Chris Eaton wrote:
> Mark Townsend wrote:
>>> You remember the Gartner numbers, not IDCs. In Gartner's counting (new
>>> licence revenue - at least in the past) Oracle and IBM RDBMS were and
>>> still are neck to neck.
>
> Mark I'm surprised at you...you of all people should know better. You
> know that in this years results both Gartner and IDC are now using both
> support revenue and new license revenue. And we all see from the SEC
> filings that Oracle is making more money now from support revenue than
> new licenses.
>
> In an interview with the San Jose Mercury News, Gartner's Colleen
> Graham is quoted as saying "In terms of new licenses, it was a
> neck-and-neck race between Oracle and IBM." .


Gartner reported IBM's TOTAL license and support revenue as 3,040.7
million. If you check the SEC filings for 2005 I think you will find
that Oracle beat this number on new license revenue alone (albeit for
database and app server). Unless the IBM support percentage of this
number is very, very low, I doubt the numbers were anywhere closew to
neck and neck. Gartner certianly didn't publish any such statement in
any of the official material I can see.

I couldn't find the San Jose Mercury new article you referred to. Can
you provide a cite ? I would like to take this up with Gartner.

> In another Gartner study from March of this year they were projecting
> the future (where as the above one looks at the past, i.e. 2005)
> entitled "Gartner Study on DBMS Identifies Spending and Deployment
> Trends" they found that more customers are
> considering IBM databases this year, almost 50% more than Oracle and
> about 35% more than Microsoft. They go on to say "The overall numbers
> so strongly in favour of DB2 indicate a pending increase in IBM's
> market share for DBMS during the next few years."
>
> Their words not mine.

You failed to put either of these quotes in context. The report is here
-
http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/gc/.../article4.html

The actual quote is
"The biggest surprise is DB2 from IBM, with 19 percent planning to
install DB2. This is nearly 50 percent higher than the number planning
to install Oracle."
If you actually look at the chart, you will see that it's 13% with plans
to deploy Oracle, and 19% with plans to install DB2. 13% is not half of
19%. A little largese on Gartners part.

Re:

"The overall numbers
> so strongly in favour of DB2 indicate a pending increase in IBM's
> market share for DBMS during the next few years."

The reference here is to the Asia/Pac market, not the overall market,
and is in some part mitigated by the statement gartner also make "This
is partially due to Oracle's broad penetration in this market"

Note that the same chart also reports that 47% have no plans to deploy
DB2 at all, and gives them less deployed base than any other database in
the survey, except for Sybase and Terdata.

And in fact, if all 19% who say they have plans for DB2 did actually
deploy it, the total % deployed for IBM would be 53%, which is still
less than what both Microsoft's and Oracle already have deployed, and in
fact would only just beat MySQL's already deployed base.

>
> Chris Eaton
> IBM
>
> P.S. I think you guys should start a comp.databases.flame-wars so that
> people that ask questions can get concise answers and not have to deal
> with the banter (although I'm sure it's fun, I don't think it helped
> the person that originally posted the question)
>
> Ok flame me know if you like.
>

"Chris Eaton" <ceaton@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:1149780046.140435.152390@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Mark Townsend wrote:
>> > You remember the Gartner numbers, not IDCs. In Gartner's counting (new
>> > licence revenue - at least in the past) Oracle and IBM RDBMS were and
>> > still are neck to neck.
>
> Mark I'm surprised at you...you of all people should know better. You
> know that in this years results both Gartner and IDC are now using both
> support revenue and new license revenue. And we all see from the SEC
> filings that Oracle is making more money now from support revenue than
> new licenses.
>

Compared to IBM's support and consulting revenue, that's nothing.

> In an interview with the San Jose Mercury News, Gartner's Colleen
> Graham is quoted as saying "In terms of new licenses, it was a
> neck-and-neck race between Oracle and IBM." .
>

Does that include Informix and DB2 on mainframe?

> In another Gartner study from March of this year they were projecting
> the future (where as the above one looks at the past, i.e. 2005)
> entitled "Gartner Study on DBMS Identifies Spending and Deployment
> Trends" they found that more customers are
> considering IBM databases this year, almost 50% more than Oracle and
> about 35% more than Microsoft. They go on to say "The overall numbers
> so strongly in favour of DB2 indicate a pending increase in IBM's
> market share for DBMS during the next few years."
>
> Their words not mine.
>

You mean only DB2 customers, or all database customers. Gartner sure didn't
ask me.

Thumb your chest if you like. Go and brow beat an analyst for saying
what they believe to be true. But the fact of the matter is that this
entire thread started because someone said "I want to migrate my Oracle
10g database to DB2".

You can deny it if you like but your share is being eaten up by
Microsoft, IBM and mySQL (and watch out for Postgres).

