Re: database market share 2003

Darin McBride <dmcbride@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message news:<5JGvc.659814$Ig.278119@pd7tw2no>... > >> I think Noons' point is that it's unfair to compare Oracle (Linux, > >> Unix, Windows) against DB2 (Linux, Unix, Windows, AS/400) since the > >> domains are different. > > > > Nope. > > Then, please ... explain in plain English for us obvious idiots. OK, I'll try again, this time with small words, it may be easier. "IBM can not claim as DB2 licenses all their AS400 sites. They are not. And to bundle them ALL in ANY market analysis of DB2 is totally misleading and downright stupid." > Is this a significant portion of the AS/400 market? <sigh> > You're answering my question backwards. I'm asking about the portion > of the AS/400 market which IBM is incorrectly claiming uses DB2. Is > THAT portion significant? I'm not asking if IBM's claim is significant > - you may think I'm stupid, but I'm not that stupid. That it is the > entire AS/400 market is obvious. IBM's incorrect claim IS the point. Not if the AS400 market is significant. And BTW: it is. In case you have not noticed, the AS400 is still in numbers the largest installed base of any type of IBM system. Although they will never openly admit to it. > > a) What is the ratio of 2:1? Is it statistically significant? If it No. The question is not that. The question is that REGARDLESS of that percentage, IBM is claiming it as 100%. Spot the difference? > b) What is the ration of 2:3? Is this statistically significant? If > we're changing IBM's numbers by removing AS/400 users that don't > actually use DB2 from 37.6% to 37%, why are we having this argument? We are changing NOTHING. IBM is the one that has to change their incorrect numbers. Got it? > c) Regardless of what the ratios are, it is obvious to the rest of us > that you cannot be honest if you are asking to remove the entire AS/400 > market. Don't try the semantics bullshit here, moron. It is IBM that is NOT being honest! Don't even try the opposite! > Honesty would require removing only the portion of the AS/400 > market which is not actually using DB2, whatever that may be. Thank you for admitting IBM is NOT being honest. WTF doesn't IBM do it? > You must > concede, however, that doing that is not easy. Yes it is. > honest method of reporting, but it is not easy to do. A customer may > buy an AS/400 not intending to use DB2, and then do so anyway (they are > licensed to do it afterall). No. Cite one. > Or a customer may purchase Oracle for HP > and then the project is cancelled - discounting this from Oracle's > numbers is not going to be any easier. Cite one. > It would mean going to each > vendor's customers, and verifying that each one is using what they paid > for. Definitely honest, but is it going to produce significantly > different numbers that would justify the expense? Yes. Ask IBM to provide the numbers: they have them. > > I doubt it. That is why the Gartner "numbers" are widely derided: the lightness with which they make incorrect assumptions about "markets" and the lightness with which they'll accept ANY claims from ANY maker, proportional to the cachet that accompanies such claims. Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

