Re: Informix Positive Post #2

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > From: indeep@indeep.com > > Subject: Re: Informix Positive Post #2 > > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:53:02 -0700 > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > > > A developer program needs to be marketed, and to this date I do not > see one. > > A few web pages of bland nothing is all that really exists, along > with a few > > occasional changes to the section where IBM decided to mothball the > product. > > If I were running it you would not see this kind of inattention, that > is for > > sure. > > > > -ID- > > I have to disagree. There is a developers program and its run at the > software group level. IDS is treated no differently than Websphere and > DB2. Is it well publicized? No. Its not to say that IBM is incompetent, > just that well, developers programs aren't high on their lists. > Remember, IBM makes their money from their core accounts. > The blanding of Informix and muddling it into the mix is exactly the point. I have yet to meet anyone who even knows what Websphere is, and some of these other products from IBM. Rational? Clearcase? These seem to show up at big companies, but hardly anywhere else. At the company I'm in it's all Oracle, so the only thing people know is Oracle, Microsoft, and Linux. But these other products never come up. You're suggesting Informix's developer program is sufficient, but it isn't. The developer program is _the_ most important aspect of selling a database. > A developers program is important. I do agree with you on that. But its > only one piece of the puzzle. I think that you have to look at the > bigger picture. A developers program is only part of the issue. What > about the education outside of the program? I mean how many IBM Press > books are on the shelves in Borders or on Amazon? Now how many DB2 or > Informix books are published by other publishers outside of IBM? Now how > many Oracle related books? > > So there's more to this than just a simple developers program. > Nobody said it had to be simple, right? I would definitely get authors for books ( besides just Carlton for crying out loud ) . There are a lot of lost opportunities here, and over the years nobody seems to have any clue how it should work--at least since what, 1995? There is practically no effort. For all those people at IBM, there is nothing to show for it.

InDeep, You pick the battles you know you have a chance of winning. The point I was trying to make was that you can't change the developer program because its the same across all of SWG. Yes you are right. No one outside of IBM's existing partners or aligned and integrated accounts know that the partner program exists. Its as if IBM doesn't care about the world outside of their aligned and integrated accounts. The larger (non SMB) accounts that do not spend millions with IBM are considered "white space". This is why I'm suggesting that if you take a step back and look beyond the developer program, and look at the "education" program as a whole, you'll see that another vector is in publications like CMP and the book publishers. There's more, but lets take one discussion topic at a time. ;-) > From: indeep@indeep.com> Subject: Re: Informix Positive Post #2> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:56:34 -0700> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > Ian Michael Gumby wrote:> > > > > > > From: indeep@indeep.com> > > Subject: Re: Informix Positive Post #2> > > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:53:02 -0700> > > To: informix-list@iiug.org> > >> > >> > > A developer program needs to be marketed, and to this date I do not > > see one.> > > A few web pages of bland nothing is all that really exists, along > > with a few> > > occasional changes to the section where IBM decided to mothball the > > product.> > > If I were running it you would not see this kind of inattention, that > > is for> > > sure.> > >> > > -ID-> > > > I have to disagree. There is a developers program and its run at the > > software group level. IDS is treated no differently than Websphere and > > DB2. Is it well publicized? No. Its not to say that IBM is incompetent, > > just that well, developers programs aren't high on their lists. > > Remember, IBM makes their money from their core accounts.> >> > The blanding of Informix and muddling it into the mix is exactly the> point. I have yet to meet anyone who even knows what Websphere is, and> some of these other products from IBM. Rational? Clearcase? These seem> to show up at big companies, but hardly anywhere else. At the company> I'm in it's all Oracle, so the only thing people know is Oracle, Microsoft,> and Linux. But these other products never come up. You're suggesting> Informix's developer program is sufficient, but it isn't. The developer> program is _the_ most important aspect of selling a database.> > > A developers program is important. I do agree with you on that. But its > > only one piece of the puzzle. I think that you have to look at the > > bigger picture. A developers program is only part of the issue. What > > about the education outside of the program? I mean how many IBM Press > > books are on the shelves in Borders or on Amazon? Now how many DB2 or > > Informix books are published by other publishers outside of IBM? Now how > > many Oracle related books?> > > > So there's more to this than just a simple developers program.> > > > Nobody said it had to be simple, right? I would definitely get authors> for books ( besides just Carlton for crying out loud ) . There are a lot> of lost opportunities here, and over the years nobody seems to have any> clue how it should work--at least since what, 1995? There is practically> no effort. For all those people at IBM, there is nothing to show for it.> > > _______________________________________________> Informix-list mailing list> Informix-list@iiug.org> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-US&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V3

