Re: informix market share

From: M Segel <MSegelNo_at_SPAM.Segel.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:07:07 -0600
Message-Id: <438b29e0$0$15137$afc38c87@>

rkusenet wrote:

I think you should stay away from this area of conversation. There's a lot that you and I don't have all the facts on. Some of what you postulate doesn't fit with what is known....

> "Bob Jones" <email_at_me.not> wrote in message
> news:RLmif.34038$6e1.27895_at_newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>

>> Ok, let's just talk about LUW then. The market share for Informix was
>> about 5% in 2004, down 1% from 2003. That just doesn't make me feel any
>> better. Keep in mind, IBM bought Informix to increase its database share
>> on UNIX. So far I am not seeing it happening. If Informix sales continue
>> to dwindle, customers will be forced to migrate soon.

>

Not necessarily. Take U2 for example.... (You'll have to do your own homework... )

> IBM did not buy Informix to increase. It bought Informix for following
> reasons:-
>
> - to assuage concerns of big Informix customers like Wal-Mart. It is
> strongly rumored that IBM bought Informix upon advise from Wal-Mart. One
> thing is sure. With IBM as its new owner, Informix can never go bankrupt,
> leaving its customer high and dry.
>

Uhm no. And truthfully Informix wasn't in a position to go bankrupt. PG had his vision and grand design. Informix wasn't part of it.

> - to bring much needed high end technology to DB2 UDB. Notice that Db2 is
> rapidly incorporating Informix technology. Like HADR. Version 9.0 of Db2,
> known as Viper is out on beta now. It has table partitioning. I am pretty
> sure that Informix's proven and stable fragmentation technology is behind
> it.
>

Uhm not exactly.
(ANd no I can't elaborate.)

> Until late 2004, DB2/UDB was embarrassingly deficient in features. It is a
> matter of another one yr before it will have almost all features expected
> in an enterprise class database.
>

Again no. Rather yes, DB2 was an embarassment, still is in some ways.

> I was one of those who suspected IBM's intention back in 2001. Indeed some
> IBM employees did admit that they never wanted Informix to succeed. But
> what they saw in next few years after Apr 2001 was that Informix customers
> are fanatical about their product and the reputation is excellent. That
> forced them to change their tactics.

On this your milage will vary. There is some truth to this, however don't confuse loyalty of certain people to DB2 to be the reflection of the corporate vision.

Lets say that senior execs at IBM can not, or rather choose not to think outside of the box. Most are in PMP mode. (PMP = Protect my pension). Its a cultural mindset that forces people to choose bad ideas because of the potential short term safe outcome.

> I was genuinely surprised to see the features in Informix's latest version
> 10. IBM has added lot of new exciting features. If they were interested in
> killing it, why bother keeping Informix up-to-date. This doesn't make
> sense.
>

Look at it in reverse. DB2 had Unicode. How do you think IDS got it so quickly?

> Informix is still toast bcos of FUD. What I think is going to happen is
> that in another 1/2 yrs DB2 will match Informix in features and
> performance and at that time many of Informix customer will migrate to
> DB2. Add to it that no one wants to learn Informix skills, the demise will
> be further accelerated.
>

FUD? Yes. 1/2 years? No. Theres a lot more and it will take several years before DB2 rates with IDS.

> Oracle has more to worry in about a year when IBM will start poaching
> Oracle customers with a version of DB2 which can stand up to Oracle,
> if not already. IBM has deep pockets and is into many things. Imagine
> when they tell customers "get a hardware from us and you will get DB2
> free. Why are u paying Oracle so much". I use to work for a giant
> consulting company till few months back and they lost out a multi million
> contract to IBM Global Services in NY. I believe my company was
> winning the bid till about the last day, when an IBM rep wrote a cheque
> of few million dollars to the customer as cash back if they buy hardware,
> software and services from IBM. Don't take it literally, but what I
> mentioned actually happened. It was too tempting for the client to not ink
> the deal with IBMGS.
>

I think you need to revisit this comment in a couple of years.

IBM is rebranding what was the DB2 Product Line branding from the DB2 product.

IBM SWG DB2 is not ISSD or IBM Software Group, Information Mangement which will encompass the whole product suite. Hint: Rebranding II under websphere was a *DUMB* idea.

But hey, what do I know?
Its not like I sold this stuff ... ;-)

> BTW given the predatory tactics of Larry Ellison, why didn't he buy
> Informix in 2001. He would have easily killed it by now. Was that a big
> mistake by him. Is that a reason why he does not want to repeat the
> mistake with Peoplesoft and Siebel.

Larry couldn't buy Informix. The sale would never go through.

-- 
We don't like no stinking spammers. If you can read my e-mail addy, then you
should be able to figure out what it will take to send me a reply.

Received on Mon Nov 28 2005 - 11:07:07 CST