RE: Informix conference

"Informix is slated for extinction" Mr. Echo may be making a valid point here and I'll back it up by saying this: I recently attended a SQL Server conference, as well as IDUG. All the Informix users at IDUG are getting old, not a lot of young people attending it. It's just the opposite for SQL Server, not a lot of older people there. Ton of young folks. But, I didn't see a lot of young DB2 people hanging out at IDUG either.... Maybe IBM has a bigger problem than they know. -----Original Message----- From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Double Echo Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 2:21 PM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: Informix conference Serge Rielau wrote: > +->Software Group > +->Information Management > (no DB2 - done - over - thing of the past - give it a rest) > +->Informix > +->DB2 > +->II > +->IMS > ... > +->Rational > ... > > If you had attended this year's IIUG/IDUG conference you would have > seen that Informix was treated as a peer in the keynote address by Bob > Picciano and everywhere else. > If that is the only way the message was delivered then it is obviously not intended to be delivered world-wide, only to an existing base of people who were not only aware of either Informix or DB2, but also had to attend the conference to get the message. Again your arrogance and lack of understanding of the issues is showing. Where is Bob Picciano in the press? Where is he in advertising for Informix? NOWHERE. > Cheers > Serge > > PS: Check my footer. I have changed roles ages ago. I didn't get the memo--not that it matters. But whatever role you have now you still don't know much if anything about the Informix product line or the Informix market. If you did you wouldn't make such stupid comments about it. Many of us in the Informix market have gone on to understanding the DB2 market, and understanding the difference in products enough to know that DB2 is getting marketing and advertising, while Informix isn't getting shit--which would indicate that Informix is slated for extinction. Unless the Informix marketing department ( what a joke ) starts pooping diamonds instead of gravel it ain't gonna matter much anymore what anybody does for the product in the near future, it'll be a worthless product and a complete waste of time for everyone. _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

Hamilton, Jerry wrote: > > "Informix is slated for extinction" > > Mr. Echo may be making a valid point here and I'll back it up by saying > this: I recently attended a SQL Server conference, as well as IDUG. > All the Informix users at IDUG are getting old, not a lot of young > people attending it. It's just the opposite for SQL Server, not a lot > of older people there. Ton of young folks. > > But, I didn't see a lot of young DB2 people hanging out at IDUG > either.... > > Maybe IBM has a bigger problem than they know. > Your point is well made and glaringly obvious to the casual observer. Considering Microsoft has made youth not just a marketing ploy, they actually thrive on youth internally in the company. They can sell to youth because they have young people and a youth-orientated culture to their whole stack. Conversely IBM/Informix has what? ____________ It may not be as important to IBM in the short-term, but money is money, and Microsoft seems to get past all the crap and just sells the living daylights out of their products with great marketing to the young, and always a message about the newness and freshness of the product--even though it's mostly hype... We've all had 20 years to learn from it. Perhaps knowing that the potential of Informix is being wasted is what is really at issue for the product. Most of the SQL-Server crowd will never know about Informix as anything of note. It is like a broken chain that will never get fixed. Sybase thrives and lives on in SQL-Server. It is absolutely amazing how it persists in the face of "superior" technology--but you could argue the same for MySQL. MySQL is also aimed at the young Linux market, most too who will never know about Informix--or Oracle for that matter. IBM really needs to get outside the box and look at their market, and look at what kind of message they are _really saying_, not what they insist is the message. It looks today like IBM wants to argue with customers but not really offer what the customer wants. Strangely familiar... > > -----Original Message----- > From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org > [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Double Echo > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 2:21 PM > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Re: Informix conference > > Serge Rielau wrote: > >>+->Software Group >> +->Information Management >> (no DB2 - done - over - thing of the past - give it a rest) >> +->Informix >> +->DB2 >> +->II >> +->IMS >> ... >> +->Rational >> ... >> >>If you had attended this year's IIUG/IDUG conference you would have >>seen that Informix was treated as a peer in the keynote address by Bob > > >>Picciano and everywhere else. >> > > > If that is the only way the message was delivered then it is obviously > not intended to be delivered world-wide, only to an existing base of > people who were not only aware of either Informix or DB2, but also had > to attend the conference to get the message. Again your arrogance and > lack of understanding of the issues is showing. Where is Bob Picciano > in the press? > Where is he in advertising for Informix? NOWHERE. > > >>Cheers >>Serge >> >>PS: Check my footer. I have changed roles ages ago. > > > I didn't get the memo--not that it matters. But whatever role you have > now you still don't know much if anything about the Informix product > line or the Informix market. If you did you wouldn't make such stupid > comments about it. Many of us in the Informix market have gone on to > understanding the DB2 market, and understanding the difference in > products enough to know that DB2 is getting marketing and advertising, > while Informix isn't getting shit--which would indicate that Informix is > slated for extinction. Unless the Informix marketing department ( what > a joke ) starts pooping diamonds instead of gravel it ain't gonna matter > much anymore what anybody does for the product in the near future, it'll > be a worthless product and a complete waste of time for everyone. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

