Re: IDS License Revenue
Not a technical thread: it's an argument over IBM's Q4 2006 results and whether Informix/IDS contributed to the reported license growth. The main confusion — a figure jumping from 28% to 32% — was clarified: the 28% was overall Information Management software revenue from the earnings release, while the 32% was 'distributed databases' (IDS, DB2 for LUW, U2, Redbrick, etc.) cited by the CFO on the earnings call; neither breaks out IDS separately. Posters disputed how much of that came from IDS versus DB2, with Serge Rielau arguing both likely did well and critics claiming IBM hides weak DB2 numbers. The debate ended in complaints about IBM's lack of Informix marketing, with no agreed conclusion.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Serge, I don't think that is fair that you try to twist the facts and spread uncertainty about which IBM data server product contributed the most to the 32% license growth in the IBM data server segment. I'm sure you know it better. IBM would be better advised to put the (marketing) money in a product that has the ability to compete with Oracle instead of continuously investing in a non-starter. Every single day that IDS marketing is delayed, Oracle & Co. expands their market share. On 25 Jan., 00:04, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > DA Morgan said: > >> stubbie? > > I'm scared to even ask, but what is this?A small beer bottle with a short neck...? > At least that's what it is where I grew up. > > To get back on topic. The number stated officially in the Q4 call was > +32% new-transaction for "distributed databases". > (That comment by the CFO is verifiable via the webcast and anyone who > doesn't believe it should send a note to SEC...). > > I can _officially_ (being my own spokesperson of Serge Inc.) state that > I am going to do an unplanned furniture purchase of excellent quality > thanks to my variable pay which I expect to get thanks to that number. > Now if IBM goes through the trouble of lying to SEC and keep the > illusion up by rewarding me for what I (and my fellow pals at IDS) > didn't actually pull of, then they are sneaker than I an imagine. > > Given that undeniably the two big ingredients to "distributed databses" > are IDS and DB2 for LUW (with a sprinkling of U2, Redbrick, ...) there > are two choices here. > > IDS grew at least 64% (for those who believe IDS and DB2 for LUW are of > equal size) and DB2 for LUW was flat or down. A cause for celebration in > this group I suppose, so we let it stand. > > DB2 for LUW grew at least 64% (for those same believers) and IDS was > flatted or down. A scenario even the worst critics would not believe > since if there is one thing everyone believes more than IBM's inability > to grow IDS is that it can grow DB2 for LUW :-) > > Now there is the remote chance that the numbers are correct and both IDS > and DB2 had a good year. Up to the valued reader to decide. > > Fact is: > IBM did break out growth for distributed database revenue growth. > Oracle did not! If they did please point me. > > -- > Serge Rielau > DB2 Solutions Development > IBM Toronto Lab
Eric, Your post gave me the idea to back and read the babble that Serge put out. After reading it a second and third time I was still confused by what it said. ( The Q4 number seemed to jump from 28% to 32% as if by magic! ) I am still not sure where IDS or Informix is represented in any Q4 statement other that being big in the minds of people who want to believe that it really had an increase in sales. It sounds good, but I was astonished at the vitriol here when I suggested it's all bullshit. It appears that people would rather believe anything, and that suddenly in c.d.i., where facts abound, and people nitpick over the slightest detail, suddenly facts are not needed. It should be curious to people that Informix is not mentioned anywhere in the report, yet few if any have said anything about it. Maybe the newsgroup should be renamed to c.d.f.i., comp.databases.fantasy.informix to allow it better representation. -t- eric@herber-consulting.de wrote: > Serge, > > I don't think that is fair that you try to twist the facts and spread > uncertainty about which > IBM data server product contributed the most to the 32% license growth > in the IBM > data server segment. > > I'm sure you know it better. > > IBM would be better advised to put the (marketing) money in a product > that has the ability to compete with > Oracle instead of continuously investing in a non-starter. > > Every single day that IDS marketing is delayed, Oracle & Co. expands > their market share. > > > On 25 Jan., 00:04, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> DA Morgan said: >>>> stubbie? >>> I'm scared to even ask, but what is this?A small beer bottle with a short neck...? >> At least that's what it is where I grew