Re: informix market share

"Serge Rielau" <srielau@ca.ibm.com> wrote:- > Informix IDS 9 is recommended by IBM for Apps exploiting OO as well as apps requiring the DBMS > runs OLTP embedded. > > Informix IDS has been and still is after what .. 5 years with IBM(?)... the backbone of >90% of > 911 call centers in the US. Can't be that bad then and ain't going anywhere.... Add to it, IDS runs on 20 out of 25 top grocery chains in North America, and about 80% of all retail shops like Wal-Mart, Sears etc. I have not heard of one significant customer in the above industry switching to Oracle after IBM bought Informix. On the contrary Wal-Mart.com switched to Informix from Oracle. [ Wal-Mart.com is separate from Wal-Mart stores ]. Much I like Informix (though I stopped working with it for about a year now), I also think it is toast for reasons totally different. What is happening is that Informix skilled people are rapidly shrinking, just like Sybase and other fading products. In my last project I worked with some UK folks and was shocked to learn that they were exposed to only one RDBMS: SQL Server, right thru their college days. Little bit of research told me that this trend is bit global with most of the fresh graduates hardly proficient in lesser known databases.

"rkusenet" <rkusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Dg8if.35805$gK4.1149183@news20.bellglobal.com... > "Serge Rielau" <srielau@ca.ibm.com> wrote:- > >> Informix IDS 9 is recommended by IBM for Apps exploiting OO as well as >> apps requiring the DBMS runs OLTP embedded. >> >> Informix IDS has been and still is after what .. 5 years with IBM(?)... >> the backbone of >90% of 911 call centers in the US. Can't be that bad >> then and ain't going anywhere.... > > Add to it, IDS runs on 20 out of 25 top grocery chains in North America, > and about 80% of all retail shops like Wal-Mart, Sears etc. > > I have not heard of one significant customer in the above industry > switching > to Oracle after IBM bought Informix. On the contrary Wal-Mart.com switched > to Informix from Oracle. [ Wal-Mart.com is separate from Wal-Mart > stores ]. > Even so, Informix had only 1.4% market share in 2004, even less than Sybase. > Much I like Informix (though I stopped working with it for about a year > now), I also think it is toast for reasons totally different. What > is happening is that Informix skilled people are rapidly shrinking, just > like > Sybase and other fading products. In my last project I worked with some > UK folks and was shocked to learn that they were exposed to only one > RDBMS: SQL Server, right thru their college days. Little bit of research > told me that this trend is bit global with most of the fresh graduates > hardly > proficient in lesser known databases. > I am not surprised. Informix's future is about as bright as OS/2.

>From end user's (my company) point of view, the biggest issue of informix I can see is the cost (normally people complain this about oracle). I just check it from IBM and Oracle. The list price of IDS is about 20% more than oracle EE. No one is more expensive than oracle, when it comes to database. I'm sure IBM will support its current customers, but it appears that they don't want any new deals. >> When did you last choose your car by the battery? >>Because when your phone needs a recharge twice a day you swear at the >> phone company. You need much more service on database than battery. We can bundle database service to the vendor. However, the problems are: first, it will cost us a fortune; second, when there is a performance issue, the vendor could let us to buy a bigger machine when all they to do is changing one line of code. >What is happening is that Informix skilled people are rapidly shrinking, just like >Sybase and other fading products. In this case, database is more like a car rather than a battery. Certainly, we can hire a Informix expertise. It will cost a lot when the skilled people are shrinking. I forget to mention that the town I live is in the middle of desert, with more than 1500 km away from any major cities. You probably won't buy a car here without a local mechanic who can do its maintenance. Remote DBA isn't possible because of regulation. If my company tries to save such money, they will get a hard lesson. Less popularity also means less real gurus, more chance to be the first person who hit the bugs. Cheers, Xiaoxin

