Re: Database market share 2004

rkusenet wrote:
> respectively. However, there was no clear winner in market share overall. Because the
> difference between RDBMS revenue for IBM and Oracle was less than $30 million, it is
> statistically too close to declare a winner, according to the report, titled "No Clear
> Winner in Overall RDBMS Market Share Race."

Shewt! Brace yourselves, here comes another IBM aquisition! If all else fails, BUY market share. Who will it be this time? Teradata?

> "Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the RAC option," the Gartner
> report states.

They gotta be joking...

> to IBM, can cluster from two to 1,000 servers and pick up nodes at the rate of four per
> hour.

Attaboy! Let's hope they don't "pick their noses" as well...

> are in the room. "We're winning 89.4 percent of the time we're engaging against Oracle and
> Microsoft" according to Q1 2005 numbers, he said, thanks not only to HADR but also to a
> retrained sales team and the decision to price servers at the chip level rather than the
> core level.

No doubt helped as well by the false "Oracle vars" who end up selling exclusively IBM solutions. Want examples?

> We're saying .
> integrate it seamlessly into the database. All the people who thought we had four heads and
> eight eyes, you look at the strategies of our competitors, they're starting to go down the
> same path we started down years ago."

Amazing. IE versus Netscape all over again. And people STILL buy this crap...

Im summary, another typical Gartner report: wanna see who is in front? Who pays more? Received on Mon May 30 2005 - 22:18:23 CDT