[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference ulysse::rdb_vms_competition

Title:DEC Rdb against the World
Moderator:HERON::GODFRIND
Created:Fri Jun 12 1987
Last Modified:Thu Feb 23 1995
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1348
Total number of notes:5438

1273.0. "Rdb increasingly NOT a player in the field !" by MSDOA::SECRIST (It's software & marketing, stupid !) Fri Jul 30 1993 19:16

	Have we program announced Rdb on a non-DEC, non-Intel platform
	such as the RS/6000, etal. ?  WHY NOT !?  We're DYING out here !
	Do we even have formal PLANS to do this yet, or are we still
	suffering from AXP myopia ?  Not to discredit the fine efforts
	of DBS in producing superior products for Digital platforms, but
	WHO IS MAKING DBS SELL HARDWARE INSTEAD OF SOFTWARE ?  

	How much REAL GROWTH are we experiencing with Rdb licenses ?
	The RdbStar time-frame was the window of opportunity, and now
	it may be too late for us to catch Rdb up with the times.  I
	only hope it can survive long enough on the existing base (before
	Digital outsources everything by conceeding it all to Oracle, etc.) 
	so that when customers fail with third party, low-functionality, 
	buggy -- but portable! -- databases and tools they could still 
	come home to Rdb/Forte/etc.

	Outside of pushing security issues Rdb SIMPLY ISN'T A PLAYER in
	the minds of A LOT of customers anymore (I keep seeing it as a
	"legacy database" listed beside IDMS, 1032, etc.), and by the 
	time we're NOT linked to Digital hardware "the market will have 
	spoken" and there won't BE an Rdb anymore.

	I would like to hear rational arguements outside of TPC-* and
	AXPness that can be used with customers TODAY (not next quarter,
	or the quarter after that).

	Regards,
	rcs

T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
1273.1NOVA::BERENSONDatabase Architecture, Standards, and StrategyFri Jul 30 1993 19:5560
>	Have we program announced Rdb on a non-DEC, non-Intel platform
>	such as the RS/6000, etal. ?  WHY NOT !?  We're DYING out here !
>	Do we even have formal PLANS to do this yet, or are we still
>	suffering from AXP myopia ?  Not to discredit the fine efforts
>	of DBS in producing superior products for Digital platforms, but
>	WHO IS MAKING DBS SELL HARDWARE INSTEAD OF SOFTWARE ?  

In general over the last year there has been significant companywide
retrenchment from the software-as-a-business strategy that David Stone
was pushing.  As part of that retrenchment and the general cost cutting,
Rdb has gone without significant marketing in the last year.

Unless you are part of a Product Business Unit (storage, peripherals and
components, PCs, multivendor customer services) the company doesn't have
a focus on products.  The products the rest of us are building are
supposed to be those identified by CBUs as necessary to meet their
customer solution requirements.  Coming to closure on what the company
should be doing in various areas in an on-going process, and
unfortunately slower then many would like.  Of course, we'd like some of
the answers even less if they were made in haste and without sufficient
supporting information.

Digital's survival as a $14+ Billion company depends on the success of
AXP.  As much as we love Rdb, it couldn't support an employee population
of around 90,000 :-)  So DBS continue to do everything possible to make
AXP a success.  But nothing surrounding making AXP a success prevents
Digital, or DBS, from shipping our products on other company's hardware.
The contrary is in fact true, and recognized by senior management.  Any
Digital unique-added-value offering can not have long term success unless
we make it available on other people's hardware.

>	How much REAL GROWTH are we experiencing with Rdb licenses ?
>	The RdbStar time-frame was the window of opportunity, and now
>	it may be too late for us to catch Rdb up with the times.  I
>	only hope it can survive long enough on the existing base (before
>	Digital outsources everything by conceeding it all to Oracle, etc.) 
>	so that when customers fail with third party, low-functionality, 
>	buggy -- but portable! -- databases and tools they could still 
>	come home to Rdb/Forte/etc.

I don't know the definition of real growth.  We are seeing a significant
increase in penetration of the OpenVMS customer base.  There *is* an
increase in development license sales, though not dramatic, so people are
implementing new applications with Rdb.  Run-time license sales continue
to grow at a healthy pace.  Rdb is technically superior to the
competition, its main weakness is that its currently only available on
OpenVMS.

>	I would like to hear rational arguements outside of TPC-* and
>	AXPness that can be used with customers TODAY (not next quarter,
>	or the quarter after that).

There is competitive material available to IM Partners that shows our
advantages in the very large database and high availability arenas, or
more generally for those attributes critical for "production systems".
We'll consider making it available to a broader audience.

Hal


1273.2Bravo.MSDOA::SECRISTIt's software & marketing, stupid !Sat Jul 31 1993 00:3014
	Thank you for your considered and informative reply !

 ; There is competitive material available to IM Partners that shows our
 ; advantages in the very large database and high availability arenas, or
 ; more generally for those attributes critical for "production systems".
 ; We'll consider making it available to a broader audience.

	Rather than trying to create this on my own I would very
	much like to see it.

	Regards,
	rcs