Double Echo said: > > IBM really needs to get outside the box and look at their market, and > look at what kind of message they are _really saying_, not what they > insist is the message. It looks today like IBM wants to argue with > customers but not really offer what the customer wants. Strangely > familiar... You're not as dumb as you look. :o) IBM has the worst case of NIH Syndrome I've ever, EVER seen. It's a pure Dilbert scenario: some numbnuts lickspittle reworks some old IBM idea with new buzzwords and cons senior management that this is the way forward. For the next year, then, all IBM does is put forward some tired old idea dressed up in new buzzwords and calls it "innovation". I've given up trying to do business with them, they have their own agenda (whether it's what the market wants is entirely irrelevant, "don't you know who we are?") and a sufficiently large base of dumb corporate drones that will just follow the "blue route" blindly over a cliff. -- Bye now, Obnoxio Information within this post contains forward looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the S E C Act of 1934. Statements that involve discussions with respect to projections of future events are not statements of historical fact and may be forward looking statements. Don't rely on them to make a decision. The poster is not a reporting company registered under the Exchange Act of 1934. I have received a life peerage from Her Majesty, who is not an officer, minister or affiliate Labour party member. I intend to recover my loan now, which could cause the parliamentary majority to go down, resulting in losses for you. Today's Labour party has: an accumulated deficit and a reliance on loans from officers and affiliates to pay expenses. It is not an operating political party. The party is going to need financing to continue as a going concern. A failure to finance could cause the party to go out of business. This report shall not be construed as any kind of investment advice or solicitation. You can lose all your money by investing in this party.

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message news:mailman.36.1147763553.19084.informix-list@iiug.org... > > Double Echo said: >> >> IBM really needs to get outside the box and look at their market, and >> look at what kind of message they are _really saying_, not what they >> insist is the message. It looks today like IBM wants to argue with >> customers but not really offer what the customer wants. Strangely >> familiar... > > You're not as dumb as you look. :o) > > IBM has the worst case of NIH Syndrome I've ever, EVER seen. It's a pure > Dilbert scenario: some numbnuts lickspittle reworks some old IBM idea with > new buzzwords and cons senior management that this is the way forward. For > the next year, then, all IBM does is put forward some tired old idea > dressed up in new buzzwords and calls it "innovation". You couldn't be thinking of industry-shattering initiatives like Information on Demand? "Autonomic" computing? SOA? Could you ....?

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Double Echo said: >> IBM really needs to get outside the box and look at their market, and >> look at what kind of message they are _really saying_, not what they >> insist is the message. It looks today like IBM wants to argue with >> customers but not really offer what the customer wants. Strangely >> familiar... > > You're not as dumb as you look. :o) > > IBM has the worst case of NIH Syndrome I've ever, EVER seen. It's a pure > Dilbert scenario: some numbnuts lickspittle reworks some old IBM idea with > new buzzwords and cons senior management that this is the way forward. For > the next year, then, all IBM does is put forward some tired old idea > dressed up in new buzzwords and calls it "innovation". > > I've given up trying to do business with them, they have their own agenda > (whether it's what the market wants is entirely irrelevant, "don't you > know who we are?") and a sufficiently large base of dumb corporate drones > that will just follow the "blue route" blindly over a cliff. > Not to change the subject, but isn't it curious that there was no c.d.i. coverage of the last conference? Even more curious, with the plethora of electronic tools and internet opportunities that basically could be had for the cost of the bandwidth, there have been no pictures, no video, no audio, no nothin, from either the illustrious IIUG or Informix-et-al or IBM. This is even more evidence that there is no intention of Informix being relevant in the future. What a waste of a marketing opportunity. Completely shit.

"Double Echo" <doubleecho@your.com> wrote in message news:DSkag.90023$PE6.40306@fe53.usenetserver.com... > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Double Echo said: >>> IBM really needs to get outside the box and look at their market, and >>> look at what kind of message they are _really saying_, not what they >>> insist is the message. It looks today like IBM wants to argue with >>> customers but not really offer what the customer wants. Strangely >>> familiar... >> >> You're not as dumb as you look. :o) >> >> IBM has the worst case of NIH Syndrome I've ever, EVER seen. It's a pure >> Dilbert scenario: some numbnuts lickspittle reworks some old IBM idea >> with >> new buzzwords and cons senior management that this is the way forward. >> For >> the next year, then, all IBM does is put forward some tired old idea >> dressed up in new buzzwords and calls it "innovation". >> >> I've given up trying to do business with them, they have their own agenda >> (whether it's what the market wants is entirely irrelevant, "don't you >> know who we are?") and a sufficiently large base of dumb corporate drones >> that will just follow the "blue route" blindly over a cliff. >> > > Not to change the subject, but isn't it curious that there was no c.d.i. > coverage of the last conference? When I was on the IIUG Board, and responsible for conference presence, I used to wrote a report of each one I attended. I rarely got any comments though so I'm not sure how appreciated they were. According to the front page of the IIUG website (www.iiug.org) the presentations from last week are available for download to members.

"Double Echo" <doubleecho@your.com> wrote in message news:DSkag.90023$PE6.40306@fe53.usenetserver.com... > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Double Echo said: >>> IBM really needs to get outside the box and look at their market, and >>> look at what kind of message they are _really saying_, not what they >>> insist is the message. It looks today like IBM wants to argue with >>> customers but not really offer what the customer wants. Strangely >>> familiar... >> >> You're not as dumb as you look. :o) >> >> IBM has the worst case of NIH Syndrome I've ever, EVER seen. It's a pure >> Dilbert scenario: some numbnuts lickspittle reworks some old IBM idea >> with >> new buzzwords and cons senior management that this is the way forward. >> For >> the next year, then, all IBM does is put forward some tired old idea >> dressed up in new buzzwords and calls it "innovation". >> >> I've given up trying to do business with them, they have their own agenda >> (whether it's what the market wants is entirely irrelevant, "don't you >> know who we are?") and a sufficiently large base of dumb corporate drones >> that will just follow the "blue route" blindly over a cliff. >> > > Not to change the subject, but isn't it curious that there was no c.d.i. > coverage of the last conference? Are most UK readers aware that there is a UK Infobahn scheduled for next week btw?