Rivals encroach on Oracle's database lead

Discussions

News: Rivals encroach on Oracle's database lead

  1. Rivals encroach on Oracle's database lead (6 messages)

    Oracle is facing the biggest threat ever to its database dominance, as IBM, Microsoft and new competitors chisel away at its market share. Oracle, in its most recent earnings report, said database sales fell 8 percent overall, whereas IBM's and Microsofts revenues have grown 36% and 45% in the last quarter, respectively.

    Read Rivals encroach on Oracle's database lead.
  2. It says that IBM's database sales grew. I would have expected as much when they bought Informix!

    It says that Microsoft's database revenues grew. That could mean that they are charging more for support, for upgrades, for training, or are counting a percentage of Office revenue toward the database number. Totally meaningless!

    [I'm not defending Oracle ... I'm just pointing out that the basis of the article is bunk.]

    Peace,

    Cameron.
  3.  You may be perfectly right Cameron. Companies often exagerate their claims with all means of devious tactics, and the press make grand stories based on these claims cause well, thats what the press does. :)

     Luckily this is a community portal of J2EE professionals, who can help debunk those types of claims.

    Floyd
  4. Mis-Information[ Go to top ]

    I have to concur on the comments about what exactly these numbers and claims mean. What really counts is how many companies are using various vendors' products for mission-critical enterprise development versus something more trivial - And how many users are supported on each platform.

    Do three installations of DB2 really compare to three installs of SQL Server? Even if the DB2 installs support 10,000 concurrent users and the 3 SQL Server databases only support 5 users each? I don't think so.

    Revenue is one thing - and as everyone has noted there are differences which can result from a variety of factors.

    What we are really after here is who has the best product and is likely to be a key player long-term, right? We use things like 'market share' and 'revenue' to, in part, define this measurement.

    Does anyone hear a standard in the works here? Wouldn't it be nice to have a uniform way to compare product prevalence? Maybe some sort of mix of installed base, # of users, # of outstanding bugs (sorry M$), performance, or something like that?

    Well - I know that's not practical and was more a hypothetical question, but that is exactly what we are trying to determine.

    Wouldn't it be cool if we could give our management a single number to rank products in our comparison matrices?

    Oracle - 74.3
    Microsoft - 68.57
    IBM - 83.41!! WINNER!!!

    For now, we have to take these figures with a grain of salt and make a judgment call.

    As Floyd said - we're a community of professional, intelligent, logical people who aren't about to be duped by hype or circumstance. Technologists like to test, measure, benchmark, and otherwise put things through the wringer before we make our decisions...
  5. http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
  6. I think if you use the URL of the last message and go to the TPC site you will see that as the size of the Data base increases Oracle is the winner. So this will lead us to believe that Oracle is still the better prodcut

    Rgds,
    Gavin
  7. Posted by Gavin Selvaratnam 2001-10-24:
    <quote>
    I think if you use the URL of the last message and go to the TPC site you will see that as the size of the Data base increases Oracle is the winner. So this will lead us to believe that Oracle is still the better prodcut
    </quote>

    If you follow the URL, you'll see that top solution outperforms Oracle by factor of almost 2x and is 1.5 times cheaper at the same time.