Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Database market share 2004

Re: Database market share 2004

From: <michaelnewport_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 11 Jun 2005 08:21:01 -0700
Message-ID: <1118503261.096009.247420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

rkusenet wrote:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1820667,00.asp
>
>
>
>
> The database market grew by 10.3 percent in 2004, fueled largely by hunger for business
> intelligence and analytics, according to numbers released by the Gartner Group on Monday.
> With 34.1 percent of the overall market, IBM holds a slim margin over its closest
> competitor, Oracle Corp., which maintains 33.7 percent of the overall market. Microsoft
> Corp. follows up with 20 percent of the market. NCR Teradata Corp. controls 2.9 percent,
> Sybase Inc. claims 2.3 percent and others hold 6.6 percent. ADVERTISEMENT
> The market growth figure doubles that of RDBMS (relational DBMS) market growth in 2003,
> which was 5 percent, according to Gartner Inc.'s Colleen Graham, who authored the report.
> "[The growth] came a lot from BI, data warehousing and data analysis," she said. "You can
> tell that if you look at [NCR]; they had really strong growth, and they're a
> data-warehousing database. That's where we're seeing a lot of this come from."
> The market grew from just under $7.1 billion in 2003 to nearly $7.8 billion in terms of new
> license sales. The continuing weakness of the U.S. dollar artificially inflated market
> growth to some degree, Graham said, accounting for some 3 to 4 percent of overall growth.
> "[Overall market growth] was probably somewhere between 6 and 7 percent," she said, after
> considering that sales outside of the United States, when converted to U.S. dollars,
> contributed more to vendor revenue because of currency conversion, as opposed to increased
> demand.
> Microsoft and Teradata led in terms of overall growth, with 18 percent and 17 percent,
> 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."
> Read details here about Oracle's PIM Data Hub.
> Winner or no winner, vendors were quick to point out the rosy parts of the picture.
> Willie Hardie, Oracle's senior director of Database Product Marketing, found evidence that
> the market is buying into the database company's grid vision and its pushing of RAC (Real
> Application Clusters) clustering on commodity servers running on the Linux platform.
> "Forget about databases specifically and look at server sales," said Hardie, in Redwood
> Shores, Calif. "The growth market in servers is in small servers, with clustering of small
> servers. That matches closely to Oracle's grid model: don't buy big servers; cluster
> together boxes running Linux or Windows. No doubt there's a trend in the industry moving in
> that direction, somewhat reflected in Oracle's growth in 2004."
> The market for RDBMS on Linux, meanwhile, is red-hot. While still a relatively small part of
> the overall RDBMS market, the Linux segment grew 118 percent in 2004, more than doubling
> from $300 million in 2003 to more than $650 million in 2004.
> Gartner found that Oracle has a growing lead over IBM in this subsection of the market, with
> growth of 155 percent. Oracle now controls 80.5 percent of the Linux RDBMS market, up from
> 69 percent a year ago. IBM, meanwhile, slipped in 2004, coming to rest at 16.5 percent of
> the market from year-ago figures of 28.4 percent of the market.
> The Gartner report pointed out that Linux RDBMS revenue includes sales of Oracle 9i RAC,
> which adds about a 50 percent premium on top of regular RDBMS license fees for that company.
> Bob Picciano, vice president of database servers for IBM, said Oracle's growing Linux lead
> is artificially puffed up by those add-on RAC fees. "What Oracle is doing is, they're
> migrating their own Unix base to the Linux platform," said Picciano, in Somers, N.Y. "In the
> process, they're increasing the cost of software to those clients, by introducing the cost
> of RAC."
>
> "Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the RAC option," the Gartner
> report states. "Almost 20 percent to 30 percent of Oracle RAC deployments are estimated to
> be on the Linux platform."
> Hardie said the demand for Linux shows no signs of abating, coming from virtually all the
> vertical industries and including implementations of data warehousing on clustered RAC-that
> clearly not being a solution for the needs of a niche, he said.
> IBM is set to fight back with DB2 features that compete with RAC. In particular, the
> company's release of "Stinger," the next version of DB2, is optimized for Version 2.6 of the
> Linux kernel, a move that's geared toward helping database clusters scale higher and perform
> faster.
> It is also intended to better exploit the speed of 64-bit databases and servers that rely on
> multiple processors.
> IBM's promise is that such multiprocessor servers can be joined in Linux clusters, as with
> DB2 ICE (Integrated Cluster Environment), an integrated package that combines DB2 and
> eServer Linux Cluster 1350 (xSeries, 325, BladeCenter) to provide a solution that, according
> to IBM, can cluster from two to 1,000 servers and pick up nodes at the rate of four per
> hour.
> Picciano also pointed to Stinger's HADR (High Availability and Disaster Recovery) as being
> the key to IBM's ability to deliver high availability at a fraction of the cost of Oracle
> RAC.
> "With RAC, the client needs to license all the processors on both boxes, and they need to
> license the RAC feature," he said. "With HADR, you pay for processors on the primary [box]
> and for one processor on the standby box. So the cost savings is much greater."
> Picciano said that HADR has helped IBM do battle in sales situations where IBM and Microsoft
> 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.
> Microsoft, predictably, scoffed at the growth of the Linux database market. "Look at it:
> It's a small market," said Tom Rizzo, director of product management for SQL Server. "You'd
> expect some growth there, from such a small base."
> Rizzo pointed to the healthy growth in the Windows database market as evidence that Windows
> is "eating away at the Linux camp" rather than the other way around. The RDBMS market on the
> Windows server platform grew 10 percent in 2004. Microsoft's market share grew 18 percent in
> this segment.
> Click here to read more about the increasing market share of open-source database
> PostgreSQL.
> That gave Microsoft 50.9 percent of the Windows RDBMS market, up from 47.4 percent in 2003.
> IBM posted a 4 percent decline in this market segment, which followed a nearly 12 percent
> decline in 2003-a slippage Gartner attributed to weak adoption of DB2 8.
> Graham said she was surprised to see Microsoft do so well, given that the release of SQL
> Server 2005, code-named Yukon, has been delayed so often and so long.
> "We do our forecast and say 'OK, each of these vendors, which is coming out with a new
> product? Where's each one been in the product lifecycle?'" she said. "To see Microsoft have
> growth this strong, even before they release Yukon, that struck me as interesting. People
> aren't waiting."
>
> Much of Microsoft's success likely goes back to the overall interest in BI, Graham said-a
> premise that Rizzo seconded. "BI is a tremendous growth driver for us, especially Reporting
> Services, which we've seen a ton of customers buying and deploying," he said.
> "That's why we invested so heavily in BI technologies across SQL Server. We put a down
> payment many years ago, and now it's paying off in terms of revenue growth," Rizzo added,
> pointing to the company's release of OLAP (online analytical processing) services in 1998,
> which was the first of a string of BI technologies integrated into the database itself.
> "People looked at us like we were kind of crazy," Rizzo said. "[They asked,] 'Why is
> Microsoft integrating BI into the database? Most people buy it separately.' 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."

http://www.fabalabs.org/resear%adch/papers/FabalabsResearchPape%adr-OSDBMS-... Received on Sat Jun 11 2005 - 10:21:01 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US