rkusenet wrote: > Much I like Informix (though I stopped working with it for about a year > now), I also think it is toast for reasons totally different. What > is happening is that Informix skilled people are rapidly shrinking, just like > Sybase and other fading products. In my last project I worked with some > UK folks and was shocked to learn that they were exposed to only one > RDBMS: SQL Server, right thru their college days. Little bit of research > told me that this trend is bit global with most of the fresh graduates hardly > proficient in lesser known databases. That is precisely what I have been saying but few want to hear the message. But what you also need to know is that what drives the curriculum in classes such as mine is attendance. And students have no interest in classes taught in anything other than SQL Server and Oracle. And it isn't just at the University of Washington, 1.5 miles away from Bill Gates house. It is the same at the vast majority of colleges and universities. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

xiaoxin wrote: > The list price of IDS is about 20% more than oracle EE. No one is > more expensive than oracle, when it comes to database. While that may have been true in the past. And is certainly a common myth today. It is not reality today as you found out. The truth, as I understand it, is that Oracle salespeople have been told to NEVER lose a deal based on price. If a buyer pays more for Oracle then the fault is entirely theirs. But wouldn't a more accurate comparison of IDS to Oracle be with Oracle's Standard Edition? -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

rkusenet wrote: > Add to it, IDS runs on 20 out of 25 top grocery chains in North America, > and about 80% of all retail shops like Wal-Mart, Sears etc. And how many of those 20 grocery chains and 80% of retail shops are also running SQL Server and Oracle? Seems to me this is rather creative use of statistics. No doubt Microsoft can similarly claim that 100% of them use MS Access. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

>But wouldn't a more accurate comparison of IDS to Oracle be with >Oracle's Standard Edition? No, I compare it with Oracle Enterprise Edition. I check the US price: https://www-112.ibm.com/software/howtobuy/buyingtools/paexpress/Express?P0=E1&part_number=D6DAXLL,D5282LL,D6DB5LL,D6DBDLL,D53KKLL&catalogLocale=en_US&Locale=en_US&country=USA&PT=html&S_TACT=none&S_CMP=none IBM Informix Dynamic Server Enterprise Edition Unlimited Processor License + SW Maintenance 12 Months (D6DAXLL) 50,000 Oracle Database Enterprise Edition - Processor Perpetual 40,000 . Plus 22% 12 Months support is 48,800. IDS is 2.46% dearer. However, IDS wins by nearly 30% in the local list price! Cheers, Xiaoxin

Bob Jones apparently said,on my timestamp of 27/11/2005 4:02 PM: > > > I am not surprised. Informix's future is about as bright as OS/2. Ouch!... -- Cheers Nuno Souto in rainy Sydney, Australia wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

In case it has been misunderstood: Informix IDS is nearly 30% more expensive than Oracle Enterprise Edition in the local list price. Regards, Xiaoxin

"Bob Jones" <email@me.not> wrote in message news:x5bif.19109$BZ5.8847@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > >> Much I like Informix (though I stopped working with it for about a year >> now), I also think it is toast for reasons totally different. What >> is happening is that Informix skilled people are rapidly shrinking, just >> like >> Sybase and other fading products. In my last project I worked with some >> UK folks and was shocked to learn that they were exposed to only one >> RDBMS: SQL Server, right thru their college days. Little bit of research >> told me that this trend is bit global with most of the fresh graduates >> hardly >> proficient in lesser known databases. I help companies equip for a market-leading app in Europe that remains Informix-only. I fear for how long though: the last two customers have both expressed concern not at Informix itself or even IBM's plans for it, but the in shortage of skilled staff. Good for me selling managed service of course, but not good for Informix long-term. I previously mentioned that we recruited another graduate trainee this summer, the first for a couple of years. We got a very good one but he, like most people we interviewed this time, and in stark contrast to even 2 years ago, hadn't even covered SQL Server even in Computer Science: the unis seem to think Access is sufficient grounding in database theory now!

"xiaoxin" <lixiaoxinwb@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1133086783.615365.55130@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > In case it has been misunderstood: > Informix IDS is nearly 30% more expensive than Oracle Enterprise > Edition in the local list price. > > Regards, > Xiaoxin > Not surprised at all. With such a small market share, IBM has to increase its profit margin to make up for the development cost of Informix.

