[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | US_SALES_SERVICE |
| Notice: | Please register in note 2; DVNs in note 31 |
| Moderator: | MCIS3::JDAIGNEAULT |
|
| Created: | Thu May 16 1991 |
| Last Modified: | Tue Sep 03 1996 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 226 |
| Total number of notes: | 1486 |
79.0. "We fight ourselves..." by KYOA::KOCH (It never hurts to ask...) Mon Feb 10 1992 15:20
Attached is a discussion concerning Oracle from the RDB_VMS_COMPETITION
notes file. I have obtained permission from MSBCS::TAUBE to post this
memo. This is based on this memo NOT BEING RE-POSTED OR FORWARDED without
his permission. However, the interesting part is that an engineering
group is going to use Oracle as an integral part of a CASE system.
As you might suspect, this is extremely frustrating for me. I am trying
to sell Rdb and this gives tacit approval to the Oracle argument of
software independence. How do I sell against this when the corporation
supports actions like this in the engineering community?
Thanks for your thoughts.
<<< BEAGLE::$1$DUA200:[NOTES$LIBRARY]RDB_VMS_COMPETITION.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Rdb/VMS against the world >-
================================================================================
Note 1070.0 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 12 replies
BEAGLE::GODFRIND "Alvin Toliver was here" 50 lines 22-JAN-1992 10:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Posted without permission)
+---------------------------+ TM
| | | | | | | |
| d | i | g | i | t | a | l | I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O
| | | | | | | |
+---------------------------+
TO: VSS Staff DATE: 20 JAN 92
Distribution FROM: Gareth Taube
DEPT: VSS Customer Programs
CC: Dick Anderson EXT: 293-5269
Bill Demmer LOC/MAILSTOP: BXB1-2/F12
ENET: MSBCS::TAUBE
MEMO: 101
SUBJECT: ORACLE ADVERTISEMENT
Today Oracle will run an anti-RDB advertisement that we asked them
not to run in the interests of our relationship. We need to, therefore,
respond in a measured way to indicate our reaction to this behavior.
I have informed them that we can no longer entertain the idea of
joint advertising. I am also asking that your organization not
undertake any activity with Oracle that will result in a public
endorsement of our relationship. That means no fliers, data sheets,
press releases, joint relationship statements, etc.
Oracle still represents a sizeable part of our platform business.
Joint work supporting them from a technical side should continue.
On the public relationship side, I do not feel we have an understanding
as to how to work together and, therefore, need to exercise restraint
at this time.
I will let you know if the situation improves. Please let me know
before you embark on any externally visible activity. Thanks, in advance,
for your cooperation on this matter.
Regards,
Gareth
/rf
<= distribution list suppressed =>
Steve Blanchette Myles Falvella
Ed Barker Wally Cole
Duncan Anderson Rene Martinez
Dick Angel
================================================================================
Note 1070.1 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 1 of 12
COOKIE::OAKEY "The Last Bugcheck - The Sequel" 56 lines 23-JAN-1992 21:53
-< The ad.... in B&W >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted without permission from the January 20, 1992 Digital News.
Rdb.
It's Slow. It's Proprietary.
It Locks You In.
Maybe That's Why It's Free.
followed by 4 bar charts
Performance on VAX 6560 Cost/Performance on VAX 6560
ORACLE 153 tpsB ORACLE $17,1K/tpsB
Rdb 60.1 tpsB Rdb $31.6K/tpsB
Codd&Date and D.A. Codd&Date and D.A.
VAXcluster Scalability from 3 to 4 6560s
ORACLE 89%
Rdb Not Published
Codd&Date
NAS Platforms
ORACLE ALL
Rdb 1
When you buy a VAX VMS computer, you'll get a free runtime version of Rdb.
Which sounds pretty good, until you realize all the things Rdb doesn't give
you.
According to Database Associates and Codd & Date you won't get ORACLE's
TPC-B performance or cost-efficiency. Or ORACLE's VAXcluster scalability.
Or ORACLES's portability.
So call 1-880-633-0529 Ext. 4250 and find out why with free Rdb, you get
exactly what you pay for.