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > InDeep, > > You pick the battles you know you have a chance of winning. > > The point I was trying to make was that you can't change the developer > program because its the same across all of SWG. > This is not thinking outside the box. You're using words like "can't" which in my world are not allowed. You think that IBM is unchangeable. I think IBM is staffed by people who are interested in anything but actually accomplishing something--maybe they are afraid of succeeding. Compare IBM/Informix to the Apple experience, and you begin to understand that maybe you really _can_ offer top quality and people would buy it. IBM used this with their Power5-7 marketing, they _are_ capable of really marketing something. But you _do_ have to get the product out there. > Yes you are right. No one outside of IBM's existing partners or aligned > and integrated accounts know that the partner program exists. Its as if > IBM doesn't care about the world outside of their aligned and integrated > accounts. The larger (non SMB) accounts that do not spend millions with > IBM are considered "white space". > Editors note: IBM may single-handedly sink Informix by suffocating it. Informix built its original base off of the SMB market. > This is why I'm suggesting that if you take a step back and look beyond > the developer program, and look at the "education" program as a whole, > you'll see that another vector is in publications like CMP and the book > publishers. > > There's more, but lets take one discussion topic at a time. ;-) > > I'm not sure what formula IBM is using to promote their products, but if it isn't along the same lines as say something like MySQL, then the casual observer is inclined to be suspicious of it. The new world in software allows, tolerates, and encourages sharing database software at a production-ready level. Informix is so far in the back of the race as to be almost invisible.

> From: indeep@indeep.com> Subject: Re: Informix Positive Post #2> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:36 -0700> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote:> > InDeep,> > > > You pick the battles you know you have a chance of winning.> > > > The point I was trying to make was that you can't change the developer > > program because its the same across all of SWG.> > > > This is not thinking outside the box. You're using words like "can't"> which in my world are not allowed. You think that IBM is unchangeable.> I think IBM is staffed by people who are interested in anything but> actually accomplishing something--maybe they are afraid of succeeding.> No. I just know IBM and IBM mentality. You're not talking about "heritage Informixers" but hard core "I'm big blue and I know what's best." Type of attitude. There are other battles that we can fight and win that will have a greater impact. The true IBMer knows only how to survive in a bureaucracy. They couldn't survive in a start up. Even their management fail when they go to smaller companies in senior level positions. (Charlie Ills comes to mind. He left SWG and went on to drive BEA down the toilet.) > Compare IBM/Informix to the Apple experience, and you begin to understand> that maybe you really _can_ offer top quality and people would buy it.> IBM used this with their Power5-7 marketing, they _are_ capable of> really marketing something. But you _do_ have to get the product out> there.> Unfortunately you and I have differing opinions as to IBM's marketing and sales ability. In terms of sales, IBMers are "farmers" and not "hunters". Informix sales reps? "Hunters" for the most part. I'll give you a true story. When IBM was changing their sales model from SAMs and individual pillar reps, to SSRs, there was one "Informix Heritage" rep who knew that she was going to lose one of her big accounts. So she told her deal maker that she had this multi-million dollar deal to close. Had anyone on the sales team bothered to check, the rep was trying to close a deal 6 months early so she could collect her bonus on the account. Well the deal never happened. No client is going to negotiate a major deal 6 months early... Now that's chutzpah ?sp? and aggressive behavior. > > Yes you are right. No one outside of IBM's existing partners or aligned > > and integrated accounts know that the partner program exists. Its as if > > IBM doesn't care about the world outside of their aligned and integrated > > accounts. The larger (non SMB) accounts that do not spend millions with > > IBM are considered "white space".> >> > Editors note: IBM may single-handedly sink Informix by suffocating it.> Informix built its original base off of the SMB market.> > No, not really. What made Informix was its penetration in to retail, logistics and actually hotel reservation systems. Add to this the ease of integration in to embedded solutions (telco) ... (Chicago used to be a big Informix town. Where is it today?) > > This is why I'm suggesting that if you take a step back and look beyond > > the developer program, and look at the "education" program as a whole, > > you'll see that another vector is in publications like CMP and the book > > publishers.> > > > There's more, but lets take one discussion topic at a time. ;-)> > > > > I'm not sure what formula IBM is using to promote their products, but if> it isn't along the same lines as say something like MySQL, then the casual> observer is inclined to be suspicious of it. The new world in software> allows, tolerates, and encourages sharing database software at a production-ready> level. Informix is so far in the back of the race as to be almost invisible.> > MySQL snuck its way in to LAMP. You implement it for free and if you're successful and you put it in to a lot of production... you owe them. Its cheaper to pay the license than to redevelop your persistence layer. Note to most of the applications out there. All the database is, is a persistence layer for their application. But hey! What do I know? 20+ years in the industry. Worked for both Informix and got sucked in to IBM but didn't drink the cool-aid. ;-) -G _________________________________________________________________ Test your Star IQ http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR

InDeep wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> InDeep, >> >> You pick the battles you know you have a chance of winning. >> >> The point I was trying to make was that you can't change the developer >> program because its the same across all of SWG. >> > > This is not thinking outside the box. You're using words like "can't" > which in my world are not allowed. You think that IBM is unchangeable. > I think IBM is staffed by people who are interested in anything but > actually accomplishing something--maybe they are afraid of succeeding. I don't believe in "can't" either but your conclusion is outrageous. IBM, from the top down, defines goals. They then execute in accordance with those goals. If what IDS was doing in the marketplace was not in line with those goals heads would roll. No one's being fired. No one's being reorged. There is no fear because there is no problem. Again ... why is it so hard to just accept that this is "as designed?" No one's afraid of success. They are succeeding. Success is defined by the CEO not the customers of a product picked up during a fire sale. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

I love this "as designed" mentality from a self professed Oracle bigot. The funny thing is that I work with a couple of self professed Oracle bigots one of whom doesn't know what it means to be an ORDBMS. Oracle claims to be Object Relational, but when you cut through the smoke and mirrors, there isn't anything there. But hey! It works as "designed" because well, its a marketing thing. Or Oracle's temp tables. They are neither temporary or well "designed". Sure I can accept that they work as designed. One schema for a temp name to be shared for all users. One execution plan, and of course you can only add an index when the table has no data. But they work as designed. That's the Oracle answer Daniel, not one that we expect from IDS. Those in charge at IBM don't think behind their current year. NO LONG TERM VISION. And while Serge et al would like to debate this, I suggest that they look at those beyond their pay grade. Current top dogs in IM came in from Lotus and are getting their tickets punched. While they see Informix partly for what it is (Read: CASH COW), they don't know how to promote the brand. The problem is that everyone seems to think that the database is a commodity. It isn't. > Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 08:43:59 -0700> From: damorgan@psoug.org> Subject: Re: Informix Positive Post #2> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > InDeep wrote:> > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote:> >> InDeep,> >> > >> You pick the battles you know you have a chance of winning.> >> > >> The point I was trying to make was that you can't change the developer > >> program because its the same across all of SWG.> >> > > > > This is not thinking outside the box. You're using words like "can't"> > which in my world are not allowed. You think that IBM is unchangeable.> > I think IBM is staffed by people who are interested in anything but> > actually accomplishing something--maybe they are afraid of succeeding.> > I don't believe in "can't" either but your conclusion is outrageous.> IBM, from the top down, defines goals. They then execute in accordance> with those goals. If what IDS was doing in the marketplace was not in> line with those goals heads would roll. No one's being fired. No one's> being reorged. There is no fear because there is no problem.> > Again ... why is it so hard to just accept that this is "as designed?"> No one's afraid of success. They are succeeding. Success is defined by> the CEO not the customers of a product picked up during a fire sale.> -- > Daniel A. Morgan> University of Washington> damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)> > _______________________________________________> Informix-list mailing list> Informix-list@iiug.org> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Test your Star IQ http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaYlmpIuE_o -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj7jNXIKBy0 Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: [cutting] > No, not really. What made Informix was its penetration in to retail, > logistics and actually hotel reservation systems. Add to this the ease > of integration in to embedded solutions (telco) ... > (Chicago used to be a big Informix town. Where is it today?) [cutting] I think Chicago is still in Illinois, but hey, what do I know :-) Cheers Paul Paul Watson Tel: +1 913-400-2620 Mob: +1 913-387-7529 Web: www.oninit.com Failure is not as frightening as regret. If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: [cutting] > No, not really. What made Informix was its penetration in to retail, > logistics and actually hotel reservation systems. Add to this the ease > of integration in to embedded solutions (telco) ... > (Chicago used to be a big Informix town. Where is it today?) [cutting] I think Chicago is still in Illinois, but hey, what do I know :-) Cheers Paul Paul Watson Tel: +1 913-400-2620 Mob: +1 913-387-7529 Web: www.oninit.com Failure is not as frightening as regret. If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.

> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:23:47 -0500> From: paul@oninit.com> To: im_gumby@hotmail.com> CC: indeep@indeep.com; informix-list@iiug.org> Subject: Re: Informix Positive Post #2> > Ian Michael Gumby wrote:> [cutting]> > No, not really. What made Informix was its penetration in to retail, > > logistics and actually hotel reservation systems. Add to this the ease > > of integration in to embedded solutions (telco) ...> > (Chicago used to be a big Informix town. Where is it today?)> [cutting]> > I think Chicago is still in Illinois, but hey, what do I know :-)> > Cheers> Paul.> Well there's a lot I could say about what you *dont* know, but then I'd be showing what I did know. ;-) The point was that in Chicago, Informix is still popular at a couple of sites, but that number is waning not growing. Hyatt still uses Informix. Motorola is still an OEM. Sears? For now, but if the rumors were true, they're looking at alternatives. The local user group? (No. I won't go there... ;-) -G _________________________________________________________________ In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_realtime_042008

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > I love this "as designed" mentality from a self professed Oracle bigot. The only one proclaiming any bigotry here is you. If you want to be creative ... rejoin IBM and offer up your services. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > InDeep wrote: > >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >>> InDeep, >>> >>> You pick the battles you know you have a chance of winning. >>> >>> The point I was trying to make was that you can't change the >>> developer program because its the same across all of SWG. >>> >> >> This is not thinking outside the box. You're using words like "can't" >> which in my world are not allowed. You think that IBM is unchangeable. >> I think IBM is staffed by people who are interested in anything but >> actually accomplishing something--maybe they are afraid of succeeding. > > I don't believe in "can't" either but your conclusion is outrageous. Who is the supposed 'visionary' at IBM? ( i.e. the Steve Jobs @ Apple ) What visionary at IBM is leading this company? Sam P? He's hardly what I would call visionary, rather a wingtipped twit that is only interested in off-shoring and keeping things status quo. > IBM, from the top down, defines goals. They then execute in accordance > with those goals. If what IDS was doing in the marketplace was not in > line with those goals heads would roll. No one's being fired. No one's > being reorged. There is no fear because there is no problem. > To circle-jerk an answer for you... Large organizations have plenty of people doing things that have nothing to do with 'goals', rather, they are involved in political empires. This activity is probably more important to the people I'm referring to, but I'd venture to guess that even the lowly engineer has his/her agendas wrapped up in politics more than any clearly defined goals. IBM has a lot of bureaucrats and cocksuckers taking up air and doing nothing more than getting in the way. But you don't and can't believe that, because you've never worked at IBM or around IBM or a large company like IBM. > Again ... why is it so hard to just accept that this is "as designed?" I don't have to accept anything. I don't have to buy Informix, or DB2, or anything from IBM. I can go to HP, and get their stuff--or Dell, or even <gasp> Sun for hardware and software. I can currently download a complete Oracle stack and go crazy with it. Oracles' success last year was over the top. Why do you think that is? If you applied the same rules to Informix as Oracle you would be able to understand what we're saying. > No one's afraid of success. They are succeeding. Success is defined by > the CEO not the customers of a product picked up during a fire sale. Well, I tend to think the market will ultimately decide, but if Informix is not even given a fair shot at the market this is where the whole problem is. Informix is so invisible it probably isn't even a 'goal' as you suggest thusly why we have the problem.

InDeep wrote: > Oracle stack and go crazy with it. Oracles' success last year was over > the top. Why do you think that is? Because they are buying share. Why do you think Oracle's stock price is down despite fantastic "sustained" growth, while IBM's is defying the market? Larry has one last bullet it in gun: BEA. After that he's pretty much out of ammo as far as propping up numbers goes. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > InDeep wrote: >> Oracle stack and go crazy with it. Oracles' success last year was over >> the top. Why do you think that is? > Because they are buying share. Why do you think Oracle's stock price is > down despite fantastic "sustained" growth, while IBM's is defying the > market? Larry has one last bullet it in gun: BEA. > After that he's pretty much out of ammo as far as propping up numbers goes. > > Cheers > Serge So what happens after the customer installs Oracle financials, and decides to change to something else. They are locked in. The roots are planted and the tree begins to grow. It's not like they can just change after everything is installed. Same for any other app vendor that provides major applications. You will see the same results for Microsoft, and gasp even MySQL. This is more about form than content. It's not about the database per se, but more about the marketing. I work with people that see Oracle as the best choice out there. The marketing worked! The important thing to take away from Oracle is that they demonstrate how to sell well, and they market well. Until Informix is really marketed and sold it's invisible. Invisible Dynamic Server. Informix: The Database With Invisibility Built In.