"Bob Jones" <email@me.not> wrote in message news:x5bif.19109$BZ5.8847@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > Even so, Informix had only 1.4% market share in 2004, even less than Sybase. that's 1.4% of all market. Informix does not run on mainframes or AS/400. For e.g. Db2 and Oracle have almost same market share, around 33%. But the difference is that Db2 has almost all of it in mainframe and AS 400 platform and Oracle has it in LUW platform. I think Oracle's market share in Unix/Linux is around 70%. In 1996 Informix held 21% of Unix market share. I think that was its best ever market share. Does anyone know how much does Informix now have in LUW. I will be surprised if it is anything more than 5-7%.

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message news:1133072999.816373@yasure... > rkusenet wrote: > >> Add to it, IDS runs on 20 out of 25 top grocery chains in North America, >> and about 80% of all retail shops like Wal-Mart, Sears etc. > > And how many of those 20 grocery chains and 80% of retail shops are > also running SQL Server and Oracle? They must be using SS and O, most likely for their packaged applications. Most of the best-of-the-breed packages support SS and O and the customer is forced to buy them even if they are not a shop of these databases. I know for sure that retail shops like Walmar, Kmart,Sears,Homedepot run their stores applications on Informix. In grocery, Publix, PriceChopper, Krogers run it on Informix. Safeway use to run and they migrated to SS in 2003. > > Seems to me this is rather creative use of statistics. No doubt > Microsoft can similarly claim that 100% of them use MS Access.

"rkusenet" <rkusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Wulif.904$wf2.43349@news20.bellglobal.com... > "Bob Jones" <email@me.not> wrote in message > news:x5bif.19109$BZ5.8847@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > >> Even so, Informix had only 1.4% market share in 2004, even less than >> Sybase. > > that's 1.4% of all market. Informix does not run on mainframes or AS/400. > > For e.g. Db2 and Oracle have almost same market share, around 33%. > But the difference is that Db2 has almost all of it in mainframe and AS > 400 > platform and Oracle has it in LUW platform. I think Oracle's market share > in Unix/Linux is around 70%. In 1996 Informix held 21% of Unix market > share. > I think that was its best ever market share. > Does anyone know how much does Informix now have in LUW. I will be > surprised > if it is anything more than 5-7%. > Ok, let's just talk about LUW then. The market share for Informix was about 5% in 2004, down 1% from 2003. That just doesn't make me feel any better. Keep in mind, IBM bought Informix to increase its database share on UNIX. So far I am not seeing it happening. If Informix sales continue to dwindle, customers will be forced to migrate soon.

"Bob Jones" <email@me.not> wrote in message news:RLmif.34038$6e1.27895@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > Ok, let's just talk about LUW then. The market share for Informix was about 5% in 2004, down 1% > from 2003. That just doesn't make me feel any better. Keep in mind, IBM bought Informix to > increase its database share on UNIX. So far I am not seeing it happening. If Informix sales > continue to dwindle, customers will be forced to migrate soon. of course true. When did I ever dispute this? All I said was that 1.4% is on all platforms, not on LUW. IBM did not buy Informix to increase. It bought Informix for following reasons:- - to assuage concerns of big Informix customers like Wal-Mart. It is strongly rumored that IBM bought Informix upon advise from Wal-Mart. One thing is sure. With IBM as its new owner, Informix can never go bankrupt, leaving its customer high and dry. - to bring much needed high end technology to DB2 UDB. Notice that Db2 is rapidly incorporating Informix technology. Like HADR. Version 9.0 of Db2, known as Viper is out on beta now. It has table partitioning. I am pretty sure that Informix's proven and stable fragmentation technology is behind it. Until late 2004, DB2/UDB was embarrassingly deficient in features. It is a matter of another one yr before it will have almost all features expected in an enterprise class database. I was one of those who suspected IBM's intention back in 2001. Indeed some IBM employees did admit that they never wanted Informix to succeed. But what they saw in next few years after Apr 2001 was that Informix customers are fanatical about their product and the reputation is excellent. That forced them to change their tactics. I was genuinely surprised to see the features in Informix's latest version 10. IBM has added lot of new exciting features. If they were interested in killing it, why bother keeping Informix up-to-date. This doesn't make sense. Informix is still toast bcos of FUD. What I think is going to happen is that in another 1/2 yrs DB2 will match Informix in features and performance and at that time many of Informix customer will migrate to DB2. Add to it that no one wants to learn Informix skills, the demise will be further accelerated. Oracle has more to worry in about a year when IBM will start poaching Oracle customers with a version of DB2 which can stand up to Oracle, if not already. IBM has deep pockets and is into many things. Imagine when they tell customers "get a hardware from us and you will get DB2 free. Why are u paying Oracle so much". I use to work for a giant consulting company till few months back and they lost out a multi million contract to IBM Global Services in NY. I believe my company was winning the bid till about the last day, when an IBM rep wrote a cheque of few million dollars to the customer as cash back if they buy hardware, software and services from IBM. Don't take it literally, but what I mentioned actually happened. It was too tempting for the client to not ink the deal with IBMGS. BTW given the predatory tactics of Larry Ellison, why didn't he buy Informix in 2001. He would have easily killed it by now. Was that a big mistake by him. Is that a reason why he does not want to repeat the mistake with Peoplesoft and Siebel.

