Re: database market share 2003

Larry <Larry_at_nospam.net> wrote in message news:<pAcuc.64$DC1.81837_at_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

growing??? there was a news report a couple of days ago that IBM's MF business was about $3 (or $4) billion annually. and that 10 years ago it was $12 billion. i didn't attempt to verify this, of course. anyone is welcome to do so. but, on the face of it, DB2/MF is NOT the future.

robert Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 15:08:58 CDT