Serge Rielau wrote: > InDeep wrote: >> Oracle stack and go crazy with it. Oracles' success last year was over >> the top. Why do you think that is? > Because they are buying share. Why do you think Oracle's stock price is > down despite fantastic "sustained" growth, while IBM's is defying the > market? Larry has one last bullet it in gun: BEA. > After that he's pretty much out of ammo as far as propping up numbers goes. > > Cheers > Serge In Apps yes. But in the database arena? Look who's talking. <g> -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:45:14 -0700 > From: damorgan@psoug.org > Subject: Re: Informix Positive Post #2 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > I love this "as designed" mentality from a self professed Oracle bigot. > > The only one proclaiming any bigotry here is you. If you want > to be creative ... rejoin IBM and offer up your services. No thanks... for a couple of reasons... 1) While within the blue pig, I was in the Lab cross matrixed to S&D. You want to know what it feels to be a bastard step child? Oh the stories I could tell. ;-) The role I played was the hardest roll within IBM. You had the responsibility, but no authority. (Imagine a 4 sided pyramid inverted and hollow. Guess who was at the bottom holding this thing up and waiting for the shit to get shoveled down on you?) 2) IBM would claim ownership of any IP I thought of while I worked for them. Hence I stayed on the *sales* side. 3) I don't like working 14-17 hour days 5 days a week and then a couple of hours on the weekend and not get compensated for my time. 4) Vacation? What Vacation?. The only *positive* thing I can say is that they have excellent mental health benefits. You have to be bonkers to work for them, or just get used to the fact that you have to be willing to do a mediocre job and put in your 9-5. Seriously, I am great full for their mental health benefits. It really helped me and my wife find her a great doctor and help with her clinical depression. (Clinical depression is no joking matter.) 5) IBM pigeon holes you to one task and that's it. Try running you own company for 10+ years, doing all sorts of roles while at clients and then get pigeon holed. When you talk about entrepreneurial spirit and thinking outside of the box, filling the gaps, natural causes for friction, ... you're speaking a foreign language. 6) IBM is truly dysfunctional. Its not due to any one person, but due to the total size of the company. Sorry, but when I walk in to a room of IBMers I expect that our agenda(s) are aligned and we should be working towards the same goal. Most of my issues with IBM isn't with my immediate team, or the Lab. But with other parts of the organization. And the stories I could tell. It would shock a lot of the folks in the Lab who never had to deal with these sort of things. Oh the list goes on. Would I work for the Blue Pig again? Sure. For the right role, right amount of money, and some set parameters. But I don't think Bernie's job is open. ;-) (Just kidding!...8-) -G _________________________________________________________________ In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_realtime_042008

> From: indeep@indeep.com > Who is the supposed 'visionary' at IBM? ( i.e. the Steve Jobs @ Apple ) > What visionary at IBM is leading this company? Sam P? He's hardly what > I would call visionary, rather a wingtipped twit that is only interested > in off-shoring and keeping things status quo. > Sam P has a bigger issue at hand. You have to think Steve Mills since he's Mr. SWG (That's Software Group). And it isn't Mills, but his underlings. (Apologies to Alan Grady. Its never a good idea to generalize) > > IBM, from the top down, defines goals. They then execute in accordance > > with those goals. If what IDS was doing in the marketplace was not in > > line with those goals heads would roll. No one's being fired. No one's > > being reorged. There is no fear because there is no problem. > > > > To circle-jerk an answer for you... Large organizations have plenty of > people doing things that have nothing to do with 'goals', rather, they > are involved in political empires. This activity is probably more important > to the people I'm referring to, but I'd venture to guess that even the > lowly engineer has his/her agendas wrapped up in politics more than any > clearly defined goals. IBM has a lot of bureaucrats and cocksuckers taking > up air and doing nothing more than getting in the way. But you don't and > can't believe that, because you've never worked at IBM or around IBM or > a large company like IBM. > *You* *have* worked at *IBM*. Or that was one hell of a lucky guess. And yes, even within IM, I *could* tell you stories... -G _________________________________________________________________ How well do you know your celebrity gossip? http://originals.msn.com/thebigdebate?ocid=T002MSN03N0707A

> From: srielau@ca.ibm.com > Subject: Re: Informix Positive Post #2 > Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:20:56 -0400 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > InDeep wrote: > > Oracle stack and go crazy with it. Oracles' success last year was over > > the top. Why do you think that is? > Because they are buying share. Why do you think Oracle's stock price is > down despite fantastic "sustained" growth, while IBM's is defying the > market? Larry has one last bullet it in gun: BEA. > After that he's pretty much out of ammo as far as propping up numbers goes. > Do you really think BEA will give him a short term boost? Doubtful. It will give him a platform and some technology that will help 24-32 months down the road. This is why IBM needs to look at getting in to the applications and not just the infrastructure. BUY SAP. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-US&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V3