Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

Fan Ruo Xin wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> Noons wrote: >> > >> > Just like what happened with OS2... >> >> Ooh ... nice one! > > So what is the reason to make INFORMIX product - NEWERA went of the > market. I got surprised when I read this one and your previous message: Informix has an "interesting" history in the tools market. I've tried to stick with the server stuff. But from my recollection, an Informix marketing dude once stood up and said: "There is no way we can compete with Microsoft and Borland in the tools market." Probably the same guy who decided "there is no way we can compete with Microsoft and Oracle in the commodity database market". If you look back at my posting history, you will see that I am aware of the importance of getting your market message clear and out into the market. I think my point (very well illustrated by your comment) is: if someone does a disservice to the technology by marketing it badly, then it will probably die. And I think IBM is actually "marketing" Informix worse than Informix did themselves. >>However, I would like to point out that a lot of people *did* choose >>Informix over DB2, and they typically did this for several reasons: >>1. They preferred the technology. >>2. They preferred dealing with a company where they were considered >>important, rather than a company where customers and their wants get >>in the way of a process. >>3. They bought into a vision that the database was a differentiating >>product and not a commodity. >>4. Etc. >>They did all this despite the fact that Informix's market share had >>eroded over the years. > > NEWERA was a good product, so were OS/2 and a lot of technology which > released by DEC. > > Any company (especially a software company) need to be balancing between > survive and technology, between providing a commodity and a product. From > this viewpoint, IBM and INFORMIX have no any difference. > No matter how perfect the technology is, if the customer doesn't buy it > for whatever reason, the technology will be the dead end. > > Informix purchased METACUBE earlier than ILLUSTRA. Informix released > Version8 XPS earlier than Version 9. But what made the company preferred > to spend more money to advertise its ORDBMS technology over parallel dbms > technique. Don't you think that is not because Informix assumed this would > win the company more revenue at that time? This assumption of the > marketing requirment finally caused the company trap into financial > disaster and gave the other companies the chances to purchase it. Do you > think this is because of the technology? I don't know that this is what lead Informix into "financial disaster". I think what gave other companies the chance to purchase it was being run by a carpetbagging operation who enriched themselves enormously, twice, at Informix's expense. > YES, Informix company was an amazing company. Who foresaw the potential > marketing of DW and DSS system, purchased the METACUBE and released XPS. > Who successfully merged the OO technology into the traditional Relation > DBMS. Who introduced VERTUAL PROCESSORs concept ... > But at any time, even go back to year 2001, I can say the architecture of > INFORMIX server and IBM DB2 UDB are frightening similar, so are INFORMIX > XPS and IBM DB2 UDB EEE. You can ask any architect who were/are working > for the Portland Lab. But at any time, even going back to the year 2001, I can say that the moon is made of cheese. You can ask anyone who works at NASA. I can say it, but that doesn't make it so. All databases share the same conceptual model, really. I remember when I looked at Oracle 8 the first time, I was struck by how similar it all sounded compared to IDS when you look at it at a very high level. But the implementations are all different enough. However, people I've spoken to (and rate) in the UK who deal with source code for Informix and DB2 for a living tell me that the words "chalk" and "cheese" come to mind. > You said that people would like to choose Informix is because they > preferred technology. I agree with you. I am sorry I maybe misunderstand > your point - Do you also mean they would not choose IBM DB2 UDB is also > because they preferred technology. I mean that people who wanted DB2 with knobs on would have bought DB2 and asked IBM to put the knobs on. People who wanted to buy Informix bought Informix. Putting Informix knobs onto DB2 still leaves you with DB2 at the end of the day. All the administration, management, interface, APIs, etc. will still be DB2. -- Ciao, The Obnoxious One "Ogni homo me guarda come fosse una testa de cazi"

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:16:20 +0100, Obnoxio The Clown <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote: >Fan Ruo Xin wrote: > >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> >>> Noons wrote: >>> > >>> > Just like what happened with OS2... >>> >>> Ooh ... nice one! >> >> So what is the reason to make INFORMIX product - NEWERA went of the >> market. I got surprised when I read this one and your previous message: > >Informix has an "interesting" history in the tools market. I've tried to >stick with the server stuff. But from my recollection, an Informix >marketing dude once stood up and said: "There is no way we can compete with >Microsoft and Borland in the tools market." Probably the same guy who >decided "there is no way we can compete with Microsoft and Oracle in the >commodity database market". > >If you look back at my posting history, you will see that I am aware of the >importance of getting your market message clear and out into the market. I >think my point (very well illustrated by your comment) is: if someone does >a disservice to the technology by marketing it badly, then it will probably >die. And I think IBM is actually "marketing" Informix worse than Informix >did themselves. > Is that possible? Oh, yes, the race car . . . . . .8-)

John Carlson wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:16:20 +0100, Obnoxio The Clown > <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Fan Ruo Xin wrote: >> >>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> >>>> Noons wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Just like what happened with OS2... >>>> >>>> Ooh ... nice one! >>> >>> So what is the reason to make INFORMIX product - NEWERA went of the >>> market. I got surprised when I read this one and your previous message: >> >>Informix has an "interesting" history in the tools market. I've tried to >>stick with the server stuff. But from my recollection, an Informix >>marketing dude once stood up and said: "There is no way we can compete >>with Microsoft and Borland in the tools market." Probably the same guy who >>decided "there is no way we can compete with Microsoft and Oracle in the >>commodity database market". >> >>If you look back at my posting history, you will see that I am aware of >>the importance of getting your market message clear and out into the >>market. I think my point (very well illustrated by your comment) is: if >>someone does a disservice to the technology by marketing it badly, then it >>will probably die. And I think IBM is actually "marketing" Informix worse >>than Informix did themselves. > > Is that possible? Oh, yes, the race car . . . . . .8-) "Anything is better than nothing". -- -- Ciao, The Obnoxious One "Ogni homo me guarda come fosse una testa de cazi"