I'm of course yanking your chain a bit here but it seems like the thing
some proOracle folks like to do on comp.databases.ibm-db2 when people
are really just looking for answers to their DB2 questions. It would
be nice if you found another platform to pontificate from (but alas I'm
sure you like to stir it up here rather than help out your own
customers).

""Time is a violent torrent; no sooner is a thing brought to sight than
it is swept by
and another takes its place." Marcus Aurelius at the hight of the roman
empire.

Chris Eaton

Chris Eaton wrote:
> Thumb your chest if you like. Go and brow beat an analyst for saying
> what they believe to be true. But the fact of the matter is that this
> entire thread started because someone said "I want to migrate my Oracle
> 10g database to DB2".

I did not get involved until Serge starting casting aspersions on what
Oracle did and did not do.

>
> You can deny it if you like but your share is being eaten up by
> Microsoft, IBM and mySQL (and watch out for Postgres).
>

Actually, the published numbers show (for what they are worth) that it's
IBM's market share that is being eaten up. Here's the IDC market share
numbers (all license and support) for IBM over the last 6 years. Note
the restatement of the 2003 and 2004 numbers based on 'advice from IBM'


2000 25.20%
2001 30.90%
2002 32.00%
2003 31.80%
2004 30.60%
2003 23.50% Restated in 2005. A drop in revenue of over 1.6 billion
dollars compared to the previously reported 2003 number
2004 22% Restated in 2005
2005 21.50%


> I'm of course yanking your chain a bit here but it seems like the thing
> some proOracle folks like to do on comp.databases.ibm-db2 when people
> are really just looking for answers to their DB2 questions. It would
> be nice if you found another platform to pontificate from (but alas I'm
> sure you like to stir it up here rather than help out your own
> customers).

Chris - your entire posting history is here -
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...&qt_s=Sear ch


I'm sorry, but hardly a exemplary record of helping customers.

>
> ""Time is a violent torrent; no sooner is a thing brought to sight than
> it is swept by
> and another takes its place." Marcus Aurelius at the hight of the roman
> empire.

Didn't Marcus have a joint emperorship in order to fight on two fronts
at the same time. Now there's a novel idea. I always though a united IBM
and Oracle would be simply unstoppable. Might have to clean house a
little however :-)

Mark Townsend wrote:
> Chris - your entire posting history is here -
>http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...&qt_s=Sear ch
>
>
> I'm sorry, but hardly a exemplary record of helping customers.
>

I'm sure you don't know me Mark but I don't think you should be
questioning my integrity or support of customers. Take a search around
google instead of just forums and you may find something different (or
search around the DB2 users group where DB2 users hang out instead of
Oracle product managers)

By the way, out of curiousity I put your name in the same search above
and found of the top 10 returns 50% of them were on non Oracle forums.
Now Iet's not live in a fantasy that you are just trying to help out
the world by providing "accurate" information. We both know that it's
about marketing Oracle (it's non traditional marketing but you and I
both know that's what you are doing). Of course it's a free forum so
you can say what you like but personally I find it obnoxious and
distasteful to disrupt the Q&A (unless someone specifically attacks
Oracle and you feel the need to clear the air which was not the case on
this thread and most of the others). I'm not going to post anymore on
this subject as my few postings on this are already bothering me as
they are not helping the initial posting (and I know how you guys like
to get the last word so have at it).

Mark Townsend wrote:
> The actual quote is
> "The biggest surprise is DB2 from IBM, with 19 percent planning to
> install DB2. This is nearly 50 percent higher than the number planning
> to install Oracle."
> If you actually look at the chart, you will see that it's 13% with plans
> to deploy Oracle, and 19% with plans to install DB2. 13% is not half of
> 19%. A little largese on Gartners part.
>

Actually, they said that IBM is 50% higher than Oracle, not that Oracle
is 50% of IBM. That does make a big differencen. 50% higher means take
50% of Oracle (about 6% - they seem to like whole numbers) and add that
onto Oracles number - so 6% + 13% = 19%. They got the math right.

I won't comment on any of the rest, though.

"Chris Eaton" <ceaton@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:1149815057.469241.214560@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Thumb your chest if you like. Go and brow beat an analyst for saying
> what they believe to be true. But the fact of the matter is that this
> entire thread started because someone said "I want to downgrade my Oracle
> 10g database to DB2".
>
> You can deny it if you like but your share is being eaten up by
> Microsoft, IBM and mySQL (and watch out for Postgres).
>

Actually this thread was started by this kind of empty claims and the lack
of real technical experience.

> ""Time is a violent torrent; no sooner is a thing brought to sight than
> it is swept by
> and another takes its place." Marcus Aurelius at the hight of the roman
> empire.

That reminds me of mainframe.