Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: database market share 2003

Re: database market share 2003

From: Noons <>
Date: 3 Jun 2004 16:58:54 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Darin McBride <> wrote in message news:<5JGvc.659814$Ig.278119_at_pd7tw2no>...
> >> I think Noons' point is that it's unfair to compare Oracle (Linux,
> >> Unix, Windows) against DB2 (Linux, Unix, Windows, AS/400) since the
> >> domains are different.
> >
> > Nope.
> Then, please ... explain in plain English for us obvious idiots.

OK, I'll try again, this time with small words, it may be easier.

"IBM can not claim as DB2 licenses all their AS400 sites. They are not. And to bundle them ALL in ANY market analysis of DB2 is totally misleading and downright stupid."

> Is this a significant portion of the AS/400 market?


> You're answering my question backwards. I'm asking about the portion
> of the AS/400 market which IBM is incorrectly claiming uses DB2. Is
> THAT portion significant? I'm not asking if IBM's claim is significant
> - you may think I'm stupid, but I'm not that stupid. That it is the
> entire AS/400 market is obvious.

IBM's incorrect claim IS the point. Not if the AS400 market is significant.

And BTW: it is. In case you have not noticed, the AS400 is still in numbers the largest installed base of any type of IBM system. Although they will never openly admit to it.

> a) What is the ratio of 2:1? Is it statistically significant? If it

No. The question is not that. The question is that REGARDLESS of that percentage, IBM is claiming it as 100%. Spot the difference?

> b) What is the ration of 2:3? Is this statistically significant? If
> we're changing IBM's numbers by removing AS/400 users that don't
> actually use DB2 from 37.6% to 37%, why are we having this argument?

We are changing NOTHING. IBM is the one that has to change their incorrect numbers. Got it?

> c) Regardless of what the ratios are, it is obvious to the rest of us
> that you cannot be honest if you are asking to remove the entire AS/400
> market.

Don't try the semantics bullshit here, moron. It is IBM that is NOT being honest! Don't even try the opposite!

> Honesty would require removing only the portion of the AS/400
> market which is not actually using DB2, whatever that may be.

Thank you for admitting IBM is NOT being honest. WTF doesn't IBM do it?

> You must
> concede, however, that doing that is not easy.

Yes it is.

> honest method of reporting, but it is not easy to do. A customer may
> buy an AS/400 not intending to use DB2, and then do so anyway (they are
> licensed to do it afterall).

No. Cite one.

> Or a customer may purchase Oracle for HP
> and then the project is cancelled - discounting this from Oracle's
> numbers is not going to be any easier.

Cite one.

> It would mean going to each
> vendor's customers, and verifying that each one is using what they paid
> for. Definitely honest, but is it going to produce significantly
> different numbers that would justify the expense?

Yes. Ask IBM to provide the numbers: they have them.

> I doubt it.

That is why the Gartner "numbers" are widely derided: the lightness with which they make incorrect assumptions about "markets" and the lightness with which they'll accept ANY claims from ANY maker, proportional to the cachet that accompanies such claims.

Nuno Souto Received on Thu Jun 03 2004 - 18:58:54 CDT

Original text of this message