Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

DBA wrote: > You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely to > go out of business or be taken over by another company. The market share > #'s are much closer than you indicate. Not in the UK they're not. However, I would like to point out that a lot of people *did* choose Informix over DB2, and they typically did this for several reasons: 1. They preferred the technology. 2. They preferred dealing with a company where they were considered important, rather than a company where customers and their wants get in the way of a process. 3. They bought into a vision that the database was a differentiating product and not a commodity. 4. Etc. They did all this despite the fact that Informix's market share had eroded over the years. The car analogy doesn't really work in this case, because there are other factors that influence a car purchase. I, for example, drive a very large BMW because I have a very small willy. Market share played no part in my decision, only the desire for a large, throbbing, thrusting ... car. Ahem. No database vendor markets to that sector of the market, AFAIK. (Although I haven't been playing close attention to Oracle's marketing lately, to be fair, they have probably got this base covered too.) However, market share *is* important for ISVs and third party developers -- they are reluctant to develop on and support a platform that doesn't give them broad exposure to the market. Conversely, this affects your decision because it means that you have access to more applications and resources with a product that owns a bigger market share. (This argument falls down if you have a niche requirement that can only be satisfied by one product of course! :o) Informix was hugely popular in the ISV space despite a less than massive market share, because they made it easy to do business with them, something I've found can only be said about IBM with your fingers crossed behind your back. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

You are aware that ISVs like Siebel and Peoplesoft develop on DB2 as their reference platform? Larry Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DBA wrote: > > > You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely to > > go out of business or be taken over by another company. The market share > > #'s are much closer than you indicate. > > Not in the UK they're not. > > However, I would like to point out that a lot of people *did* choose > Informix over DB2, and they typically did this for several reasons: > > 1. They preferred the technology. > 2. They preferred dealing with a company where they were considered > important, rather than a company where customers and their wants get in the > way of a process. > 3. They bought into a vision that the database was a differentiating product > and not a commodity. > 4. Etc. > > They did all this despite the fact that Informix's market share had eroded > over the years. > > The car analogy doesn't really work in this case, because there are other > factors that influence a car purchase. I, for example, drive a very large > BMW because I have a very small willy. Market share played no part in my > decision, only the desire for a large, throbbing, thrusting ... car. Ahem. > No database vendor markets to that sector of the market, AFAIK. (Although I > haven't been playing close attention to Oracle's marketing lately, to be > fair, they have probably got this base covered too.) > > However, market share *is* important for ISVs and third party developers -- > they are reluctant to develop on and support a platform that doesn't give > them broad exposure to the market. Conversely, this affects your decision > because it means that you have access to more applications and resources > with a product that owns a bigger market share. (This argument falls down > if you have a niche requirement that can only be satisfied by one product > of course! :o) > > Informix was hugely popular in the ISV space despite a less than massive > market share, because they made it easy to do business with them, something > I've found can only be said about IBM with your fingers crossed behind your > back. > > -- > "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" > - Coluche

Disagree. Think the car analogy is perfect. Market share is always one of the first questions asked in making a db decision. It's one thing to ask that question about a minor player in the industry. It's silly to ask it about IBM and DB2. You don't do that when you buy a car, stereo, camera ... whatever. You accept the premise that there are several good manufacturers out there who are likely to be there to support you into the future. You did it when you bought your car, although you won't admit it. DBA Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DBA wrote: > > > You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely to > > go out of business or be taken over by another company. The market share > > #'s are much closer than you indicate. > > Not in the UK they're not. > > However, I would like to point out that a lot of people *did* choose > Informix over DB2, and they typically did this for several reasons: > > 1. They preferred the technology. > 2. They preferred dealing with a company where they were considered > important, rather than a company where customers and their wants get in the > way of a process. > 3. They bought into a vision that the database was a differentiating product > and not a commodity. > 4. Etc. > > They did all this despite the fact that Informix's market share had eroded > over the years. > > The car analogy doesn't really work in this case, because there are other > factors that influence a car purchase. I, for example, drive a very large > BMW because I have a very small willy. Market share played no part in my > decision, only the desire for a large, throbbing, thrusting ... car. Ahem. > No database vendor markets to that sector of the market, AFAIK. (Although I > haven't been playing close attention to Oracle's marketing lately, to be > fair, they have probably got this base covered too.) > > However, market share *is* important for ISVs and third party developers -- > they are reluctant to develop on and support a platform that doesn't give > them broad exposure to the market. Conversely, this affects your decision > because it means that you have access to more applications and resources > with a product that owns a bigger market share. (This argument falls down > if you have a niche requirement that can only be satisfied by one product > of course! :o) > > Informix was hugely popular in the ISV space despite a less than massive > market share, because they made it easy to do business with them, something > I've found can only be said about IBM with your fingers crossed behind your > back. > > -- > "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" > - Coluche

DBA wrote: > Disagree. Think the car analogy is perfect. Market share is always one of > the first questions asked in making a db decision. It's one thing to ask > that question about a minor player in the industry. It's silly to ask it > about IBM and DB2. You don't do that when you buy a car, stereo, camera > ... whatever. You accept the premise that there are several good > manufacturers out there who are likely to be there to support you into the > future. You did it when you bought your car, although you won't admit it. I don't know. If I'd had the money, I'd have bought a Lamborghini or a Bugatti, and it sure as hell wasn't clear (even to me) they were going to be around for ever, Bugatti I think still not. Lotus. Whoever? Plus their market share certainly is lower in their market than Informix's share of the database market. I wouldn't touch a Rover with a bargepole, but it's got nothing to do with their viability ... As to stereo, I have a Sony. They're not going out of business, but have you ever tried to deal with their support? :o) -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Let me preface this with an observation that I can only speak from my geographical experiences, which don't include the US. Larry Edelstein wrote: > You are aware that ISVs like Siebel and Peoplesoft develop on DB2 as their > reference platform? Sure I am. Your comment sums up IBM's ISV / VAR issue pretty well, in fact: "The big boys can deal with IBM because of their relative clout and because of the way the apps are structured, the database is pretty much a commodity." Siebel, SAP and PeopleSoft don't want the database decision to have any impact on their sale, and hence IBM are a relatively safe, cost-effective choice.In fact, I'm surprised SAP isn't on the list of DB2 reference platforms, because of the competition with Oracle Financials. However, it may surprise you to learn that there are thousands of smaller players where DB2 is *not* the reference platform. The moment you move away from the big boys, people are looking for the database to be a differentiator, and you're also in a space where a process-driven, one-size-fits-all-aspects-of-our-business-model way of dealing with partners is "unhelpful". I'd be very surprised if that ">40,000" ISV apps and tools you mentioned elsewhere excluded the stuff that is specific to AS/400 (or whatever you're calling it this week) and 0S/390 (or whatever you're call _that_ this week). I suspect that once you removed those and removed the ones who are prepared to port to DB2 on demand or had a port to 6.1 that they never sold but still have lying around somewhere and got actual, active ISVs and VARs counted, you might have a significantly different number. (As a side issue, I am a bit lost by IBM's definition of a tool, too. Sometimes it seems that their tools are a bit too focussed, so instead of having one tool that does three, related things, IBM will have three different tools. On this basis, getting 40,000 tools is not impossibly difficult -- imagine if every onstat and oncheck command was a different tool? But I digress...) When you look at the level 2 down and niche suppliers, they want all the edge they can get. And DB2 is not seen as a competitively differentiating database (whether it is or it isn't is irrelevant -- it's not _seen_ as one). Informix was disproportionately succesful in this space, because it was seen as technically differentiating and was also much nicer to do business with (for smaller VARs / ISVs / whatever, at least). I also suspect that if IBM looked outside its US comfort zone, they might see a slightly less rosy picture and I think IBM *should* look outside its comfort zone and talk to world + dog when deciding how world + dog should manage their data. For smaller VARs and ISVs, active promotion of Informix technology as an interim measure would be a win for IBM, because it would retain them until IBM was able to successfully convince the world of the merits of DB2 in both the current "safe pair of hands" market and the "technical differentiation" market. Speaking as an Informix user: if I had wanted to use DB2 with knobs on, I would have bought it and asked for the knobs. Instead, I bought Informix. Until IBM convinces me that they have good technology and want to do business with my end of the market in a way that isn't a constant source of pain and frustration, I will continue to question their strategy. > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> However, market share *is* important for ISVs and third party developers >> -- they are reluctant to develop on and support a platform that doesn't >> give them broad exposure to the market. Conversely, this affects your >> decision because it means that you have access to more applications and >> resources with a product that owns a bigger market share. (This argument >> falls down if you have a niche requirement that can only be satisfied by >> one product of course! :o) >> >> Informix was hugely popular in the ISV space despite a less than massive >> market share, because they made it easy to do business with them, >> something I've found can only be said about IBM with your fingers crossed >> behind your back. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

DBA <DBA@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<3F648A87.22BD3798@nospam.net>... > first questions asked in making a db decision. It's one thing to ask that > question about a minor player in the industry. It's silly to ask it about IBM > and DB2. You don't do that when you buy a car, stereo, camera ... whatever. You > accept the premise that there are several good manufacturers out there who are > likely to be there to support you into the future. Just like what happened with OS2... Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