ORACLE logo
Software for people who can't predict the future
� 1991 Oracle Corporation. ORACLE is a registered trademark of Oracle
Corporation. Rdb, VAXcluster, VAX and VMS are trademarks of Digital
Equipment Corporation. TPC Benchmark is the trademark of the Transaction
Processing Performance Council. Other trade names referenced are the
trademark of the respective manufacturer.
================================================================================
Note 1070.2 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 2 of 12
MBALDY::LANGSTON "The secret is strong ears." 6 lines 28-JAN-1992 02:35
-< My blood is boiling. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The things that make this ad really work are the lies.
� It's Slow.
� It Locks You In.
================================================================================
Note 1070.3 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 3 of 12
16836::STOUT 18 lines 4-FEB-1992 23:49
-< Seeds >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It turns out that Oracle does not need a joint advertising campaign
with Digital. It is my understanding that we have plans to port some
of our CASE products to ULTRIX. These products will use Oracle for
their underlying data repositories. This will give them defacto
endorsement. If you think the current situation is bad, just think
how humiliating it will be to endorse their products (by selling
Digital products which require Oracle) while they continue to publicly
bash Rdb.
It is getting very difficult to hold your head high if you support the
sale of Rdb and related products. When we start shipping Digital products
that require Oracle how do we explain ourselves to customers whom we have
convinced to convert to Rdb??? And think about this - everytime one of
those products is sold we plant the seeds for our continued demise...
I know this all sounds very negative, but I am having a difficult
time seeing anything good in the relationship.
Dale
================================================================================
Note 1070.4 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 4 of 12
BROKE::HIGGS "SQL is a camel in disguise" 29 lines 5-FEB-1992 15:17
-< Amen >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<< Note 1070.3 by 16836::STOUT >>>
-< Seeds >-
You certainly hit the mark from my perspective!
Remember the coffee mugs from many years back that declare 'Digital is a
Software Company'? (I still have one.) Supposedly KO himself claimed that we
were at that time. We weren't then, and we aren't now. The company is still
being run as if we were a hardware company (and because of that mindset at the
top levels, we in fact are), and as if we can succeed without raising the
importance of software (which I believe we cannot).
The only reason that I can see why we 'endorse' (read: kowtow to) Oracle is
that the people who make the high level decisions in Digital believe that the
road to success lies in selling hardware, and that Oracle sells hardware for us.
They are willing to go to extreme lengths, including completely screwing up
our database strategy, to attempt to sell hardware.
But didn't we lose money on hardware last year?
And what happens when Oracle turns around and causes us to lose control of
our accounts, and eventually convinces the customers to move to a different
'more cost-effective' box? Much good our hardware sales do us then.
It reminds me of the story of the Trojan Horse.
The seeds of our demise, indeed! It's happening as we speak.
Bryan
================================================================================
Note 1070.5 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 5 of 12
COOKIE::BERENSON "Lex mala, lex nulla" 33 lines 6-FEB-1992 22:45
-< We are not a single company >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital is not "one company" and never has been, despite the slogan of
the 80s which claimed otherwise. The New Management System makes this
aspect of the company even worse. Digital is a bunch of separate
business units who are measured on their own units business results.
The units cooperate only to the extent that they all see themselves
*DIRECTLY* benefiting from the cooperation.
A business unit focused on hardware does not benefit by slighting one
software supplier in favor of another. To such a business unit, the
choice of Rdb/VMS vs ORACLE is of no direct consequence to them as long
as the customer buys their hardware. While there may be indirect
consequences (such as loss of account control), there are counteracting
influences. For example, a customer already wed to ORACLE might actually
be dislodged because their software vendor (ORACLE) had a falling out
with the hardware vendor (US). So, the account control issue has been
turned into a two-edged sword (and if you don't think software vendors
have that amount of power, witness the IBM vs MICROSOFT battle in the PC
space).
There is one further factor. If you are a hardware business unit about
to introduce the absolute hottest boxes on the market, and you are very
interested in taking business from other hardware vendor's installed
base, you have to make sure that the software they are running on the
other vendors gear runs on yours as well, and runs better than it does on
the other vendors stuff.
So, for a hardware business unit the approach being taken makes sense.
There is no one higher up (and never really has been) saying "what is the
best approach for Digital overall"? Even worse, we are so REVENUE hungry
right now that talk of account control and the like have absolutely no
impact on anyone.