Noons wrote: > Darin McBride <dmcbride@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message > news:<5JGvc.659814$Ig.278119@pd7tw2no>... >> >> I think Noons' point is that it's unfair to compare Oracle (Linux, >> >> Unix, Windows) against DB2 (Linux, Unix, Windows, AS/400) since the >> >> domains are different. >> > >> > Nope. >> >> Then, please ... explain in plain English for us obvious idiots. > > OK, I'll try again, this time with small words, it may be easier. Maybe if you calm down a bit, treat everyone as human beings rather than electronic targets, you might have a longer life... > "IBM can not claim as DB2 licenses all their AS400 sites. > They are not. And to bundle them ALL in ANY market analysis > of DB2 is totally misleading and downright stupid." I would disagree with "totally". As for "downright stupid", answering one less-than-honest statement with another should qualify. Further, I doubt that any other vendor gets 100% honest marks, either. >> Is this a significant portion of the AS/400 market? > > <sigh> I'll take that as an "I don't know." >> You're answering my question backwards. I'm asking about the portion >> of the AS/400 market which IBM is incorrectly claiming uses DB2. Is >> THAT portion significant? I'm not asking if IBM's claim is significant >> - you may think I'm stupid, but I'm not that stupid. That it is the >> entire AS/400 market is obvious. > > IBM's incorrect claim IS the point. Not if the AS400 market is > significant. > > And BTW: it is. In case you have not noticed, the AS400 > is still in numbers the largest installed base of any type > of IBM system. Although they will never openly admit to it. But is that a significant portion of the DB2 market? You keep going around the statement, trying to focus on one small piece - missing the forest for ... a single tree, I think. "Look, IBM has a huge forest of pine!" Gartner says. You say "There are two elms in there." And then the point is? >> a) What is the ratio of 2:1? Is it statistically significant? If it > > No. The question is not that. The question is that REGARDLESS > of that percentage, IBM is claiming it as 100%. Spot the difference? Sorry, let me rephrase that. *MY* question is that. I want to know if you're making a mountain out of a molehill or not. I want to know how much Gartner's (and IBM's) numbers are out of whack in reality, not in some small microcosm of the stats. >> b) What is the ration of 2:3? Is this statistically significant? If >> we're changing IBM's numbers by removing AS/400 users that don't >> actually use DB2 from 37.6% to 37%, why are we having this argument? > > We are changing NOTHING. IBM is the one that has to change their > incorrect numbers. Got it? Not really. I'm still trying to figure out if the difference, if the numbers were 100% accurate for all vendors, would actually make any difference to the overall meaning. And if anyone cares about the difference. IBM at 35.7% becomes 35%. Oracle at 32.6% becomes 32.5%. Given a 3.1% difference becomes 2.5% - neither one is statistically compelling anyway. Why get all worked up about it? >> c) Regardless of what the ratios are, it is obvious to the rest of us >> that you cannot be honest if you are asking to remove the entire AS/400 >> market. > > Don't try the semantics bullshit here, moron. It is IBM > that is NOT being honest! Don't even try the opposite! I'm glad to see you're in a chipper mood. You can't fix one dishonesty with another one. I'm not saying that what Gartner gives out is something I'd stake money on. I'm merely saying that it's in a ballpark that is wrong for everyone, but close enough to take with a reasonable (non-life-threatening) amount of salt. >> Honesty would require removing only the portion of the AS/400 >> market which is not actually using DB2, whatever that may be. > > Thank you for admitting IBM is NOT being honest. > WTF doesn't IBM do it? Cost vs benefit, like any business. >> You must >> concede, however, that doing that is not easy. > > Yes it is. Ok, I suppose you don't have to. You haven't been reasonable so far in this thread, so why start now? >> honest method of reporting, but it is not easy to do. A customer may >> buy an AS/400 not intending to use DB2, and then do so anyway (they are >> licensed to do it afterall). > > No. Cite one. You're the one making wild claims about Gartner's credibility without citing absolutely anything to back it up. Why should I start citing anything in reverse? I'm not going to do your homework for you. >> Or a customer may purchase Oracle for HP >> and then the project is cancelled - discounting this from Oracle's >> numbers is not going to be any easier. > > Cite one. I did say "may" on both counts. >> It would mean going to each >> vendor's customers, and verifying that each one is using what they paid >> for. Definitely honest, but is it going to produce significantly >> different numbers that would justify the expense? > > Yes. Ask IBM to provide the numbers: they have > them. I highly doubt it. Most customers won't divulge that type of information. I know that if I were a CIO somewhere with databases all over the place, I wouldn't tell my vendors what I was doing with it without some sort of subpoena. I'm sure others are more forthcoming, and may only require an NDA ... >> I doubt it. > > That is why the Gartner "numbers" are widely derided: > the lightness with which they make incorrect assumptions > about "markets" and the lightness with which they'll accept > ANY claims from ANY maker, proportional to the cachet that > accompanies such claims. I never said anything about Gartner having accurate numbers. Merely close enough for statistical purposes, with the proper condiments at the ready.

Darin McBride allegedly said,on my timestamp of 4/06/2004 1:49 PM: > > Maybe if you calm down a bit, treat everyone as human beings rather > than electronic targets, you might have a longer life... I'm purrfectly calm and my life HAS been long so far. :) > one less-than-honest statement with another should qualify. Further, I > doubt that any other vendor gets 100% honest marks, either. So what? Two wrongs does not a right make. > I'll take that as an "I don't know." <sigh> > But is that a significant portion of the DB2 market? You keep going > around the statement, trying to focus on one small piece - missing the > forest for ... a single tree, I think. "Look, IBM has a huge forest of > pine!" Gartner says. You say "There are two elms in there." And then > the point is? The point is this: UNTIL IBM provides detailed information about the forest and its trees, ANY attempt to classify their wild unsubstantiated claims as "market information" is nothing more nothing less than an exercise in futility. There is NO SUCH THING as "DB2 has this or that percentage of market" while IBM insists on providing numbers that are unsubstantiated, unrealistic, unverifiable, incomplete and blatantly wrong for anyone who has been in this industry for longer than ten minutes. > *MY* question is that. I want to know if you're making a mountain out > of a molehill or not. I want to know how much Gartner's (and IBM's) > numbers are out of whack in reality, not in some small microcosm of the > stats. Ask them. THEY are the ones providing the unverifiable, unrealistic and just plain incorrect statistics. Like trying to establish a percentage of market for a product based on its "significant presence" in THREE platforms when it is well known to only exist in any significant numbers in ONE platform. > Cost vs benefit, like any business. Nargh. Cost versus marketing bullshit value. And people like Gartner who should be minimally responsible, go ahead and base their "analysis" on this crud. > Ok, I suppose you don't have to. You haven't been reasonable so far in > this thread, so why start now? Reason is relative. > You're the one making wild claims about Gartner's credibility without > citing absolutely anything to back it up. Why should I start citing > anything in reverse? I'm not going to do your homework for you. YOU stated I was wrong by saying there exist cases of your wild claim. I asked you to cite one. It's you that has to provide the data. I cited very clearly that Gartner is wrong because they are taking figures that cannot be substantiated or they have NEVER substantiated and accepting them on face value. Without so much as even a disclaimer that the figures are not verified or verifiable. > I highly doubt it. Most customers won't divulge that type of > information. I know that if I were a CIO somewhere with databases all > over the place, I wouldn't tell my vendors what I was doing with it > without some sort of subpoena. I'm sure others are more forthcoming, > and may only require an NDA ... I don't give a hoot what you are doing with them. What database you use has got no bearing whatsoever on what you do with it and is in no way shape or format "hidden" information. Never was. > I never said anything about Gartner having accurate numbers. Merely > close enough for statistical purposes, with the proper condiments at > the ready. No. Statistical analysis presumes some reliability of data or else disclosure of any unknown base values. Neither was assured by Gartner. Which makes anything they say next to useless. -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

Noons wrote: > Darin McBride allegedly said,on my timestamp of 4/06/2004 1:49 PM: > >> >> Maybe if you calm down a bit, treat everyone as human beings rather >> than electronic targets, you might have a longer life... > > I'm purrfectly calm and my life HAS been long so far. :) You are calm like my woman. We have no dish in house any more. She also argue like you. You are woman? -- Enor

Enor P allegedly said,on my timestamp of 4/06/2004 9:39 PM: > > You are calm like my woman. We have no dish in house any more. She also > argue like you. You are woman? > yes. you are moron. no sniff glue, please. -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

Why does anyone care about market share, except for the companies themselves? None of the major databases (DB2, Oracle, or SQL Server) will disappear for lack of customers. If one was considering one of the other lesser used databases, I could see the issue, but not with the big 3. Since the two companies with the smallest share among the top 3 (IBM and MS) are so diversified, the survival of their companies will never depend on their database product, and they can both afford to run it on a less profitable basis than Oracle. All 3 products will be around for many, many years.

Noons wrote: > Enor P allegedly said,on my timestamp of 4/06/2004 9:39 PM: >> >> You are calm like my woman. We have no dish in house any more. She also >> argue like you. You are woman? >> > > yes. you are moron. no sniff glue, please. Is good you make laugh of my English. You very nice person, I can see. I sure you proud you are better as me. -- Enor