can (and must) be made into off the shelf products or at least technologies for them to be interesting to Informix. If they have to build custom applications for every customer they will never be successfull in such markets. As they do not have an extensive consulting organization, but rely on external consultants to a large extent they will not even get the consulting revenue. If they are able to standardise this eno