Re: SQL Server Yukon

Noons wrote:

>"Database Guy" <dbguy101_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7fdee71c.0310271703.11557ae0_at_posting.google.com...
>
>
>
>>little over 60%? I forget. The point is that Oracle *is* unhealthily
>>dependent on database sales. And yes they are overpriced, but because
>>of the heavy dependence on database sales, if they reduce the prices
>>they hit the bottom line very, very hard. But if they don't they keep
>>losing share, as you say. Meanwhile IBM and Microsoft sell their
>>products at a fraction of the cost. I'm not a financial analyst but to
>>me it seems a nasty position.
>>
>>
>>
>
>and it's gonna get worse. just wait for M$ to bundle the db with the OS...
>
>

Not going to happen.

Microsoft is not going to give away 90+% of the revenues from SQL Server just to gain a slightly
larger share of the RDBMS market on a single platform.

There's one thing they do really well in Redmond other than hegemony, it isn't technology, its greed.
This is nothing but an idle threat. And quite frankly I hope I'm wrong.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)