Hal
================================================================================
Note 1070.6 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 6 of 12
MRKTNG::SILVERBERG "Mark Silverberg DTN 264-2269 TTB" 6 lines 7-FEB-1992 13:41
-< do customers want account control? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thinking from the customer's perspective, what's more important....
Account Control by Digital or Digital selling me what I want?
Just curious
Mark
================================================================================
Note 1070.7 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 7 of 12
COOKIE::BERENSON "Lex mala, lex nulla" 20 lines 7-FEB-1992 18:56
-< Account Control = Handholding >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When their environment falls apart for some reason or another, that's
when customer's want "account control". They want someone to take
responsibility and "fix it". And, they want someone to take
responsibility for helping to prevent the problem in the first place.
They also want a stable vendor who will be around when all of this
happens. That is what the customer gets out of Digital having "account
control" That is why customers stuck with "all IBM" shops for so many
years, refusing to consider Digital systems or even 3rd party software
for their IBM systems.
BUT, not all customers care about this stuff. And, even many that do
want us to provide the same level of service and handholding for all
their products, even if we aren't the vendor. The problem is, that I'm
not convinced they'll pay enough in EIS money to justify the level of
support they want. And, unless they buy large quantities of profitable
Digital products (read: software) we won't be able to make any money off
them at all.
Hal
.
================================================================================
Note 1070.8 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 8 of 12
KCOHUB::DAZOFF::DUNCAN "Gerry Duncan @KCO, 452-3445" 12 lines 7-FEB-1992 20:17
-< Rdb/OSF1 and/or RdbStar will help >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A good way to compete with Oracle would be for Digital to wakeup
and tell the world that we are:
1) porting Rdb/VMS to OSF1
2) going to deliver RdbStar distributed components
at the same time AND that both products will work TOGETHER
and play off each other's strengths. This would be the easy
task. Delivery on our promise is the tough part. Maybe this
is why we don't make many promises ?
-- gerry
================================================================================
Note 1070.9 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 9 of 12
CSC32::S_MAUFE "third different screen and keyboard" 15 lines 7-FEB-1992 21:31
-< Oracle on ALPHA >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
looks like Oracle will beon Alpha real soon after FRS,
from "Digital News, Feb 3rd, 1992"
Several large third-party software houses have already had access to
early model Alpha Workkstations. Oracle Corp is hard at work porting
its relational DBMS and tools to VMS and OSF/1 on the ALPHA hardware
platform. " ... " He (Nimish Meta) said Oracle will be available in
production release on Alpha 'in a very reasonable time after the
shipping of Alpha hardware'"
etc
Simon
================================================================================
Note 1070.10 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 10 of 12
HGOVC::DEANGELIS "Momuntai" 14 lines 8-FEB-1992 02:38
-< what customers want >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�<<< Note 1070.6 by MRKTNG::SILVERBERG "Mark Silverberg DTN 264-2269 TTB1-5/B3" >>>
� -< do customers want account control? >-
Yes, I agree with Hal that many of our large accounts want/need the kind of
hand holding that IBM has traditionally given in the past. We cannot provide
that kind of investment to our clients without some sort of 'payback'.
Customers do not want to be locked in, and we don't want them to buy from
anybody else (if we have a solution) - only one solution really - start selling
them multiplatform software. If we have the software, then they won't buy from
anybody else if our product set is comprehensive, in the same price range as
competitors, and offer good support. Problem is, that in the DB area we don't
have that yet.
John.
================================================================================
Note 1070.11 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 11 of 12
TPSYS::BUTCHART "TNSG/Software Performance" 7 lines 10-FEB-1992 14:36
-< Account control >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .6,7
Interesting topic, as I just got back from a visit to a customer who very
explicitly stated that they WANTED Digital to practice IBM-like "account
control" on them. And defined it very much as Hal did.
/Dave
================================================================================
Note 1070.12 Oracle not playing the game as our partner 12 of 12
BROKE::HIGGS "SQL is a camel in disguise" 26 lines 10-FEB-1992 15:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<< Note 1070.10 by HGOVC::DEANGELIS "Momuntai" >>>
-< what customers want >-
Yes, I agree with Hal that many of our large accounts want/need the kind of
hand holding that IBM has traditionally given in the past. We cannot provide
that kind of investment to our clients without some sort of 'payback'.
Customers do not want to be locked in, and we don't want them to buy from
anybody else (if we have a solution) - only one solution really - start selling
them multiplatform software. If we have the software, then they won't buy from
anybody else if our product set is comprehensive, in the same price range as
competitors, and offer good support. Problem is, that in the DB area we don't
have that yet.
===============================================================================
RE: 'start selling them multiplatform software', I completely agree. And that
means non-Digital platforms, as well.
DBS Engineering is trying to get there. One of the major problems is that
there are groups within Digital that undermine our efforts by their misguided
Oracle games.
Hal pointed out that the New Management Structure is discouraging all groups
from working together. I couldn't agree more. The total lack of any obvious
Corporate commitment to a database strategy that all such groups agree to shows
the weakness of the current structure. I think that Digital is sending multiple
messages, and that customers are rightly confused and suspicious.
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 79.1 | | MADWT::HENDERSON | Another Casualty of Applied Metaphysics | Mon Feb 10 1992 17:35 | 8 |
| I think it is fairly obvious that our CASE tools are going multi-vendor as are
many of our other software products. RDB is a single vendor single OS database.
For the multi-vendor software products to accomplish their goals they must use
a multi-vendor multi-os database.
If you want to sell Rdb in the 90's then you must be open. To be open you must
be multi-vendor/multi-os/multi-network. Rdb on DECosf is not open. Rdb will be
open when I can sell it on an impressive list of HW/OS.
|
| 79.2 | | ODIXIE::WALLS | Beautiful Atlanta, GA | Tue Feb 11 1992 08:54 | 13 |
| Reading this note is frustrating. From one point of view we do need to
support ORACLE to be able to win business from our h/w competitors but
that same flexibility confuses the Digital customers (and the field) on
just what is our DB strategy. It seems to me that with the new OPEN
world that if we believe Rdb is truly a world class DB then we
need to port it to all of the s/w platforms (ala like ORACLE) and sell
it as a world class DB and not just a DB that only runs on VMS.
However I do support Digital stopping any joint advertising and
promotions with ORACLE. ORACLE sounds like a partner that you do not
want to turn your back on.
!!!!!???!!!!
|
| 79.3 | | WHO301::BOWERS | Dave Bowers @WHO | Tue Feb 11 1992 10:41 | 11 |
| The product in question is, to the best of my knowledge, CDD for OSF/1. The
contemplated ORACLE support was driven by the need for database performance.
It appears that ULTRIX/SQL just can't cut it as the underlying engine for
CDD. Once the decision to go with an open db interface was made, ORACLE and
Sybase were the obvious choices for v1.0 support.
Our big problem at this point is that even when we do have an open RDBMS, it
will probably lack the necessary performance in its initial release. An Rdb/OSF
product would at least give us a performing, mature RDBMS on our own platforms.
-dave
|
| 79.4 | DECplan considering Oracle | SHALOT::LAMPSON | Whatever ya do, ya gotta have FUN! | Thu Feb 13 1992 17:37 | 163 |
| Considering the nature of this topic, I thought some of you might
want to open the DECPLAN conference and take part in this
discussion. Chris Shaver is the DECplan Program Manager.
Press KP7 to add DECPLAN to your notebook.
_Mike
<<< CLT::DISK$CLT_LIBRARY3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DECPLAN.NOTE;1 >>>
-< DECplan Public Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 1373.0 Which ULTRIX relational databases for DECplan? 1 reply
4GL::SHAVER 149 lines 13-FEB-1992 15:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DECplan team would like your opinions on our ULTRIX server strategy.
Here is the dilemma.
We have spent millions of dollars creating DECplan, a project and time
management system. We announced the VMS and ULTRIX/RISC versions in
June 1991. We started shipping the VMS version in September, and will
begin shipping the ULTRIX client in February 1992.
The ULTRIX server has been troublesome to us. We have had difficulty
finding an adequately performing data base. After spending several
months on technical evaluations these are our options. If you have
other choices, we'd love to hear them.
Please give us your opinions!
Scenario 1
----------
Announce that our server will use Oracle as the data base engine.
Availability summer of 1992.
