XPost: comp.databases.informix, comp.databases, comp.databases.ibm-db2   
   From: neil.truby@ardenta.com   
      
   "DBA"  wrote in message news:3F63C039.4E06E75B@nospam.net...   
   > You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely to   
   go   
   > out of business or be taken over by another company. The market share #'s   
   are   
   > much closer than you indicate.   
   >   
   > The idea of using market share is blown way out of proportion. Other   
   factors   
   > being equal, would you not buy a Toyota over a Nissan if you found out   
   that   
   > Toyota had say 20% of the market and Nissan had 25%? Would you not buy a   
   > Panasonic television over a Sony if you found out that Panasonic had a 30%   
   > market share and Sony had a 25% share? The bottom line is you evaluate the   
   > product on its merits ... you evaluate the suitability of the database to   
   your   
   > environment/applications ... you evaluate the vendor on its merits ... and   
   you   
   > make a decision. What you CARE about is not whether the market share of   
   vendor A   
   > is 3% more than vendor B ... you care about whether the vendor is going to   
   be   
   > there to support you in the future ... and whether that vendor is likely   
   to   
   > continue to invest in their products.   
      
   I don't accept your basic premise that DB2 UDB is a significant player in   
   the UNIX/Linix/Windows market.   
      
   True, IBM is unlikely to go out of business or be taken over.  But it has   
   two rdbms products in the UNIX/Linux/Windows space.  One, with decent   
   reputation for reliability, speed and all those good things you want, they   
   are killing through lack of (marketing) support.  The other (DB2 UDB), no   
   matter what its undoubted merits, is a marginal player IN THIS SPACE.  IBM's   
   strategy is to hope that customers will migrate from Informix to DB2 UDB.   
   The reality in my expereince is that the customers we lose are moving to   
   Oracle or, more and more, SQL Server, usually under prompting from their   
   ISVs.   
      
   My point is,  I don't understand why IBM thinks that customers, forced into   
   a migration by the way things have panned out, are going to choose DB2 UDB   
   ahead of more prominent alternatives.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)