up. >> >> To get back on topic. The number stated officially in the Q4 call was >> +32% new-transaction for "distributed databases". >> (That comment by the CFO is verifiable via the webcast and anyone who >> doesn't believe it should send a note to SEC...). >> >> I can _officially_ (being my own spokesperson of Serge Inc.) state that >> I am going to do an unplanned furniture purchase of excellent quality >> thanks to my variable pay which I expect to get thanks to that number. >> Now if IBM goes through the trouble of lying to SEC and keep the >> illusion up by rewarding me for what I (and my fellow pals at IDS) >> didn't actually pull of, then they are sneaker than I an imagine. >> >> Given that undeniably the two big ingredients to "distributed databses" >> are IDS and DB2 for LUW (with a sprinkling of U2, Redbrick, ...) there >> are two choices here. >> >> IDS grew at least 64% (for those who believe IDS and DB2 for LUW are of >> equal size) and DB2 for LUW was flat or down. A cause for celebration in >> this group I suppose, so we let it stand. >> >> DB2 for LUW grew at least 64% (for those same believers) and IDS was >> flatted or down. A scenario even the worst critics would not believe >> since if there is one thing everyone believes more than IBM's inability >> to grow IDS is that it can grow DB2 for LUW :-) >> >> Now there is the remote chance that the numbers are correct and both IDS >> and DB2 had a good year. Up to the valued reader to decide. >> >> Fact is: >> IBM did break out growth for distributed database revenue growth. >> Oracle did not! If they did please point me. >> >> -- >> Serge Rielau >> DB2 Solutions Development >> IBM Toronto Lab > -- * * Fact: Chimpanzees and other apes know what "Thank You" and "Gratitude" mean! * Why can't corporate management understand these? *
eric@herber-consulting.de wrote: > Serge, > > I don't think that is fair that you try to twist the facts and spread > uncertainty about which > IBM data server product contributed the most to the 32% license growth > in the IBM > data server segment. Eric, You may want to read my post again. I didn't twist anything. I presented entire arbitrarily three (of an infinite number) _possibilities_. Two of which would make anyone who favors conspiracy theories happy... (death to DB2 or death to IDS) :-) The third one assumes that IBM did something right (unbelievable??) Ambuj has made it _publicly_ clear that IDS had a good year. I heard it, many posters in this group heard it with their own ears. The overall distributed RDBMS growth numbers are on record. Guy's IDS number you may believe or not indendently of whether you consent to the route of delivery. Do the math. People may believe or disbelieve quotes like ("we gained marketshare"), but the numbers are the numbers. Why does IBM have a burden of _public_ proof where no other company does? How do you define truth? How many auditors does it take? It was quite correctly pointed out that the SEC doesn't give a hoot about either DB2 for LUW or IDS numbers. The bucket compared to the size of IBM is too small. If you guys have any doubts, invite your favorite IBMers for a beer. Of cause it could be a conspiracy from the top and we are all being fooled. Always trust the most believable story.... Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab
Tool wrote: > Eric, > > Your post gave me the idea to back and read the babble that Serge put out. > After reading it a second and third time I was still confused by what it > said. ( The Q4 number seemed to jump from 28% to 32% as if by magic! ) > I am still not sure where IDS or Informix is represented in any Q4 > statement > other that being big in the minds of people who want to believe that it > really > had an increase in sales. It sounds good, but I was astonished at the > vitriol > here when I suggested it's all bullshit. Could it be that you are wrong? I mean hypothetically. Sometimes the world is right and the individual is wrong. Coincidentally I had a good laugh on this one yesterday: http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Voyager_Conspiracy 32% encompasses all of distributed revenue including DB2 for LUW, U2, Redbrick, I think database tools...). Those 28% came from Guy's BLOG and are appear to be IDS only. I do know DB2 for LUW did very well itself, but not how well. There is no magic. No conspiracy required... Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab
Tool, we have to distinguish two numbers: 1) http://www.ibm.com/investor/4q06/4q06earnings.phtml 'Revenues for Information Management software, which enables clients to leverage information on demand, increased 28 percent.' -> This number includes all IBM Information Management Products. 2) To quote Serge: 'To get back on topic. The number stated officially in the Q4 call was +32% new-transaction for "distributed databases". (That comment by the CFO is verifiable via the webcast and anyone who doesn't believe it should send a note to SEC...).' -> This number only includes distributed databases, i.e. not all IBM Information Management Prodcuts. The webcast can be downloaded from here: http://www.ibm.com/investor/4q06/index.phtml I understand your confusion and believe me I bet that if the DB2 number had been good, we would have certainly already seen an official IBM press release documenting that. Now it seems that only the Informix numbers are very good, so we will not see an official IBM press release about it. That's the way it works. Dolefully but true (-: On Jan 25, 1:23 pm, Tool <t...@thetool.com> wrote: > Eric, > > Your post gave me the idea to back and read the babble that Serge put out. > After reading it a second and third time I was still confused by what it > said. ( The Q4 number seemed to jump from 28% to 32% as if by magic! ) > > I am still not sure where IDS or Informix is represented in any Q4 statement > other that being big in the minds of people who want to believe that it really > had an increase in sales. It sounds good, but I was astonished at the vitriol > here when I suggested it's all bullshit. It appears that people would rather > believe anything, and that suddenly in c.d.i., where facts abound, and people > nitpick over the slightest detail, suddenly facts are not needed. It should > be curious to people that Informix is not mentioned anywhere in the report, > yet few if any have said anything about it. Maybe the newsgroup should be > renamed to c.d.f.i., comp.databases.fantasy.informix to allow it better > representation. > > -t- > > > > > > e...@herber-consulting.de wrote: > > Serge, > > > I don't think that is fair that you try to twist the facts and spread > > uncertainty about which > > IBM data server product contributed the most to the 32% license growth > > in the IBM > > data server segment. > > > I'm sure you know it better. > > > IBM would be better advised to put the (marketing) money in a product > > that has the ability to compete with > > Oracle instead of continuously investing in a non-starter. > > > Every single day that IDS marketing is delayed, Oracle & Co. expands > > their market share. > > > On 25 Jan., 00:04, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >>> DA Morgan said: > >>>> stubbie? > >>> I'm scared to even ask, but what is this?A small beer bottle with a short neck...? > >> At least that's what it is where I grew up. > > >> To get back on topic. The number stated officially in the Q4 call was > >> +32% new-transaction for "distributed databases". > >> (That comment by the CFO is verifiable via the webcast and anyone who > >> doesn't believe it should send a note to SEC...). > > >> I can _officially_ (being my own spokesperson of Serge Inc.) state that > >> I am going to do an unplanned furniture purchase of excellent quality > >> thanks to my variable pay which I expect to get thanks to that number. > >> Now if IBM goes through the trouble of lying to SEC and keep the > >> illusion up by rewarding me for what I (and my fellow pals at IDS) > >> didn't actually pull of, then they are sneaker than I an imagine. > > >> Given that undeniably the two big ingredients to "distributed databses" > >> are IDS and DB2 for LUW (with a sprinkling of U2, Redbrick, ...) there > >> are two choices here. > > >> IDS grew at least 64% (for those who believe IDS and DB2 for LUW are of > >> equal size) and DB2 for LUW was flat or down. A cause for celebration in > >> this group I suppose, so we let it stand. > > >> DB2 for LUW grew at least 64% (for those same believers) and IDS was > >> flatted or down. A scenario even the worst critics would not believe > >> since if there is one thing everyone believes more than IBM's inability > >> to grow IDS is that it can grow DB2 for LUW :-) > > >> Now there is the remote chance that the numbers are correct and both IDS > >> and DB2 had a good year. Up to the valued reader to decide. > > >> Fact is: > >> IBM did break out growth for distributed database revenue growth. > >> Oracle did not! If they did please point me. > > >> -- > >> Serge Rielau > >> DB2 Solutions Development > >> IBM Toronto Lab-- > > * > * Fact: Chimpanzees and other apes know what "Thank You" and "Gratitude" mean! > * Why can't corporate management understand these? > *- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Serge, believe me I did read your email and I understand your intention to to obscure some facts and bring DB2 into better light. Invite your Informix engineering colleagues for a 'stubbie' as they created the foundation for your excellent variable pay. -- Eric On Jan 25, 2:09 pm, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > e...