Re: Well he started it!!! wuz Re: IDS on a Mac?
This is an off-topic discussion thread rather than a technical support question. Sparked by a quip that IBM should drop DB2 for distributed platforms and keep only IDS, the posters argue about whether IBM publishes separate revenue figures for IDS versus DB2 LUW. IBM's Serge Rielau says such splits are confidential and not broken out in quarterly reports, while others counter that the numbers clearly exist internally and are simply withheld as proprietary, as Oracle and others also do. Side remarks cover DB2's warehousing strength, the free IDS 11.10 Developer Edition, and the lack of TPC-C results for IDS. No technical problem is posed and no resolution is reached.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > IMHO if IBM were smurt, they'd ditch DB2 distributed and focus on IDS > and leave DB2 on the mainframe. But hey! What do I know? ;-) DB2 distributed revenue numbers. That's what you don't know. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab
On Nov 7, 3:40 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > IMHO if IBM were smurt, they'd ditch DB2 distributed and focus on IDS > > and leave DB2 on the mainframe. But hey! What do I know? ;-) > > DB2 distributed revenue numbers. That's what you don't know. > > Cheers > Serge > -- > Serge Rielau > DB2 Solutions Development > IBM Toronto Lab That is what many of us would like to know, as well as IDS revenue numbers (naturally, since this topic is in c.d.i). Are they confidential? Regarding DB2 distributed, it has strong technical ground for building data warehouses, IMHO. Darko Krstic
darko wrote: > On Nov 7, 3:40 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >>> IMHO if IBM were smurt, they'd ditch DB2 distributed and focus on IDS >>> and leave DB2 on the mainframe. But hey! What do I know? ;-) >> DB2 distributed revenue numbers. That's what you don't know. > That is what many of us would like to know, as well as IDS revenue > numbers (naturally, since this topic is in c.d.i). Are they > confidential? They are confidential until an IBM spokesperson says otherwise. (none of those IBMers posting here are spokes people) Note that for a big company like IBM it is impractical to break out these numbers at the quarterly reports. They are below the threshhold of interest for analysts. It is quite educational to see how e.g. Oracle stopped reporting such "details" like Oracle DBMS revenue as they diversified - after complaining about IBM not doing so for years. AFAIK it was impossible to get Teradata numbers until they went solo. So IBM is keeping its card no closer to the chest than the next guy. > Regarding DB2 distributed, it has strong technical ground for building > data warehouses, IMHO. It is that aspect that is often overlooked in these threads. There is a lot of cash in warehousing and its growing faster than the DBMS market. While IDS ships thousands of instances through CISCO, Walmart, etc... DB2 ships in the multi-terabytes to the financial institutions. I have no trouble believing that IDS outnumbers DB2 for LUW in installations. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab
Serge Rielau wrote: > > Note that for a big company like IBM it is impractical to break out > these numbers at the quarterly reports. "Impractical"? I think the word you're looking for is "embarrassing", but since English isn't your first language, I'll forgive you. :o) I don't think I've EVER seen a number break out. ;o) -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > I don't think I've EVER seen a number break out. ;o) > You never watched Prison Break? Eight broke out.
RedGrittyBrick said: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> >> I don't think I've EVER seen a number break out. ;o) >> > > You never watched Prison Break? Eight broke out. Boom! Boom! -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I'm astonished anyone pays real money for this crap." -- Cosmo "Cluster in my trousers" -- Guy Bowerman -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
darko wrote: > On Nov 7, 3:40 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >>> IMHO if IBM were smurt, they'd ditch DB2 distributed and focus on IDS >>> and leave DB2 on the mainframe. But hey! What do I know? ;-) >> DB2 distributed revenue numbers. That's what you don't know. >> >> Cheers >> Serge >> -- >> Serge Rielau >> DB2 Solutions Development >> IBM Toronto Lab > > That is what many of us would like to know, as well as IDS revenue > numbers (naturally, since this topic is in c.d.i). Are they > confidential? > > Regarding DB2 distributed, it has strong technical ground for building > data warehouses, IMHO. > > Darko Krstic > IBM doesn't release the split on IDS/DBS etc revenues/growth etc within IM. So they are no official numbers to show that IDS is doing very well -- Paul Watson Tel: +1 913-400-2620 Mob: +1 913-387-7529 Web: www.oninit.com Failure is not as frightening as regret. If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.
