Re: database market share 2003

From: Larry <Larry_at_nospam.net>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 03:31:33 GMT
Message-ID: <pAcuc.64$DC1.81837@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>

And why wouldn't Oracle's results be skewed by it's heritage on UNIX, and Microsoft's be skewed by its heritage on Windows? What does that prove? As long as you are growing on the relevant platforms (which IBM is), and as long as you maintain a significant overall market share ... that proves that you are going to be around as a company and more importantly, as a database company for the foreseeable future. This is what's most important about market share. Otherwise, I don't understand your point. It's like saying that because Nabisco has a higher overall market share in the cookie market ... and that this is skewed by them having the leading market share in Oreo sandwich cookies, you won't buy Keebler cookies.

Larry Edelstein

robert wrote:

> "rkusenet" <rkusenet_at_sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<2hmh03Fdir3uU1_at_uni-berlin.de>...
>

>>http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_database_marketshare_1.html
>>
>>Interesting to see that database sales for windows is more than
>>Unix.

>
>
> what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps)
> IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the
> fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful
> of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant
> DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to
> demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use
> the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at
> my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i
> gather this is quite common.
>
> robert
Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 22:31:33 CDT