@herber-consulting.de wrote: > > Serge, > > > I don't think that is fair that you try to twist the facts and spread > > uncertainty about which > > IBM data server product contributed the most to the 32% license growth > > in the IBM > > data server segment.Eric, > > You may want to read my post again. > I didn't twist anything. I presented entire arbitrarily three (of an > infinite number) _possibilities_. > Two of which would make anyone who favors conspiracy theories happy... > (death to DB2 or death to IDS) :-) > The third one assumes that IBM did something right (unbelievable??) > > Ambuj has made it _publicly_ clear that IDS had a good year. I heard it, > many posters in this group heard it with their own ears. > > The overall distributed RDBMS growth numbers are on record. > Guy's IDS number you may believe or not indendently of whether you > consent to the route of delivery. > Do the math. > > People may believe or disbelieve quotes like ("we gained marketshare"), > but the numbers are the numbers. > Why does IBM have a burden of _public_ proof where no other company > does? How do you define truth? How many auditors does it take? > > It was quite correctly pointed out that the SEC doesn't give a hoot > about either DB2 for LUW or IDS numbers. The bucket compared to the size > of IBM is too small. > > If you guys have any doubts, invite your favorite IBMers for a beer. > Of cause it could be a conspiracy from the top and we are all being fooled. > Always trust the most believable story.... > > Cheers > Serge > -- > Serge Rielau > DB2 Solutions Development > IBM Toronto Lab
eric@herber-consulting.de wrote: > Tool, > > we have to distinguish two numbers: > > 1) > http://www.ibm.com/investor/4q06/4q06earnings.phtml > 'Revenues for Information Management software, which enables clients to > leverage information on demand, > increased 28 percent.' > > -> This number includes all IBM Information Management Products. > > 2) > To quote Serge: > > 'To get back on topic. The number stated officially in the Q4 call was > +32% new-transaction for "distributed databases". > (That comment by the CFO is verifiable via the webcast and anyone who > doesn't believe it should send a note to SEC...).' > > -> This number only includes distributed databases, i.e. not all IBM > Information Management Prodcuts. > The webcast can be downloaded from here: > http://www.ibm.com/investor/4q06/index.phtml > > I understand your confusion and believe me I bet that if the DB2 number > had been good, we > would have certainly already seen an official IBM press release > documenting that. > > Now it seems that only the Informix numbers are very good, so we will > not see an official > IBM press release about it. That's the way it works. Well, I'll settle for the fact that you appear to accept that the IDS numbers were good. I didn't try to make DB2 look good. If DB2 for LUW didn't do equally well then IDS had to do amazingly well to pull of such a good overall number. If that's the scenario you believe that's fine and I have no numbers to counter it. Anyway this is not the place to bicker over that part of your theory. You can start a discussion on c.d.ibm-db2 on DB2 growth or lack thereof :-) Food for thought: I doubt IBM would spell out DB2 for LUW revenue growth in a quarterly call whether they were, are, or will be good or bad. Now I'm confident if an analyst asked a pointed question they would get the number after some shuffling of paper. The fact that analysts don't ask about these numbers suggests that shareholders don't care. Oracle shareholders on the other hand do care abouts DBMS revenues down to database options, hence you see a lot of hand waving by analysts to derive them. Keep in mind that a company like Oracle fits into one corner of IBM revenue. Software Group (Steve Mills) is a 16B dollar business (Second only to Microsoft) and makes up 1/3 of the overall profit if I recall correctly (I'm sure the remarks have that data). About half of these 16B are "branded middleware" (also in the remarks). From there it breaks down into IM (Ambuj Goyal)and then data servers (Arvind Krishna) Only then do you get the individual products IDS, DB2 for LUW and DB2 for zOS. To get Informix or DB2 numbers you will need to go to the conferences and hang on the lips of the executives who will divulge bits and pieces. That's just the nature of product life in a big company. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab
Serge Rielau wrote: > eric@herber-consulting.de wrote: >> Tool, >> >> we have to distinguish two numbers: >> >> 1) >> http://www.ibm.com/investor/4q06/4q06earnings.phtml >> 'Revenues for Information Management software, which enables clients to >> leverage information on demand, >> increased 28 percent.' >> >> -> This number includes all IBM Information Management Products. >> >> 2) >> To quote Serge: >> >> 'To get back on topic. The number stated officially in the Q4 call was >> +32% new-transaction for "distributed databases". >> (That comment by the CFO is verifiable via the webcast and anyone who >> doesn't believe it should send a note to SEC...).' >> >> -> This number only includes distributed databases, i.e. not all IBM >> Information Management Prodcuts. >> The webcast can be downloaded from here: >> http://www.ibm.com/investor/4q06/index.phtml >> >> I understand your confusion and believe me I bet that if the DB2 number >> had been good, we >> would have certainly already seen an official IBM press release >> documenting that. >> >> Now it seems that only the Informix numbers are very good, so we will >> not see an official >> IBM press release about it. That's the way it works. > Well, I'll settle for the fact that you appear to accept that the IDS > numbers were good. > I didn't try to make DB2 look good. If DB2 for LUW didn't do equally > well then IDS had to do amazingly well to pull of such a good overall > number. If that's the scenario you believe that's fine and I have no > numbers to counter it. > > Anyway this is not the place to bicker over that part of your theory. > You can start a discussion on c.d.ibm-db2 on DB2 growth or lack thereof > :-) > > Food for thought: I doubt IBM would spell out DB2 for LUW revenue growth > in a quarterly call whether they were, are, or will be good or bad. > Now I'm confident if an analyst asked a pointed question they would get > the number after some shuffling of paper. > The fact that analysts don't ask about these numbers suggests that > shareholders don't care. Serge, It suggests that _you_ think this way. Since you are late to the Informix party, you really don't understand the history of Informix. Stock holders were _extremely_ interested in Informix during the Phil White regime, and the subsequent parade of fools that followed. Investors had high hopes and were watching Informix, betting on their horse to ride to the finish line and give Oracle a run for the money. But as those of us know, that didn't happen. Instead, investors were given the short end of the stick, and lost. So don't make assumptions about investors that you don't know about. Analysts at the time of Informix's demise were extremely pessimistic despite a good inventory of product. Investors to this day wonder why the company was allowed to be robbed and raped by the assholes that took Informix down. Investors still would like to know why, despite good product, the analysts pooped on Informix. They know why, it was horrible management. Today, it's good, status quo management, keeping the product on a respirator, and only boardroom marketing where there is little groundswell from the technical community that is essential to making the product a success. A handful of excited developers is not going to make Informix successful, nor are simple renewal licenses. There have to be genuine new sales. > Oracle shareholders on the other hand do care abouts DBMS revenues down > to database options, hence you see a lot of hand waving by analysts to > derive them. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? If nobody knows about Informix, then I suppose it could be argued they won't care about it. > Keep in mind that a company like Oracle fits into one corner of IBM > revenue. Software Group (Steve Mills) is a 16B dollar business (Second > only to Microsoft) and makes up 1/3 of the overall profit if I recall > correctly (I'm sure the remarks have that data). About half of these 16B > are "branded middleware" (also in the remarks). Microsoft does make noise about SQL-Server, in numerous press releases and developer announcements. Most people know brand recognition of most of the major database companies, but most have never heard of Informix. It's just a fact. > From there it breaks down into IM (Ambuj Goyal)and then data servers > (Arvind Krishna) Only then do you get the individual products IDS, DB2 > for LUW and DB2 for zOS. > These guys are clueless as to what to do. They have no history in the database business, and are just riding along to keep the status quo. > To get Informix or DB2 numbers you will need to go to the conferences > and hang on the lips of the executives who will divulge bits and pieces. Sorry they are not _that_ important in the grand scheme. They are just bodies filling slots at IBM, taking up space, keeping the status quo. > That's just the nature of product life in a big company. > I won't go to any conferences, just to hear press releases. Informix is still a good product and deserves the basics. Until it gets as much attention as any other 1st-class product I will not waste money and time on a conference. IBM should be paying ME or anyone else to attend, and convince ME why I need to use the product. If they want to keep it to boardroom sales for now, then let the executives attend the conferences. > Cheers > Serge