Noons wrote: > DBA <DBA@nospam.net> wrote in message > news:<3F648A87.22BD3798@nospam.net>... > >> first questions asked in making a db decision. It's one thing to ask that >> question about a minor player in the industry. It's silly to ask it about >> IBM and DB2. You don't do that when you buy a car, stereo, camera ... >> whatever. You accept the premise that there are several good >> manufacturers out there who are likely to be there to support you into >> the future. > > Just like what happened with OS2... Ooh ... nice one! -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >DBA wrote: > > > >>You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely to >>go out of business or be taken over by another company. The market share >>#'s are much closer than you indicate. >> >> > >Not in the UK they're not. > >However, I would like to point out that a lot of people *did* choose >Informix over DB2, and they typically did this for several reasons: > Unfortunately not enough of them for Informix to remain viable as an independent. - Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1063580675.445761@yasure... >> Unfortunately not enough of them for Informix to remain viable as an independent. We'll never know, will we? IBM made the Informix shareholders they couldn't refuse, and Informix's independence was gone. Certainly the company had been struggling for some years. But it's highly arguable whether Informix *customers* have benefited from the IBM takeover. Or IBM in fact.

Daniel Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >>DBA wrote: >> >>>You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely >>>to go out of business or be taken over by another company. The market >>>share >>>#'s are much closer than you indicate. >>> >>> >> >>Not in the UK they're not. >> >>However, I would like to point out that a lot of people *did* choose >>Informix over DB2, and they typically did this for several reasons: >> > Unfortunately not enough of them for Informix to remain viable as an > independent. We'll never know, will we? I for one will certainly never accept the carpetbagger's opinion. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

> >> Unfortunately not enough of them for Informix to remain viable as an > independent. > > We'll never know, will we? > IBM made the Informix shareholders they couldn't refuse, and Informix's > independence was gone. > Certainly the company had been struggling for some years. > But it's highly arguable whether Informix *customers* have benefited from > the IBM takeover. Or IBM in fact. > The only other option was for CA to buy them. CA would have bleed the customers to a slow death with high maintenance fees (just like they do with all the companies they buy). There was no option for independence.

Neil Truby wrote: >"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message >news:1063580675.445761@yasure... > > > >>>Unfortunately not enough of them for Informix to remain viable as an >>> >>> >independent. > >We'll never know, will we? >IBM made the Informix shareholders they couldn't refuse, and Informix's >independence was gone. >Certainly the company had been struggling for some years. >But it's highly arguable whether Informix *customers* have benefited from >the IBM takeover. Or IBM in fact. > > > Well IBM certainly got their hands on some good people and some good technology. In that sense they benefited in the same way that Microsoft probably wouldn't have a database product at all were it not for the willingness of Fox to sell out and Sybase to be near suicidal. -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Someone mentioned that DB2 is still a marginal player in LUW world. http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/030912/tech_oracle_earns_5.html " Hilal said investor disappointment could be pegged to the company's 7 percent decline in new database software sales. Oracle gets nearly 75 percent of its revenues from its flagship database business. Industry analysts say technology giants International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - News) and Microsoft Corp. (NasdaqNM:MSFT - News) are aggressively pushing into the maturing corporate database segment long controlled by Oracle, gaining share and putting pressure on Oracle pricing. Oracle has held down corporate expenses to preserve profits as new software license sales have declined in 9 of the last 10 quarters. Only in the fourth fiscal quarter ended in May 2003 did Oracle finally report a rise in license sales. "

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >[SNIP] > very large BMW because I have a very small willy. Market share played >[SNIP] > However, market share *is* important for ISVs and third party > developers -- they are reluctant to develop on and support a platform > that doesn't give them broad exposure to the market. Conversely, this >[SNIP] How horrible; OTC talking about his very small willy, and broad exposure, in the same message. I need an aspirin and a good lie down....

Mark A wrote: >> >> Unfortunately not enough of them for Informix to remain viable as an >> independent. >> >> We'll never know, will we? >> IBM made the Informix shareholders they couldn't refuse, and Informix's >> independence was gone. >> Certainly the company had been struggling for some years. >> But it's highly arguable whether Informix *customers* have benefited from >> the IBM takeover. Or IBM in fact. >> > The only other option was for CA to buy them. CA would have bleed the > customers to a slow death with high maintenance fees (just like they do > with all the companies they buy). > > There was no option for independence. You say. I don't. Anyway, we will never know. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

> >> >> Unfortunately not enough of them for Informix to remain viable as an > >> independent. > >> > >> We'll never know, will we? > >> IBM made the Informix shareholders they couldn't refuse, and Informix's > >> independence was gone. > >> Certainly the company had been struggling for some years. > >> But it's highly arguable whether Informix *customers* have benefited from > >> the IBM takeover. Or IBM in fact. > >> > > The only other option was for CA to buy them. CA would have bleed the > > customers to a slow death with high maintenance fees (just like they do > > with all the companies they buy). > > > > There was no option for independence. > > You say. I don't. Anyway, we will never know. > The decision to sell the company was made by Informix, not by IBM. The same idiotic people in this thread who claim that DB2 doesn't have enough market share to survive are now claiming that Informix could have survived.