Advantages:
Oracle is easy for us to work with on a technical basis --
its SQL interface and good consultants make it easier for us to
implement.
Oracle makes DECplan look like a good product. It is marginally
faster than Rdb on VMS, we have not found any killer
bottlenecks, and it has many options for tuning.
Many customers are happy that they don't have to buy another
data base and can leverage their existing Oracle expertise.
Oracle has the majority of the unix data base market share.
(49% - much more than any other data base product on UNIX)
It would be easy to retarget the data base to a PC platform
using tools provided by Oracle.
Disadvantages:
Oracle would have to be a prerequisite license for DECplan.
There is a fundamental distrust of Oracle among DEC field people.
Oracle will be in our accounts if they are a prerequisite.
Product shifts by Oracle could be a problem since DECplan is
is a demanding application in terms of data base usage.
Scenario 2:
----------
Announce that several data base engines will be supported by DECplan on
ULTRIX, beginning with Oracle.
Availability of Oracle: summer of 1992
Availability of other servers: unknown presently
Advantages:
Oracle is easy for us to work with on a technical basis.
Oracle makes DECplan look like a good product.
Many MORE customers are happy that their data base of choice will be
supported.
If we discover a show stopper on Oracle, we are in a stronger
position to fall back to another data base.
Disadvantages:
Supporting multiple data bases is difficult because each SQL
we've seen is significantly different from all others and requires
a separate server implementation.
Oracle would be first, but the others would have to come later
because of limited engineering resources.
We in engineering have to have expertise in several data bases.
We would have increased maintenance and development costs if we
continue to support multiple server implementations.
Oracle is likely to outshine the other data bases.
Will customers insist on interoperability of multiple data base
engines? This could be very costly.
Scenario 3
----------
Announce that ULTRIX/SQL will be the DECplan data base engine.
Availability: unknown
Advantages:
ULTRIX/SQL license is packaged with ULTRIX. No need to buy
another data base.
DEC has some leverage over Ingres, so we would be partially
protected against product shifts.
Disadvantages:
ULTRIX/SQL's performance is currently unacceptable for some of
DECplan's queries, and barely acceptable for the rest.
The amount of time needed to tune ULTRIX/SQL to reach acceptable
performance is impossible to predict, and may NOT be possible.
This is a high schedule risk.
DECplan develops a bad reputation because of underlying
technology.
Getting technical support from Ingres has been difficult at
best.
Scenario 4
----------
Announce that several data base engines will be supported by DECplan on
ULTRIX, beginning with ULTRIX/SQL.
Availability: unknown
Advantages:
We are starting with the Digital supported solution.
Many MORE customers are happy that their data base of choice will be
supported.
Disadvantages:
ULTRIX/SQL's performance may tarnish DECplan's reputation.
Supporting multiple data bases is difficult because each SQL
we've seen is significantly different from all others.
ULTRIX/SQL would be first, but the others would have to come later
because of limited engineering resources.
We in engineering have to have expertise in several data bases.
We would have increased maintenance and development costs if we
continue to support multiple server implementations.
Will customers insist on interoperability of multiple data base
engines? This could be very costly.
Scenario 5
----------
Announce our server will use Objectivity as the data base engine.
Availability: unknown, likely to be end of 1992 or beyond
Advantages
Superior performance over any relational database, including
Oracle, Rdb and ULTRIX/SQL
Object-Oriented database is a natural way to model DECplan concepts.
DECplan is a typical application for Objectivity; improvements in
Objectivity are likely to help DECplan.
ULTRIX - VMS interoperability at the physical database level
Possibilities for improved data distribution
DEC has leverage over Objectivity, protected against product shifts.
Disadvantages:
Significant portion of DECplan code will need to be rewritten;
longer schedule, higher development cost, more risk.
Not SQL based; minor functional changes in DECplan may be required.
Objectivity is not yet "industrial strength -- we would be
coding on a moving target.
Some customers want THEIR data base of choice. Without using
SQL, we would not support other data bases.
Objectivity may never enjoy the market acceptance of an Oracle,
Rdb, or Ingres.
We have quotes now for the ULTRIX server. Could we keep this
business if we moved out the delivery by 6 months?
|
| 79.5 | rdb is open | DATABS::NEEDLEMAN | today nas/is, tomorrow... | Thu Feb 20 1992 08:26 | 11 |
| re .1
Rdb is open in that Rdb V4.1 is 100% NIST SQL compliant. People can
write applications that are open to Rdb or any other standards bases
RDBMS. Portable is not equivalent to open. SQL/Services does run on
MS-DOS, windows, MAC, sun, VMS, and ULTRIX and support decnet or
TCP/IP. Your applications can be portable.
Barry
|
| 79.6 | | MADWT::HENDERSON | Another Casualty of Applied Metaphysics | Thu Feb 20 1992 15:36 | 18 |
| All portable software is not open
but...
All open software is
portable (i.e. available on multiple HW platforms),
supports standards
runs under at least Unix and hopefully others (DOS, OSF, VMS...)
Rdb only does 1 out of 3. Having "open access" is not open. They other cost
is in training and management. Customers don't want to have to have Rdb on
our hardware and another on the other hardware when they can get one db on both
and only have to worry about training, updates, release cycles and support for
one.
Customers need to be able to implement systems on a variety of hardware,
some existing, some new, some DEC, some not. No one wants to be tied to a
single vendor or platform. They never have, they just put up with it until
they had the power to get out.
|
| 79.7 | Not ALL customers are the same
| KCOHUB::DAZOFF::DUNCAN | Gerry Duncan @KCO, 452-3445 | Mon Feb 24 1992 11:12 | 45 |
| Re: .6 If you're complaining about Rdb not being "open" or
"portable" that's OK but you should be aware that not even the
great marketing giants at Oracle, IBM, or {your personal choice}
can answer "YES" to all of your three requirements. For example, the
current version of Oracle (6.2) doesn't support NIST standards
for SQL. The need for a "more open" database is urgent for
Digital. This is why, by an overwhelming vote, the IM Partners
urged Dave Stone to port Rdb/VMS to OSF1. No, this doesn't give
us an "open" database per your list. It does, however, give us
enough to get past these technical discussions and talk about
solving the customer's problems. If we had Rdb functionality
on OSF1, I can't imagine any customer who would feel uncomfortable
at the prospect of Rdb/VMS, Rdb/Alpha, or Rdb/OSF1 ... AS LONG AS
the customer was convinced that Digital could/would partner with
them for the long-haul.
I disagree with your last paragraph re: customers wanting to be
tied to a single {platform | vendor | etc}. Contrary to what
we would like to believe, significant numbers of customers (or
potential customers if you prefer) STILL will pay {IBM, Anderson,
EDS, Perot, Digital, HP, Oracle} more for the comfort of knowing that
these companies will help solve critical business problems.
These decisions to pay more and allow themselves to be "locked in"
are, in many cases, delibertly made and are based on proven track
records, personal relationships, and the partner's (us in this case)
ability to "just say yes" when your valued customer asks for help
and commitment. You are correct that no customer likes the problems
and time constraints associated with IBM's CICS or IMS, for example.
Yet, the track record of IBM and these products to "deliver the
goods" may be the most important critical success factor. Further,
I would speculate that, while not easy, the decision to become
non-open was very far down the list when these business people made
their choice.
IMO, we can argue among ourselves about what's open, what's portable,
and what's standards. In the end though, it's entirely possible
that this inward looking will be our downfall. I vote for solving
the customer's problem (with open or unopen technology) ... AND ...
for getting out of the unending "what's open" word games. After all,
it doesn't matter what we think open means, it's how the customer
defines open that drives our behavior.
-- gerry
|
| 79.8 | | MADWT::HENDERSON | Another Casualty of Applied Metaphysics | Mon Feb 24 1992 16:53 | 13 |
| You are right, every customer IS different; from every other customer and more
importantly from themselves. Hardly anyone has the same requirements today that
they had 6 months ago nor will they have the same as today six months from now.
This pace of change is driving the business need for open systems and avoidance
of lock-ins. Being able to react quickly to reorganizations, mergers,
aquisitions, sell-offs, closures, moves... IS a business need, one that is not
adequately addressed by standards and one platform products.
Sure some people will pay a premium to us for the quality, reliability and
integrity of VMS or Rdb (or Digital itself) but many more would pay that premium
if the choice did not also include un-necessary lock-ins that limit their
choices in coming months or years.
|