"rkusenet" <rkusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2dnif.1163$wf2.60245@news20.bellglobal.com... > "Bob Jones" <email@me.not> wrote in message > news:RLmif.34038$6e1.27895@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > >> Ok, let's just talk about LUW then. The market share for Informix was >> about 5% in 2004, down 1% from 2003. That just doesn't make me feel any >> better. Keep in mind, IBM bought Informix to increase its database share >> on UNIX. So far I am not seeing it happening. If Informix sales continue >> to dwindle, customers will be forced to migrate soon. > > of course true. When did I ever dispute this? All I said was that 1.4% is > on > all platforms, not on LUW. > I did not say you did. I was simply answering your question. IBM folks always like to include mainframe when they talk about maket shares. I was just trying to be consistent. > IBM did not buy Informix to increase. It bought Informix for following > reasons:- > > - to assuage concerns of big Informix customers like Wal-Mart. It is > strongly > rumored that IBM bought Informix upon advise from Wal-Mart. One thing is > sure. With IBM as its new owner, Informix can never go bankrupt, leaving > its customer high and dry. > > - to bring much needed high end technology to DB2 UDB. Notice that Db2 is > rapidly incorporating Informix technology. Like HADR. Version 9.0 of Db2, > known as Viper is out on beta now. It has table partitioning. I am pretty > sure > that Informix's proven and stable fragmentation technology is behind it. > If not to improve the market share of its databases, what do you think the ultimate goal of these 2 actions are? In fact, I could care less about what IBM's real motive was, the only thing matters is the bottom line outcome. Hmmm, I did not know table partitioning is so new to DB2. > I was genuinely surprised to see the features in Informix's latest version > 10. > IBM has added lot of new exciting features. If they were interested in > killing it, > why bother keeping Informix up-to-date. This doesn't make sense. > I don't think IBM wants to kill it quickly. Quite the contrary, they want to give it life-support for as long as possible. > Informix is still toast bcos of FUD. What I think is going to happen is > that > in another 1/2 yrs DB2 will match Informix in features and performance > and at that time many of Informix customer will migrate to DB2. Add to it > that no one wants to learn Informix skills, the demise will be further > accelerated. > Yes, but they could migrate to other databases as well. > Oracle has more to worry in about a year when IBM will start poaching > Oracle customers with a version of DB2 which can stand up to Oracle, > if not already. IBM has deep pockets and is into many things. Imagine > when they tell customers "get a hardware from us and you will get DB2 > free. Why are u paying Oracle so much". Why isn't IBM doing this now? > BTW given the predatory tactics of Larry Ellison, why didn't he buy > Informix > in 2001. He would have easily killed it by now. Was that a big mistake by > him. Is that a reason why he does not want to repeat the mistake with > Peoplesoft and Siebel. > Why do you think Oracle would want to buy Informix and then kill it? It would not have done any good.

