Re: database market share 2003

From: Darin McBride <dmcbride_at_naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 03:49:26 GMT
Message-ID: <ajSvc.664613$Ig.561590@pd7tw2no>

Noons wrote:

> Darin McBride <dmcbride_at_naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> 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.

Maybe if you calm down a bit, treat everyone as human beings rather than electronic targets, you might have a longer life...

> "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."

I would disagree with "totally". As for "downright stupid", answering one less-than-honest statement with another should qualify. Further, I doubt that any other vendor gets 100% honest marks, either.

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

>
> <sigh>

I'll take that as an "I don't know."

>> 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.

But is that a significant portion of the DB2 market? You keep going around the statement, trying to focus on one small piece - missing the forest for ... a single tree, I think. "Look, IBM has a huge forest of pine!" Gartner says. You say "There are two elms in there." And then the point is?

>> 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?

Sorry, let me rephrase that.

*MY* question is that. I want to know if you're making a mountain out of a molehill or not. I want to know how much Gartner's (and IBM's) numbers are out of whack in reality, not in some small microcosm of the stats.

>> 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?

Not really. I'm still trying to figure out if the difference, if the numbers were 100% accurate for all vendors, would actually make any difference to the overall meaning. And if anyone cares about the difference. IBM at 35.7% becomes 35%. Oracle at 32.6% becomes 32.5%. Given a 3.1% difference becomes 2.5% - neither one is statistically compelling anyway. Why get all worked up about 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!

I'm glad to see you're in a chipper mood. You can't fix one dishonesty with another one. I'm not saying that what Gartner gives out is something I'd stake money on. I'm merely saying that it's in a ballpark that is wrong for everyone, but close enough to take with a reasonable (non-life-threatening) amount of salt.

>> 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?

Cost vs benefit, like any business.

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

>
> Yes it is.

Ok, I suppose you don't have to. You haven't been reasonable so far in this thread, so why start now?

>> 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.

You're the one making wild claims about Gartner's credibility without citing absolutely anything to back it up. Why should I start citing anything in reverse? I'm not going to do your homework for you.

>> 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.

I did say "may" on both counts.

>> 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 highly doubt it. Most customers won't divulge that type of information. I know that if I were a CIO somewhere with databases all over the place, I wouldn't tell my vendors what I was doing with it without some sort of subpoena. I'm sure others are more forthcoming, and may only require an NDA ...

>> 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.

I never said anything about Gartner having accurate numbers. Merely close enough for statistical purposes, with the proper condiments at the ready. Received on Thu Jun 03 2004 - 22:49:26 CDT