Re: IDS License Revenue
Not a technical thread: it's an argument over an IBM employee's blog claim (quoting IDS product manager Cindy Fung) that Informix license revenue "hit way out of the park" in Q4. A sceptic calling himself "Tool" demanded proof, saying unsourced numbers are just gossip and IBM should publish official success stories and customer references like Oracle or Microsoft do. Others debated whether posting such figures breached IBM's conduct guidelines or disclosure/safe-harbour rules. The only substantive answer came from Jack Parker, who said Ambuj Goyal had publicly stated at IOD and Forum 2006 that Informix sales grew in double digits, and that his own Informix consulting work had increased. The rest degenerated into name-calling; no further resolution is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
> >Tool said: > > > Guy you're a liar and a gossip unless you can show some PROOF, get it? > > It's all lies! > >I think you need to get some decaf or go for a(nother) wank. > >-- >Bye now, >Obnoxio Far be it for me to actually support what this tool is saying. Lets be fair, reasonable and objective. 1) Guy is an IBM employee. 2) Guy just posted numbers which may be real or smoke. 3) Guy either just violated his BCG and this would constitute a terminating offense or he was allowed to post it. 4) Since Guy hasn't been fired or removed this from his "blog" we can assume that he was given permission to post this information. 5) Tool, whomever he is, has the right to question the validity of these "numbers". Since these numbers are never reported anywhere, we have no way to verify that they are real. We have no ancillary methods to confirm these numbers. So what have we learned? 1) Tool is a bit of a wank and probably an Oracle plant who doesn't like what he sees. 2) Guy probably got permission to post these numbers, which would mean that there may be some truth behind them. 3) Since Guy was given the numbers and permission to post, what does that make Guy's blog? Ethically, I am disturbed by IBM's methods. If Goyal isn't willing to make an open and public statement concerning the growth of IDS within the marketplace, then he and IBM should not release this information at all. One thing is for certain. Because these numbers and this information will not have a material effect on IBMs overall revenue numbers, its not actionable as a violation of FD. Perhaps Guy should also post the safe harbor language on his website whenever he posts this information? But hey! What do I know? Its not like I've ever had conversations with the SEC about Safe Harbor Provisions... ;-) _________________________________________________________________ Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > 1) Tool is a bit of a wank and probably an Oracle plant who doesn't like > what he sees. Not to the best of my knowledge. I think he's one of yours. Embrace him. ;-) -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > >> >> Tool said: >> >> > Guy you're a liar and a gossip unless you can show some PROOF, get it? >> > It's all lies! >> >> I think you need to get some decaf or go for a(nother) wank. >> >> -- >> Bye now, >> Obnoxio > > Far be it for me to actually support what this tool is saying. > > Lets be fair, reasonable and objective. > > 1) Guy is an IBM employee. > 2) Guy just posted numbers which may be real or smoke. > 3) Guy either just violated his BCG and this would constitute a > terminating offense or he was allowed to post it. > 4) Since Guy hasn't been fired or removed this from his "blog" we can > assume that he was given > permission to post this information. > > 5) Tool, whomever he is, has the right to question the validity of these > "numbers". > Since these numbers are never reported anywhere, we have no way to > verify that they are real. > We have no ancillary methods to confirm these numbers. > > So what have we learned? > > 1) Tool is a bit of a wank and probably an Oracle plant who doesn't like > what he sees. > 2) Guy probably got permission to post these numbers, which would mean > that there may be some truth behind them. > 3) Since Guy was given the numbers and permission to post, what does > that make Guy's blog? > > Ethically, I am disturbed by IBM's methods. > > If Goyal isn't willing to make an open and public statement concerning > the growth of IDS within the marketplace, then he and IBM should not > release this information at all. > > One thing is for certain. > Because these numbers and this information will not have a material > effect on IBMs overall revenue numbers, its not actionable as a > violation of FD. > > Perhaps Guy should also post the safe harbor language on his website > whenever he posts this information? > > > But hey! What do I know? Its not like I've ever had conversations with > the SEC about Safe Harbor Provisions... ;-) > > It's a real challenge to post a response to so much of the anger posted by the sycophants. I probably deserve being called a wank, but it's to be expected, and I did offer up the challenge that Guy is a liar unless he ( or Cindy Fung ) can step up to the challenge and post some facts. So, I did indeed start the name calling, but only very specific name calling predicated on an action or inaction. If they can brag, let's see the announcement out where it is officially sanctioned. Let's look at that quote again: 'To quote Cindy Fung, Worldwide IDS Product Manager: "We hit way out of the park in Q4". ' What exactly does this mean? In the USA, this is a baseball parallel, but what exactly does that quote mean? Where is Cindy Fung, who is she, and why didn't she make some kind of real effort to brag in an official statement? Why are these people held to some kind of secrecy about everything Informix? What's the big deal? It looks very amateur. Why would it be so difficult to post some factual information about Informix's successes? In the last issue of Oracle magazine I see names of companies peppered throughout the magazine with Oracle success stories. So I don't buy into the argument that companies are trying to maintain a competitive advantage by hiding Informix, that's just silly. Even Microsoft brags about who uses their stuff. I also see Oracle bragging on a regular basis. I think Guy was roped into saying something on his blog because "that would be cool if you just say something on your blog". It doesn't come with any responsibility and gives hope to the sycophants. So, sorry to the sycophants who were offended, your loyalty is admirable but makes you look silly. It would be very good to have something factual that I could pass on to my prospective customers about Informix, instead of whisper, innuendo, or gossip. ( For what it's worth, I am not a shill for any company. )
Tool said: > sycophants. Hi Mark! How's the new job treating you? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I don't read newspapers anymore except the local rag which I do weekly to cheer myself trying to see if anyone I hate has been stabbed." -- Horribilis XVI -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
> > If Goyal isn't willing to make an open and public statement concerning > the growth of IDS within the marketplace, then he and IBM should not > release this information at all. > I have heard two public statements from Ambuj Goyal indicating that Informix sales grew in the double digits in 2006, one at IOD the other at Forum 2006. As an independent consultant I had more Informix work in the 2006 than I had from the acquisition up to 2006. j.
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Tool said: >> sycophants. > > Hi Mark! > > How's the new job treating you? > Hi Dick. About the same as your wife.