"rkusenet" <rkusenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2dnif.1163$wf2.60245@news20.bellglobal.com... > "Bob Jones" <email@me.not> wrote in message > news:RLmif.34038$6e1.27895@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > I was one of those who suspected IBM's intention back in 2001. Indeed some > IBM employees did admit that they never wanted Informix to succeed. But > what they saw in next few years after Apr 2001 was that Informix customers > are fanatical about their product and the reputation is excellent. That > forced > them to change their tactics. > I was genuinely surprised to see the features in Informix's latest version > 10. > IBM has added lot of new exciting features. If they were interested in > killing it, > why bother keeping Informix up-to-date. This doesn't make sense. This point - if IBM wants to kill Informix why are they bothering to keep Informix so up-to-date? - is an excellent point but begs the equally valid and baffling question "Why are they bothering to put so much quality R&D into Informix if they won't advertise it?". > Informix is still toast bcos of FUD. What I think is going to happen is > that > in another 1/2 yrs DB2 will match Informix in features and performance > and at that time many of Informix customer will migrate to DB2. This is just bollocks. IBM execs have already learnt the hard and painful truth that Informix customers will not migrate to DB2. > Add to it that no one wants to learn Informix skills, the demise will be > further accelerated. That may however be true.

xiaoxin wrote: >>But wouldn't a more accurate comparison of IDS to Oracle be with >>Oracle's Standard Edition? > > No, I compare it with Oracle Enterprise Edition. > I check the US price: > https://www-112.ibm.com/software/howtobuy/buyingtools/paexpress/Express?P0=E1&part_number=D6DAXLL,D5282LL,D6DB5LL,D6DBDLL,D53KKLL&catalogLocale=en_US&Locale=en_US&country=USA&PT=html&S_TACT=none&S_CMP=none > IBM Informix Dynamic Server Enterprise Edition Unlimited Processor > License + SW Maintenance 12 Months (D6DAXLL) 50,000 > Oracle Database Enterprise Edition - Processor Perpetual 40,000 . > Plus 22% 12 Months support is 48,800. > > IDS is 2.46% dearer. However, IDS wins by nearly 30% in the local list > price! > > Cheers, > Xiaoxin My question about whether to the proper comparison of IDS is to Oracle's Enterprise Edition or Standard Edition relates to comparable feature sets. What functionality does Oracle's EE contain that is in IDS but that is not in Oracle's SS? Thanks. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message news:1133072683.547964@yasure... > xiaoxin wrote: > > The list price of IDS is about 20% more than oracle EE. No one is > > more expensive than oracle, when it comes to database. > > But wouldn't a more accurate comparison of IDS to Oracle be with > Oracle's Standard Edition? Not really. IDS has both HDR and Enterprise Replication as a base part of the product. Last time I checked, the Oracle equivalent of IDS/ER would be streams replication, not Oracle standard replication. And the last time I checked Standard Edition didn't include Streams Replication.

rkusenet wrote: > IBM did not buy Informix to increase. It bought Informix for following reasons:- > > - to assuage concerns of big Informix customers like Wal-Mart. It is strongly > rumored that IBM bought Informix upon advise from Wal-Mart. One thing is > sure. With IBM as its new owner, Informix can never go bankrupt, leaving > its customer high and dry. This seems the most unlikely reason I can imagine. Why would company A care whether company B, a competitor, went bankrupt? Methinks a more logical reason was that company A did something stupid, from a legal standpoint, and company B saw an opportunity to pick up marketshare and technology for a reasonable price while avoiding costly litigation. > Oracle has more to worry in about a year when IBM will start poaching > Oracle customers with a version of DB2 which can stand up to Oracle, > if not already. And which runs one, and only one product line: SAP. > IBM has deep pockets and is into many things. Imagine when they tell > customers "get a hardware from us and you will get DB2 > free. Imagine when there is not a single dollar of revenue coming to IBM attributable to the sales of DB2. Imagine the research money. Imagine the marketing dollars. Imagine the sales bonuses. Imagine sales three years later ... better have a good imagination. IBM isn't that stupid. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)