The database market grew by 10.3 percent in 2004, fueled largely by hunger for business
intelligence and analytics, according to numbers released by the Gartner Group on Monday.
With 34.1 percent of the overall market, IBM holds a slim margin over its closest
competitor, Oracle Corp., which maintains 33.7 percent of the overall market. Microsoft
Corp. follows up with 20 percent of the market. NCR Teradata Corp. controls 2.9 percent,
Sybase Inc. claims 2.3 percent and others hold 6.6 percent. ADVERTISEMENT
The market growth figure doubles that of RDBMS (relational DBMS) market growth in 2003,
which was 5 percent, according to Gartner Inc.'s Colleen Graham, who authored the report.
"[The growth] came a lot from BI, data warehousing and data analysis," she said. "You can
tell that if you look at [NCR]; they had really strong growth, and they're a
data-warehousing database. That's where we're seeing a lot of this come from."
The market grew from just under $7.1 billion in 2003 to nearly $7.8 billion in terms of new
license sales. The continuing weakness of the U.S. dollar artificially inflated market
growth to some degree, Graham said, accounting for some 3 to 4 percent of overall growth.
"[Overall market growth] was probably somewhere between 6 and 7 percent," she said, after
considering that sales outside of the United States, when converted to U.S. dollars,
contributed more to vendor revenue because of currency conversion, as opposed to increased
demand.
Microsoft and Teradata led in terms of overall growth, with 18 percent and 17 percent,
respectively. However, there was no clear winner in market share overall. Because the
difference between RDBMS revenue for IBM and Oracle was less than $30 million, it is
statistically too close to declare a winner, according to the report, titled "No Clear
Winner in Overall RDBMS Market Share Race."
Read details here about Oracle's PIM Data Hub.
Winner or no winner, vendors were quick to point out the rosy parts of the picture.
Willie Hardie, Oracle's senior director of Database Product Marketing, found evidence that
the market is buying into the database company's grid vision and its pushing of RAC (Real
Application Clusters) clustering on commodity servers running on the Linux platform.
"Forget about databases specifically and look at server sales," said Hardie, in Redwood
Shores, Calif. "The growth market in servers is in small servers, with clustering of small
servers. That matches closely to Oracle's grid model: don't buy big servers; cluster
together boxes running Linux or Windows. No doubt there's a trend in the industry moving in
that direction, somewhat reflected in Oracle's growth in 2004."
The market for RDBMS on Linux, meanwhile, is red-hot. While still a relatively small part of
the overall RDBMS market, the Linux segment grew 118 percent in 2004, more than doubling
from $300 million in 2003 to more than $650 million in 2004.
Gartner found that Oracle has a growing lead over IBM in this subsection of the market, with
growth of 155 percent. Oracle now controls 80.5 percent of the Linux RDBMS market, up from
69 percent a year ago. IBM, meanwhile, slipped in 2004, coming to rest at 16.5 percent of
the market from year-ago figures of 28.4 percent of the market.
The Gartner report pointed out that Linux RDBMS revenue includes sales of Oracle 9i RAC,
which adds about a 50 percent premium on top of regular RDBMS license fees for that company.
Bob Picciano, vice president of database servers for IBM, said Oracle's growing Linux lead
is artificially puffed up by those add-on RAC fees. "What Oracle is doing is, they're
migrating their own Unix base to the Linux platform," said Picciano, in Somers, N.Y. "In the
process, they're increasing the cost of software to those clients, by introducing the cost
of RAC."
"Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the RAC option," the Gartner
report states. "Almost 20 percent to 30 percent of Oracle RAC deployments are estimated to
be on the Linux platform."
Hardie said the demand for Linux shows no signs of abating, coming from virtually all the
vertical industries and including implementations of data warehousing on clustered RAC-that
clearly not being a solution for the needs of a niche, he said.
IBM is set to fight back with DB2 features that compete with RAC. In particular, the
company's release of "Stinger," the next version of DB2, is optimized for Version 2.6 of the
Linux kernel, a move that's geared toward helping database clusters scale higher and perform
faster.
It is also intended to better exploit the speed of 64-bit databases and servers that rely on
multiple processors.
IBM's promise is that such multiprocessor servers can be joined in Linux clusters, as with
DB2 ICE (Integrated Cluster Environment), an integrated package that combines DB2 and
eServer Linux Cluster 1350 (xSeries, 325, BladeCenter) to provide a solution that, according
to IBM, can cluster from two to 1,000 servers and pick up nodes at the rate of four per
hour.
Picciano also pointed to Stinger's HADR (High Availability and Disaster Recovery) as being
the key to IBM's ability to deliver high availability at a fraction of the cost of Oracle
RAC.
"With RAC, the client needs to license all the processors on both boxes, and they need to
license the RAC feature," he said. "With HADR, you pay for processors on the primary [box]
and for one processor on the standby box. So the cost savings is much greater."
Picciano said that HADR has helped IBM do battle in sales situations where IBM and Microsoft
are in the room. "We're winning 89.4 percent of the time we're engaging against Oracle and
Microsoft" according to Q1 2005 numbers, he said, thanks not only to HADR but also to a
retrained sales team and the decision to price servers at the chip level rather than the
core level.
Microsoft, predictably, scoffed at the growth of the Linux database market. "Look at it:
It's a small market," said Tom Rizzo, director of product management for SQL Server. "You'd
expect some growth there, from such a small base."
Rizzo pointed to the healthy growth in the Windows database market as evidence that Windows
is "eating away at the Linux camp" rather than the other way around. The RDBMS market on the
Windows server platform grew 10 percent in 2004. Microsoft's market share grew 18 percent in
this segment.
Click here to read more about the increasing market share of open-source database
PostgreSQL.
That gave Microsoft 50.9 percent of the Windows RDBMS market, up from 47.4 percent in 2003.
IBM posted a 4 percent decline in this market segment, which followed a nearly 12 percent
decline in 2003-a slippage Gartner attributed to weak adoption of DB2 8.
Graham said she was surprised to see Microsoft do so well, given that the release of SQL
Server 2005, code-named Yukon, has been delayed so often and so long.
"We do our forecast and say 'OK, each of these vendors, which is coming out with a new
product? Where's each one been in the product lifecycle?'" she said. "To see Microsoft have
growth this strong, even before they release Yukon, that struck me as interesting. People
aren't waiting."
Much of Microsoft's success likely goes back to the overall interest in BI, Graham said-a
premise that Rizzo seconded. "BI is a tremendous growth driver for us, especially Reporting
Services, which we've seen a ton of customers buying and deploying," he said.
"That's why we invested so heavily in BI technologies across SQL Server. We put a down
payment many years ago, and now it's paying off in terms of revenue growth," Rizzo added,
pointing to the company's release of OLAP (online analytical processing) services in 1998,
which was the first of a string of BI technologies integrated into the database itself.
"People looked at us like we were kind of crazy," Rizzo said. "[They asked,] 'Why is
Microsoft integrating BI into the database? Most people buy it separately.' We're saying .
integrate it seamlessly into the database. All the people who thought we had four heads and
eight eyes, you look at the strategies of our competitors, they're starting to go down the
same path we started down years ago."
rkusenet wrote:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1820667,00.asp
> The database market grew by 10.3 percent in 2004, fueled largely by
> hunger for business intelligence and analytics, according to numbers
> released by the Gartner Group on Monday.
> With 34.1 percent of the overall market, IBM holds a slim margin over
> its closest competitor, Oracle Corp., which maintains 33.7 percent of
> the overall market. Microsoft Corp. follows up with 20 percent of the
> market. NCR Teradata Corp. controls 2.9 percent, Sybase Inc. claims 2.3
> percent and others hold 6.6 percent. ADVERTISEMENT
> The market growth figure doubles that of RDBMS (relational DBMS) market
> growth in 2003, which was 5 percent, according to Gartner Inc.'s Colleen
> Graham, who authored the report.
> "[The growth] came a lot from BI, data warehousing and data analysis,"
> she said. "You can tell that if you look at [NCR]; they had really
> strong growth, and they're a data-warehousing database. That's where
> we're seeing a lot of this come from."
> The market grew from just under $7.1 billion in 2003 to nearly $7.8
> billion in terms of new license sales. The continuing weakness of the
> U.S. dollar artificially inflated market growth to some degree, Graham
> said, accounting for some 3 to 4 percent of overall growth.
> "[Overall market growth] was probably somewhere between 6 and 7
> percent," she said, after considering that sales outside of the United
> States, when converted to U.S. dollars, contributed more to vendor
> revenue because of currency conversion, as opposed to increased demand.
> Microsoft and Teradata led in terms of overall growth, with 18 percent
> and 17 percent, respectively. However, there was no clear winner in
> market share overall. Because the difference between RDBMS revenue for
> IBM and Oracle was less than $30 million, it is statistically too close
> to declare a winner, according to the report, titled "No Clear Winner in
> Overall RDBMS Market Share Race."
> Read details here about Oracle's PIM Data Hub.
> Winner or no winner, vendors were quick to point out the rosy parts of
> the picture.
> Willie Hardie, Oracle's senior director of Database Product Marketing,
> found evidence that the market is buying into the database company's
> grid vision and its pushing of RAC (Real Application Clusters)
> clustering on commodity servers running on the Linux platform.
> "Forget about databases specifically and look at server sales," said
> Hardie, in Redwood Shores, Calif. "The growth market in servers is in
> small servers, with clustering of small servers. That matches closely to
> Oracle's grid model: don't buy big servers; cluster together boxes
> running Linux or Windows. No doubt there's a trend in the industry
> moving in that direction, somewhat reflected in Oracle's growth in 2004."
> The market for RDBMS on Linux, meanwhile, is red-hot. While still a
> relatively small part of the overall RDBMS market, the Linux segment
> grew 118 percent in 2004, more than doubling from $300 million in 2003
> to more than $650 million in 2004.
> Gartner found that Oracle has a growing lead over IBM in this subsection
> of the market, with growth of 155 percent. Oracle now controls 80.5
> percent of the Linux RDBMS market, up from 69 percent a year ago. IBM,
> meanwhile, slipped in 2004, coming to rest at 16.5 percent of the market
> from year-ago figures of 28.4 percent of the market.
> The Gartner report pointed out that Linux RDBMS revenue includes sales
> of Oracle 9i RAC, which adds about a 50 percent premium on top of
> regular RDBMS license fees for that company.
> Bob Picciano, vice president of database servers for IBM, said Oracle's
> growing Linux lead is artificially puffed up by those add-on RAC fees.
> "What Oracle is doing is, they're migrating their own Unix base to the
> Linux platform," said Picciano, in Somers, N.Y. "In the process, they're
> increasing the cost of software to those clients, by introducing the
> cost of RAC."
> "Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the RAC
> option," the Gartner report states. "Almost 20 percent to 30 percent of
> Oracle RAC deployments are estimated to be on the Linux platform."
> Hardie said the demand for Linux shows no signs of abating, coming from
> virtually all the vertical industries and including implementations of
> data warehousing on clustered RAC-that clearly not being a solution for
> the needs of a niche, he said.
> IBM is set to fight back with DB2 features that compete with RAC. In
> particular, the company's release of "Stinger," the next version of DB2,
> is optimized for Version 2.6 of the Linux kernel, a move that's geared
> toward helping database clusters scale higher and perform faster.
> It is also intended to better exploit the speed of 64-bit databases and
> servers that rely on multiple processors.
> IBM's promise is that such multiprocessor servers can be joined in Linux
> clusters, as with DB2 ICE (Integrated Cluster Environment), an
> integrated package that combines DB2 and eServer Linux Cluster 1350
> (xSeries, 325, BladeCenter) to provide a solution that, according to
> IBM, can cluster from two to 1,000 servers and pick up nodes at the rate
> of four per hour.
> Picciano also pointed to Stinger's HADR (High Availability and Disaster
> Recovery) as being the key to IBM's ability to deliver high availability
> at a fraction of the cost of Oracle RAC.
> "With RAC, the client needs to license all the processors on both boxes,
> and they need to license the RAC feature," he said. "With HADR, you pay
> for processors on the primary [box] and for one processor on the standby
> box. So the cost savings is much greater."
> Picciano said that HADR has helped IBM do battle in sales situations
> where IBM and Microsoft are in the room. "We're winning 89.4 percent of
> the time we're engaging against Oracle and Microsoft" according to Q1
> 2005 numbers, he said, thanks not only to HADR but also to a retrained
> sales team and the decision to price servers at the chip level rather
> than the core level.
> Microsoft, predictably, scoffed at the growth of the Linux database
> market. "Look at it: It's a small market," said Tom Rizzo, director of
> product management for SQL Server. "You'd expect some growth there, from
> such a small base."
> Rizzo pointed to the healthy growth in the Windows database market as
> evidence that Windows is "eating away at the Linux camp" rather than the
> other way around. The RDBMS market on the Windows server platform grew
> 10 percent in 2004. Microsoft's market share grew 18 percent in this
> segment.
> Click here to read more about the increasing market share of open-source
> database PostgreSQL.
> That gave Microsoft 50.9 percent of the Windows RDBMS market, up from
> 47.4 percent in 2003. IBM posted a 4 percent decline in this market
> segment, which followed a nearly 12 percent decline in 2003-a slippage
> Gartner attributed to weak adoption of DB2 8.
> Graham said she was surprised to see Microsoft do so well, given that
> the release of SQL Server 2005, code-named Yukon, has been delayed so
> often and so long.
> "We do our forecast and say 'OK, each of these vendors, which is coming
> out with a new product? Where's each one been in the product
> lifecycle?'" she said. "To see Microsoft have growth this strong, even
> before they release Yukon, that struck me as interesting. People aren't
> waiting."
> Much of Microsoft's success likely goes back to the overall interest in
> BI, Graham said-a premise that Rizzo seconded. "BI is a tremendous
> growth driver for us, especially Reporting Services, which we've seen a
> ton of customers buying and deploying," he said.
> "That's why we invested so heavily in BI technologies across SQL Server.
> We put a down payment many years ago, and now it's paying off in terms
> of revenue growth," Rizzo added, pointing to the company's release of
> OLAP (online analytical processing) services in 1998, which was the
> first of a string of BI technologies integrated into the database itself.
> "People looked at us like we were kind of crazy," Rizzo said. "[They
> asked,] 'Why is Microsoft integrating BI into the database? Most people
> buy it separately.' We're saying . integrate it seamlessly into the
> database. All the people who thought we had four heads and eight eyes,
> you look at the strategies of our competitors, they're starting to go
> down the same path we started down years ago."
My only criticism of this is that it is backward ... not forward
looking. Well that and the fact that it is from Gartner Group which
means it is irrelevant.
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan@.x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
|||Daniel,
What makes this year different from any other? It's always
backwards-looking, but that's the only way to capture actual data.
Larry Edelstein
DA Morgan wrote:
> rkusenet wrote:
>
> My only criticism of this is that it is backward ... not forward
> looking. Well that and the fact that it is from Gartner Group which
> means it is irrelevant.
|||Larry wrote:
> Daniel,
> What makes this year different from any other? It's always
> backwards-looking, but that's the only way to capture actual data.
> Larry Edelstein
Gartner also makes predictions. Not accurate ones but predictions.
And if one looks at previous Gartner Group statements, 1, 2, 3 years
later, what were they worth? I mean except to Gartner Group's revenues?
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan@.x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
|||"DA Morgan" <damorgan@.psoug.org> wrote in message
news:1117485555.324290@.yasure...
> Larry wrote:
> Gartner also makes predictions. Not accurate ones but predictions.
Don't know if it's the same in the US, but over here in Blighty the
supposedly independent analysts Gartner have attracted a lot of criticism
for advocating off-shoring in their editorials whilst at the same time
having an active consultancy arm that, er, helps companies off-shore!
|||Neil Truby wrote:
> "DA Morgan" <damorgan@.psoug.org> wrote in message
> news:1117485555.324290@.yasure...
>
> Don't know if it's the same in the US, but over here in Blighty the
> supposedly independent analysts Gartner have attracted a lot of criticism
> for advocating off-shoring in their editorials whilst at the same time
> having an active consultancy arm that, er, helps companies off-shore!
In my opinion, and it is only "my" opinion ... Gartner Group has the
ethics of a great white shark in a feeding frenzy. Not sure about
"here in Blighty" but they are most certainly a blight: If not a boil.
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan@.x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
|||rkusenet wrote:
> respectively. However, there was no clear winner in market share overall. Because the
> difference between RDBMS revenue for IBM and Oracle was less than $30 million, it is
> statistically too close to declare a winner, according to the report, titled "No Clear
> Winner in Overall RDBMS Market Share Race."
Shewt! Brace yourselves, here comes another IBM aquisition!
If all else fails, BUY market share. Who will it be this time?
Teradata?
> "Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the RAC option," the Gartner
> report states.
They gotta be joking...
> to IBM, can cluster from two to 1,000 servers and pick up nodes at the rate of four per
> hour.
Attaboy! Let's hope they don't "pick their noses" as well...
> are in the room. "We're winning 89.4 percent of the time we're engaging against Oracle and
> Microsoft" according to Q1 2005 numbers, he said, thanks not only to HADR but also to a
> retrained sales team and the decision to price servers at the chip level rather than the
> core level.
No doubt helped as well by the false "Oracle vars" who end up
selling exclusively IBM solutions. Want examples?
> We're saying .
> integrate it seamlessly into the database. All the people who thought we had four heads and
> eight eyes, you look at the strategies of our competitors, they're starting to go down the
> same path we started down years ago."
Amazing. IE versus Netscape all over again. And people
STILL buy this crap...
Im summary, another typical Gartner report: wanna see who
is in front? Who pays more?
|||Noons wrote:
> They gotta be joking...
They aren't joking ... they ARE a joke.
If Oracle was selling that many RAC licenses IBM would be out of
business.
> Amazing. IE versus Netscape all over again. And people
> STILL buy this crap...
Worked once: And as P.T. Barnum said ...
> Im summary, another typical Gartner report: wanna see who
> is in front? Who pays more?
That's the way the work. Opinions for sale to the highest bidder.
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan@.x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
|||In message <1117509502.933106.137440@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups .com>,
Noons <wizofoz2k@.yahoo.com.au> writes
>rkusenet wrote:
>Shewt! Brace yourselves, here comes another IBM aquisition!
>If all else fails, BUY market share. Who will it be this time?
>Teradata?
>
>They gotta be joking...
>
You *can't* buy Oracle without the RAC option. Well you can, if you buy
Standard Edition One, but Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition both
include RAC. I don't know how much market share SEO[1] has, but you
could say that almost all Oracle licenses include RAC.
>
1: Probably negligible in the type of company Gartner is addressing.
Jim Smith
Because of their persistent net abuse, I ignore mail from
these domains (among others) .yahoo.com .hotmail.com .kr .cn .tw
For an explanation see <http://www.jimsmith.demon.co.uk/spam>
|||Jim Smith wrote:
> You *can't* buy Oracle without the RAC option. Well you can, if you buy
> Standard Edition One, but Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition both
> include RAC. I don't know how much market share SEO[1] has, but you
> could say that almost all Oracle licenses include RAC.
Care to rephrase that? Ain't making much sense
right now...
If it was the case that one "couldn't buy Oracle without RAC",
then why point out that "few users are buying Oracle without
RAC for Linux"?
> 1: Probably negligible in the type of company Gartner is addressing.
Ah, but they put NO qualifiers in their "addressing",
do they? Therefore, others might conclude it's the
"state of the overall market". When it isn't, by any stretch
of the imagination.
No comments:
Post a Comment