Re: database market share 2003

Darin McBride allegedly said,on my timestamp of 4/06/2004 1:49 PM:

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

I'm purrfectly calm and my life HAS been long so far. :)

> one less-than-honest statement with another should qualify. Further, I
> doubt that any other vendor gets 100% honest marks, either.

So what? Two wrongs does not a right make.

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

<sigh>

> 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?

The point is this: UNTIL IBM provides detailed information about the forest and its trees, ANY attempt to classify their wild unsubstantiated claims as "market information" is nothing more nothing less than an exercise in futility. There is NO SUCH THING as "DB2 has this or that percentage of market" while IBM insists on providing numbers that are unsubstantiated, unrealistic, unverifiable, incomplete and blatantly wrong for anyone who has been in this industry for longer than ten minutes.

> *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.

Ask them. THEY are the ones providing the unverifiable, unrealistic and just plain incorrect statistics. Like trying to establish a percentage of market for a product based on its "significant presence" in THREE platforms when it is well known to only exist in any significant numbers in ONE platform.

> Cost vs benefit, like any business.

Nargh. Cost versus marketing bullshit value. And people like Gartner who should be minimally responsible, go ahead and base their "analysis" on this crud.

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

Reason is relative.

> 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.

YOU stated I was wrong by saying there exist cases of your wild claim. I asked you to cite one. It's you that has to provide the data.

I cited very clearly that Gartner is wrong because they are taking figures that cannot be substantiated or they have NEVER substantiated and accepting them on face value. Without so much as even a disclaimer that the figures are not verified or verifiable.

> 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 don't give a hoot what you are doing with them. What database you use has got no bearing whatsoever on what you do with it and is in no way shape or format "hidden" information. Never was.

> I never said anything about Gartner having accurate numbers. Merely
> close enough for statistical purposes, with the proper condiments at
> the ready.

No. Statistical analysis presumes some reliability of data or else disclosure of any unknown base values. Neither was assured by Gartner. Which makes anything they say next to useless.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam