Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : IFMX - Investment Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: investorgal who wrote (10082)	3/30/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: Mark Finger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14631

>>I believe the reason you don't see much on ORCL 8.1 is the sense of >>urgency of having an object DB are gone. SInce the IFMX collapse and >>the fact that Phil blamed it on the lack of market acceptance of IUS >>(an obvious excuse), ORCL has had no reason to worry about being >>behind that technology curve. The hype stopped from all vendors as >>soon as IFMX tanked and the ORDBMS push subsided. IMHO I would be really happy if ORCL is slowing its 8.1 for that reason. The real situation is that IFMX is starting to get a significant number of implementations in place and VAR's (both for datablades and for vertical applications) are getting a lot of experience. Judging from the press releases for last year, I would expect that IFMX moved $25-50M of IUS in 1997. I would expect that they should do $75-150M in 1998. In 1999, IFMX then should do over $200M of OR based engine sales (compare this to the fact that they only did about $300M total engine sales in 1997). If this is true, IFMX would be getting a lot of presence in this area of OR and Oracle would be starting way behind in this category. Given this kind of growth (I think is a real possibility), Oracle could be coming late to the table. In that case, a single spectacular failure (relative to IFMX) could really hurt them if they do not get 8.1 out before 1999. I think this scenario is a real possibility, given some of the technical differences between the two implementations. I will discuss this further in my next response (to another poster). Mark