Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Funny Numbers?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Ian Michael Gumby
Apr 20, 2009, 8:16:21 PM4/20/09
to
Ok, from an article on El Reg:
"By comparison, Software Group had a pretty decent quarter and
contributed mightily to Big Blue's bottom line. Even as revenues for
Software Group fell by 6 per cent (up 2 per cent at constant currency)
to $4.5bn, pre-tax margin for this group rose by 2.9 points to 25.9
per cent. IBM's WebSphere middleware posted a 5 per cent rise in Q1,
but database sales (mostly DB2) fell by 8 per cent."
So what happened?
I mean its very possible that Informix sales were still good and
growing, but they were eclipsed by a drop in DB2 z/OS license
revenue.
Anyone know any of the rumors?
-G
Fernando Nunes
Apr 20, 2009, 8:37:08 PM4/20/09
to
Why should you care about rumors when you can get the numbers? Don't be lazy...
You should know better... Check the report at IBM site and you'll understand
where the 8% is coming (it's not for database, and it's not for constant
currency)...
Dig a bit more and you may find how much did the distributed relational
database grew at constant currency...
for the truth sake, you're the sales guy... You should know about numbers.
Don't echo something you read on the net without looking at the numbers.
Good bye
--
Fernando Nunes
Portugal
http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
My email works... but I don't check it frequently...
Obnoxio The Clown
Apr 21, 2009, 2:18:24 AM4/21/09
to inform...@iiug.org
Ian Michael Gumby wrote:
>
> Anyone know any of the rumors?
>
> Anyone know any of the rumors?
We do now. :o)
--
Cheers,
Obnoxio The Clown
http://obotheclown.blogspot.com
The following is a disclaimer and a protest at the collection, retention
and sharing of my personal mail by the morally bankrupt state.
By adding a string of key words, it will guarantee that each and every
mail that I send will now need to be manually viewed as it is picked up
by the auto scan software. If every person in the UK does exactly the
same, then the entire system will quickly become so unmanageable, so
unwieldy that it will become unworkable.
Key words: bomb, assassinate, president, brown, Osama, Obama, Sarkozy,
Merkel, government, target, location, rocket, grenade, al-Qaeda,
Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, UK, America, guns, jets, bombs,
machine-gun, terrorists, MP's, pigs, troughs, France, Germany, Italy,
nuclear, Korea.
PPS If you are reading this because you've picked up the above keywords:
I hope your parents are proud of what you have become.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is
believed to be clean.
Ian Michael Gumby
Apr 21, 2009, 8:04:04 AM4/21/09
to domus...@gmail.com, inform...@iiug.org
Sigh.
Yes Fernado, I am the sales critter.
I just lobbed a soft shot that you should have knocked out of the park.
I ask a question which is an open and innocent question where you could respond with some values and cite URLs that confirm your statements.
But you're not the 'salesman' nor understand the business side of IT.
But you said I should do the digging. So I go to the IBM website. Got some chocolate shit. Hop over to 'About IBM' and then Investor Relations. No mention of any article or information on Q1 2009 numbers.
I even tried to find any last minute news.
So if IBM isn't talking about Q1 2009 numbers, I find it interesting, because the street did take notice of some important facts:
1) Overall, IBM's sales are down. That is that in terms of constant currency, IBM sold less services and products than they did in the same quarter from the year earlier.
2) IBM made more of a profit due to their 'cost cutting' measures. That is, by shifting back office work overseas, regardless of the internal problems it will create, allowed them to increase their margins.
3) Reporters are now openly questioning the end result. Short term gains for a longer term problem. Is this the smart thing to do?
4) IBM is attempting to lock in longer term deals in an effort to lock up annual revenue streams. This is bad because as IBM cuts corners, they open up gaps and puts their SLA at risk. In doing so, customers can either renegotiate, or end the contracts early without penalties.
Now I'm still looking for more news where IBM spells out where and why there was an 8% drop in IM revenues. If you've got better links, go ahead and post them.
But hey! What do I know?
I just gave you or another IBMer a chance to look like a hero, and not a zero.
-G
Yes Fernado, I am the sales critter.
I just lobbed a soft shot that you should have knocked out of the park.
I ask a question which is an open and innocent question where you could respond with some values and cite URLs that confirm your statements.
But you're not the 'salesman' nor understand the business side of IT.
But you said I should do the digging. So I go to the IBM website. Got some chocolate shit. Hop over to 'About IBM' and then Investor Relations. No mention of any article or information on Q1 2009 numbers.
I even tried to find any last minute news.
So if IBM isn't talking about Q1 2009 numbers, I find it interesting, because the street did take notice of some important facts:
1) Overall, IBM's sales are down. That is that in terms of constant currency, IBM sold less services and products than they did in the same quarter from the year earlier.
2) IBM made more of a profit due to their 'cost cutting' measures. That is, by shifting back office work overseas, regardless of the internal problems it will create, allowed them to increase their margins.
3) Reporters are now openly questioning the end result. Short term gains for a longer term problem. Is this the smart thing to do?
4) IBM is attempting to lock in longer term deals in an effort to lock up annual revenue streams. This is bad because as IBM cuts corners, they open up gaps and puts their SLA at risk. In doing so, customers can either renegotiate, or end the contracts early without penalties.
Now I'm still looking for more news where IBM spells out where and why there was an 8% drop in IM revenues. If you've got better links, go ahead and post them.
But hey! What do I know?
I just gave you or another IBMer a chance to look like a hero, and not a zero.
-G
> _______________________________________________
> Informix-list mailing list
> Inform...@iiug.org
> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. Check it out.
> Informix-list mailing list
> Inform...@iiug.org
> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. Check it out.
er...@herber-consulting.de
Apr 21, 2009, 8:50:11 AM4/21/09
to
> >http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you.http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Redisco...
The official IBM press release about Q1 2009:
Serge Rielau
Apr 21, 2009, 8:50:42 AM4/21/09
to
It's in the headlines on the investor's page... really hard to find..
All big and colorful
http://www.ibm.com/investor/1q09/index.phtml
All big and colorful
http://www.ibm.com/investor/1q09/index.phtml
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Ian Michael Gumby
Apr 21, 2009, 9:17:44 AM4/21/09
to Obnoxio The Clown, inform...@iiug.org
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:18:24 +0100
> From: obn...@serendipita.com
> CC: inform...@iiug.org
> Subject: Re: Funny Numbers?
>
> Ian Michael Gumby wrote:
> >
> > Anyone know any of the rumors?
>
> We do now. :o)
>
Oh what I could say ... ;-)
But seriously, Fernando said I should do my own due diligence and get my own numbers.
Ok, I went on a search for the truth about IBM's numbers.
Unfortunately IBM's own web site proved to be less than helpful. Seems that they wanted to hide their overall performance because normally after a 'good' quarter, they would have everything up on their site with a lot of fan fare. This quarter, not so much...
So I went to the next best place. EDGAR filings. Got the latest 8K information published by IBM. These are the filing to the SEC so IBM can't lie. At least bad enough to break the 1934 safe harbor rules which were later modified in 1995...
So we have the following :
"Information Management software declined 8 percent, or up 1 percent at constant currency.
Distributed Relational Database continued to perform well, up 2 percent and double-digit at constant currency."
Wow!
I guess for all of the loyal Informixers converging on the mecca in Lenexa, here's the smoking gun that you've been waiting for.
You need to take your Informix er IBM sales reps or execs out for a couple of drinks. Ok a lot of drinks. See if they'll cough up to the 'Informix still has double digit growth'.
What is interesting about the quote in the SEC filing is that IBM never breaks down product numbers like that. What they were saying was that IM numbers dropped, but the bright spot was that their distributed relational databases did pretty much on target.
So one has to ask, what was the drag on IM's profitability? Was it DB2 z/OS? Was it 'Ass-n-tail' and the other acquisitions? Or a combination of them?
My guess is that it was DB2 z/OS that took the biggest hit and pulled down IM. What you are starting to see is the trend that started a couple of years ago taking effect. Companies are ditching their DB2 mainframe apps for distributed systems. (LUW) Going back to our look at a 2 socket 8 core Xeon based computer, you can crank out the throughput. Replace the SSDs with 2.5" SAS at Ultra 320 speeds and you could probably still crank out ~500K tpm on a box that costs 20K. Double that for HA and you now have your mainframe replace by two mini racks sitting in two different sites.
This should be no surprise in that IBM should have seen it coming.
So now IBM needs to look closely at the IBM DB2 LUW number (ignoring iSeries and embedded apps) vs the IDS numbers.
The numbers don't lie. While I don't know what those numbers are, I can guess and Gumby's edjucated guesses tend to be on the mark. ;-)
If you look at the numbers and the trend for the last 4 years, you'll then understand why I think that Alyse and Inhi are incompetent and should be RIF'd or sent off to India at Indian wages. I mean that pretty much sums up their net worth to IBM.
IDS is growing but could be growing faster if a certain set of IBM execs understood how to do their jobs. The education of the salesforce takes time. Now IBM is behind the curve.
Keesee, you may not like what I'm saying, but its the plain simple truth. IBM's sales force is not prepared to sell IDS. Nor has S&D management created solutions or stories around IDS that could be leveraged in the sales cycle. IBM hasn't made the investment. In IBM terms, IBM didn't put any skin in the game when it came to promoting IDS. There is no excuse for this short sightedness and it wouldn't have taken a large investment either.
>
Oh what I could say ... ;-)
But seriously, Fernando said I should do my own due diligence and get my own numbers.
Ok, I went on a search for the truth about IBM's numbers.
Unfortunately IBM's own web site proved to be less than helpful. Seems that they wanted to hide their overall performance because normally after a 'good' quarter, they would have everything up on their site with a lot of fan fare. This quarter, not so much...
So I went to the next best place. EDGAR filings. Got the latest 8K information published by IBM. These are the filing to the SEC so IBM can't lie. At least bad enough to break the 1934 safe harbor rules which were later modified in 1995...
So we have the following :
"Information Management software declined 8 percent, or up 1 percent at constant currency.
Distributed Relational Database continued to perform well, up 2 percent and double-digit at constant currency."
Wow!
I guess for all of the loyal Informixers converging on the mecca in Lenexa, here's the smoking gun that you've been waiting for.
You need to take your Informix er IBM sales reps or execs out for a couple of drinks. Ok a lot of drinks. See if they'll cough up to the 'Informix still has double digit growth'.
What is interesting about the quote in the SEC filing is that IBM never breaks down product numbers like that. What they were saying was that IM numbers dropped, but the bright spot was that their distributed relational databases did pretty much on target.
So one has to ask, what was the drag on IM's profitability? Was it DB2 z/OS? Was it 'Ass-n-tail' and the other acquisitions? Or a combination of them?
My guess is that it was DB2 z/OS that took the biggest hit and pulled down IM. What you are starting to see is the trend that started a couple of years ago taking effect. Companies are ditching their DB2 mainframe apps for distributed systems. (LUW) Going back to our look at a 2 socket 8 core Xeon based computer, you can crank out the throughput. Replace the SSDs with 2.5" SAS at Ultra 320 speeds and you could probably still crank out ~500K tpm on a box that costs 20K. Double that for HA and you now have your mainframe replace by two mini racks sitting in two different sites.
This should be no surprise in that IBM should have seen it coming.
So now IBM needs to look closely at the IBM DB2 LUW number (ignoring iSeries and embedded apps) vs the IDS numbers.
The numbers don't lie. While I don't know what those numbers are, I can guess and Gumby's edjucated guesses tend to be on the mark. ;-)
If you look at the numbers and the trend for the last 4 years, you'll then understand why I think that Alyse and Inhi are incompetent and should be RIF'd or sent off to India at Indian wages. I mean that pretty much sums up their net worth to IBM.
IDS is growing but could be growing faster if a certain set of IBM execs understood how to do their jobs. The education of the salesforce takes time. Now IBM is behind the curve.
Keesee, you may not like what I'm saying, but its the plain simple truth. IBM's sales force is not prepared to sell IDS. Nor has S&D management created solutions or stories around IDS that could be leveraged in the sales cycle. IBM hasn't made the investment. In IBM terms, IBM didn't put any skin in the game when it came to promoting IDS. There is no excuse for this short sightedness and it wouldn't have taken a large investment either.
But hey! What do I know?
I've got a bunch of Puffs telling me I have to always have the last word in an argument. That's not true. The truth is that I have to keep repeating myself because the reality doesn't sink in until its too late. ;-)
-G
Rediscover Hotmail®: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry Check it out.
-G
Rediscover Hotmail®: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry Check it out.
Ian Michael Gumby
Apr 21, 2009, 9:21:11 AM4/21/09
to Serge, inform...@iiug.org
Yes Serge,
But it doesn't say what I want explained.
I just posted about it after I went to the EGAR filing.
IBM made a rare statement that while IM was down 8%, Distributed (LUW) RDBMS sales were up 2% or 'double digit' when adjusted to Current Cash.
That's a pretty damn important statement. Now if only someone from IBM would clarify what they meant by it. It implies a lot of things. BIG RED FLAG for IM as a whole. Potentially good news for IDS.
-G
But it doesn't say what I want explained.
I just posted about it after I went to the EGAR filing.
IBM made a rare statement that while IM was down 8%, Distributed (LUW) RDBMS sales were up 2% or 'double digit' when adjusted to Current Cash.
That's a pretty damn important statement. Now if only someone from IBM would clarify what they meant by it. It implies a lot of things. BIG RED FLAG for IM as a whole. Potentially good news for IDS.
-G
Clive Eisen
Apr 21, 2009, 9:26:59 AM4/21/09
to inform...@iiug.org
Ian Michael Gumby wrote:
> The numbers don't lie. While I don't know what those numbers are, I can
> guess and Gumby's edjucated guesses tend to be on the mark. ;-)
Am I the only one starting to lose the will to live?
RedGrittyBrick
Apr 21, 2009, 9:48:09 AM4/21/09
to
Peter Collett
Apr 21, 2009, 12:23:59 PM4/21/09
to Informix List
'Fraid so - the rest of us lost it ages ago - what kept you?
Farewell, Peter
A smile is a gift that is free to the giver and precious to the recipient. But giving someone the finger is free too, and I find it more personal and sincere.
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:26:59 +0100
> From: cl...@serendipita.com
> To: inform...@iiug.org
> Subject: Re: Funny Numbers?
>
Farewell, Peter
A smile is a gift that is free to the giver and precious to the recipient. But giving someone the finger is free too, and I find it more personal and sincere.
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:26:59 +0100
> From: cl...@serendipita.com
> To: inform...@iiug.org
> Subject: Re: Funny Numbers?
>
> Ian Michael Gumby wrote:
>
> > The numbers don't lie. While I don't know what those numbers are, I can
> > guess and Gumby's edjucated guesses tend to be on the mark. ;-)
>
> Am I the only one starting to lose the will to live?
>
>
> > The numbers don't lie. While I don't know what those numbers are, I can
> > guess and Gumby's edjucated guesses tend to be on the mark. ;-)
>
> Am I the only one starting to lose the will to live?
>
Fernando Nunes
Apr 21, 2009, 2:11:03 PM4/21/09
to Ian Michael Gumby, inform...@iiug.org, Serge
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Ian Michael Gumby <im_g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes Serge,
But it doesn't say what I want explained.
Really:
http://ibm.us (not a bad place to start)
There is an "investor" link on the front page...
Then you see a big picture of Mark Loughridge with a link to 1Q 2009 Earnings
Then you have links to the press release, to the presentation with audio and slides in RealPlayer and Windows Media format and "prepared remarks" documents...
It takes 3 clicks... and you find that hard to find.... But then of course... we all know you know a lot... well congratulations... Meanwhile how about some training in web browsing?
But then of course... when you find the numbers you have a lot more to comment.... why don't you post a comment on the El Reg article? That guy who wrote that should be interested in seeing his poorly written article (with wrong data) fixed.
Regards.
Ian Michael Gumby
Apr 22, 2009, 9:44:37 AM4/22/09
to domus...@gmail.com, inform...@iiug.org, Serge
Sorry wasn't there that morning when I went to www.ibm.com That's the place to start.
Of course if you're an IBM employee, on the internal web site you'll get a link to the information as soon as the conference is over.
Now if you were a smart boy instead of trying nitpick little things, you'd understand that I went to EDGAR and got the 8K which had the financial information. It had the same information that was in the article and it had a little quote.
Of course if you're an IBM employee, on the internal web site you'll get a link to the information as soon as the conference is over.
Now if you were a smart boy instead of trying nitpick little things, you'd understand that I went to EDGAR and got the 8K which had the financial information. It had the same information that was in the article and it had a little quote.
IBM made a rare statement that while IM was down 8%, Distributed (LUW) RDBMS sales were up 2% or 'double digit' when adjusted to Current Cash.
Ok...
This little statement is a rare gem of a statement.
IBM never comments on product sales numbers. Breaking out the LUW aka Distributed market numbers from their overall numbers is *significant*.
Since you two numb nutz are techies and are 'business-wise' challenged, I'll spell it out to you...
Take that statement with the information that was released in Jerry Keesee's 'Chat with the Labs' series on Informix. Informix has continually done 'double digit' growth, quarter on quarter and year over year. That can mean anything from 10% to 99% growth rate.
Its very possible that this year, Informix is closing in on $200 million in annual revenue.
(If they haven't passed it. I *don't* *know* the numbers so I have to take an educated guess that Informix revenue is around $175 mil USD mark)
So for IM to be down 8% while Informix is still seeing double digit growth, there has to be a large drag on IM's profits. It could be one of the following:
A) DB2 z/OS sales
B) Cognos
C) Business Objects
D) Other acquired software products purchased in the past 3 years. (FileNet, etc ...)
Or it could be a combination of the above...
Its very likely that DB2 z/OS numbers are plumeting and the downward decline is increasing in speed.
If you notice the TPC-C benchmarks, you can now build out a box that can do 300K tpm where the hardware is around 15K. Add an HA pair for redundancy and uptime, (not to mention load balancing), and for 30K in hardware you now have a machine capable of replacing a mainframe.
Ok that's an extreme. The numbers for a complete system would be closer to 500K if you did a P-Series with software. But the point is the same. For what most companies who run DB2 on z/OS pay for in their annual license fees, they could buy whole systems to replace their mainframes.
IBM isn't capitalizing on replacing their mainframes, Microsoft and Oracle are.
There's more to the importance of that one little sentence. But I'll let what I said sink in.
IDS *is* *growing* inspite of the lack of marketing and IBM sales support. Take 30 seconds to let that sink in.
So you have to wonder, how much money is IBM leaving on the table because you have two incompetent idjits handling WW Sales and WW Marketing (Alyse an Inhi) who are *NOT* *DOING* *THEIR* *JOBS*?!!
Take a good 5 minutes to let that sink in.
Add to this the fact that IBM is adding DW capabilities to IDS and you'll have more of a product overlap between DB2 and IDS.
Take a couple of days to think about the implications of that.
Going back to that one little statement in the 8-K and you have to think about a couple of things.
The point boy geniuses, you now have your smoking gun. IDS is significant to the IM pillar. Each quarter it is more and more significant. Yet outside of a handfull of IT Specialists globally, IBM sales can not support the sales cycle of an IDS product. IBM can not sell IDS. Nor have they made an investment in any solutions built around IDS.
Think about it. Then go cry in a beer as you finally realize that it only takes a few incompetent execs to screw up your bonues...
-G
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:11:03 +0100
Subject: Re: Funny Numbers?
From: domus...@gmail.com
To: im_g...@hotmail.com
CC: sri...@ca.ibm.com; inform...@iiug.org
This little statement is a rare gem of a statement.
IBM never comments on product sales numbers. Breaking out the LUW aka Distributed market numbers from their overall numbers is *significant*.
Since you two numb nutz are techies and are 'business-wise' challenged, I'll spell it out to you...
Take that statement with the information that was released in Jerry Keesee's 'Chat with the Labs' series on Informix. Informix has continually done 'double digit' growth, quarter on quarter and year over year. That can mean anything from 10% to 99% growth rate.
Its very possible that this year, Informix is closing in on $200 million in annual revenue.
(If they haven't passed it. I *don't* *know* the numbers so I have to take an educated guess that Informix revenue is around $175 mil USD mark)
So for IM to be down 8% while Informix is still seeing double digit growth, there has to be a large drag on IM's profits. It could be one of the following:
A) DB2 z/OS sales
B) Cognos
C) Business Objects
D) Other acquired software products purchased in the past 3 years. (FileNet, etc ...)
Or it could be a combination of the above...
Its very likely that DB2 z/OS numbers are plumeting and the downward decline is increasing in speed.
If you notice the TPC-C benchmarks, you can now build out a box that can do 300K tpm where the hardware is around 15K. Add an HA pair for redundancy and uptime, (not to mention load balancing), and for 30K in hardware you now have a machine capable of replacing a mainframe.
Ok that's an extreme. The numbers for a complete system would be closer to 500K if you did a P-Series with software. But the point is the same. For what most companies who run DB2 on z/OS pay for in their annual license fees, they could buy whole systems to replace their mainframes.
IBM isn't capitalizing on replacing their mainframes, Microsoft and Oracle are.
There's more to the importance of that one little sentence. But I'll let what I said sink in.
IDS *is* *growing* inspite of the lack of marketing and IBM sales support. Take 30 seconds to let that sink in.
So you have to wonder, how much money is IBM leaving on the table because you have two incompetent idjits handling WW Sales and WW Marketing (Alyse an Inhi) who are *NOT* *DOING* *THEIR* *JOBS*?!!
Take a good 5 minutes to let that sink in.
Add to this the fact that IBM is adding DW capabilities to IDS and you'll have more of a product overlap between DB2 and IDS.
Take a couple of days to think about the implications of that.
Going back to that one little statement in the 8-K and you have to think about a couple of things.
The point boy geniuses, you now have your smoking gun. IDS is significant to the IM pillar. Each quarter it is more and more significant. Yet outside of a handfull of IT Specialists globally, IBM sales can not support the sales cycle of an IDS product. IBM can not sell IDS. Nor have they made an investment in any solutions built around IDS.
Think about it. Then go cry in a beer as you finally realize that it only takes a few incompetent execs to screw up your bonues...
-G
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:11:03 +0100
Subject: Re: Funny Numbers?
From: domus...@gmail.com
To: im_g...@hotmail.com
CC: sri...@ca.ibm.com; inform...@iiug.org
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Ian Michael Gumby <im_g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes Serge,
But it doesn't say what I want explained.
Again, your spreading wrong information.
Really:
http://ibm.us (not a bad place to start)
There is an "investor" link on the front page...
0 new messages