On Nov 8, 9:17 am, Paul Watson <p...@oninit.com> wrote: > darko wrote: > > On Nov 7, 3:40 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > >>> IMHO if IBM were smurt, they'd ditch DB2 distributed and focus on IDS > >>> and leave DB2 on the mainframe. But hey! What do I know? ;-) > >> DB2 distributed revenue numbers. That's what you don't know. > > >> Cheers > >> Serge > >> -- > >> Serge Rielau > >> DB2 Solutions Development > >> IBM Toronto Lab > > > That is what many of us would like to know, as well as IDS revenue > > numbers (naturally, since this topic is in c.d.i). Are they > > confidential? > > > Regarding DB2 distributed, it has strong technical ground for building > > data warehouses, IMHO. > > > Darko Krstic > > IBM doesn't release the split on IDS/DBS etc revenues/growth etc within > IM. So they are no official numbers to show that IDS is doing very well Suffice it to say that IDS is doing SO well that IBM decided, finally, to release a free Developer's Edition of IDS 11.10 with no time bomb! Just six months ago I was told that it would never happen by the people who make those decisions! The next "It will never happen!" I'm waiting for is TPC/C results for IDS! Anyone but me notice that IBM has claimed (and the user community has confirmed!) that the last 4 releases of IDS have each been faster than the last one while noone has made similar claims for ANY of the last three releases of Oracle, DB2, Sybase, Ingres, PostgreSQL, SQL Server, nor of any other RDBMS I'm familiar with. Considering that the Informix user community knows that IDS was fastest in the industry four versions ago, I can't imagine IDS 11.10 not blowing the doors off everything else. Art S. Kagel
>From: Paul Watson <paul@oninit.com> > > Darko Krstic > > > >IBM doesn't release the split on IDS/DBS etc revenues/growth etc within >IM. So they are no official numbers to show that IDS is doing very well > Uhm thats *not completely true*... You have to understand that IBM like all publicly traded companies has to release meaningful financial results each quarter, else face penalties like de-listing from the exchange. Getting down to the results of each product isn't considered meaningful financial information in terms of the health of IBM. So bottom line, IBM will not break down numbers by product, and I believe that they only provide numbers at the division level with some indication as to how each pillar did in SWG. HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT... Yes, IBM has the numbers of how each product sold, by region by quarter. (*Official numbers*) Among other numbers. There are two people who have to know these numbers. The director who is in charge of product development. The World Wide Sales lead who is in charge of the product's sales. In addition, you have the pilliar's management team, their staff who tabulate the data all know the information and these numbers. Then there's the sales pipeline reports and sales forecast reports. But that's the S&D stuff that flows up to the WW Sales lead. THEY ALL KNOW THE REAL NUMBERS. (Well sort of.) Because some of the products are OEM'd, there's some "drift" in the numbers. But that's getting off topic. The point is that the numbers exist... _________________________________________________________________ Be the first to know who's in and who's out.' Check out the xRank. http://search.live.com/xrank/results.aspx?q=britney+spears&FORM=MGCC01
>From: "Art S. Kagel" <art.kagel@gmail.com> [SNIP] >Suffice it to say that IDS is doing SO well that IBM decided, finally, >to release a free Developer's Edition of IDS 11.10 with no time bomb! >Just six months ago I was told that it would never happen by the >people who make those decisions! > Uhm... there's a bit of a caveat on that. Take a look at what platforms they are releasing the "developers" version ... >The next "It will never happen!" I'm waiting for is TPC/C results for >IDS! > Uhm ... that will never happen. TPC/C is dead. Its being replaced with a new benchmark. And yes, IBM's made noise that they will do an IDS run against that benchmark. Note this was said at IOD... >Anyone but me notice that IBM has claimed (and the user community has >confirmed!) that the last 4 releases of IDS have each been faster than >the last one while noone has made similar claims for ANY of the last >three releases of Oracle, DB2, Sybase, Ingres, PostgreSQL, SQL Server, >nor of any other RDBMS I'm familiar with. Considering that the >Informix user community knows that IDS was fastest in the industry >four versions ago, I can't imagine IDS 11.10 not blowing the doors off >everything else. > >Art S. Kagel > Sshhh! C'mon there are some Oracle and DB2 fanatics who are still in denial over this. IDS *is* the industry's *dirty little secret*. -G PS. Why is IDS so much like a moped? A: Cause its fun to ride until your friends see you on one. :-P _________________________________________________________________ You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the i'm Initiative now. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: >> Note that for a big company like IBM it is impractical to break out >> these numbers at the quarterly reports. > > "Impractical"? I think the word you're looking for is "embarrassing", but > since English isn't your first language, I'll forgive you. :o) > > I don't think I've EVER seen a number break out. ;o) Sorry Serge but OTC is correct but it really is disingenuous to say "impractical." You are a database company and you compensate your DB2 and IDS sales teams based on those numbers. Surely you are not claiming that DB2 is incapable of rolling up sales metrics and producing a pie chart. Surely you aren't saying that your C-Level management doesn't know the numbers. I bet you aren't even saying that you don't know them yourself. So practicality has nothing to do with it. Just say it like it is. Software companies consider sales breakouts proprietary information and refuse to release them to analysts, customers, competitors, and the public. Doesn't that feel better? <g> -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington
DA Morgan said: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Serge Rielau wrote: >>> Note that for a big company like IBM it is impractical to break out >>> these numbers at the quarterly reports. >> >> "Impractical"? I think the word you're looking for is "embarrassing", >> but >> since English isn't your first language, I'll forgive you. :o) >> >> I don't think I've EVER seen a number break out. ;o) > > Sorry Serge but OTC is correct but it really is disingenuous to say > "impractical." > > You are a database company and you compensate your DB2 and IDS sales > teams based on those numbers. Surely you are not claiming that DB2 is > incapable of rolling up sales metrics and producing a pie chart. Surely > you aren't saying that your C-Level management doesn't know the numbers. > I bet you aren't even saying that you don't know them yourself. So > practicality has nothing to do with it. > > Just say it like it is. Software companies consider sales breakouts > proprietary information and refuse to release them to analysts, > customers, competitors, and the public. Does Oracle break out its numbers? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I'm astonished anyone pays real money for this crap." -- Cosmo "Cluster in my trousers" -- Guy Bowerman -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Does Oracle break out its numbers? One number for "Database and Middleware". Think IM + Websphere... To answer to Daniel. I said "impractical at a quarterly report". Neither SEC nor Analysts care for this DB2 vs. IDS nonsense. Of course the number are known. But IBM, IMHO, is neither obligated nor motivated to disclose to a raging flamewar in usenet. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan said: >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> Serge Rielau wrote: >>>> Note that for a big company like IBM it is impractical to break out >>>> these numbers at the quarterly reports. >>> "Impractical"? I think the word you're looking for is "embarrassing", >>> but >>> since English isn't your first language, I'll forgive you. :o) >>> >>> I don't think I've EVER seen a number break out. ;o) >> Sorry Serge but OTC is correct but it really is disingenuous to say >> "impractical." >> >> You are a database company and you compensate your DB2 and IDS sales >> teams based on those numbers. Surely you are not claiming that DB2 is >> incapable of rolling up sales metrics and producing a pie chart. Surely >> you aren't saying that your C-Level management doesn't know the numbers. >> I bet you aren't even saying that you don't know them yourself. So >> practicality has nothing to do with it. >> >> Just say it like it is. Software companies consider sales breakouts >> proprietary information and refuse to release them to analysts, >> customers, competitors, and the public. > > Does Oracle break out its numbers? No more or less than IBM. They all compete in the same environment of analysts and stockholders. The truth is so amazingly simple. I don't understand why someone wouldn't just state it and move on. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington