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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Miner who wrote (21220)	4/21/1999 6:32:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I for one don't beleive these figures. OK. But disagreeing with Dataquest's figures is like disagreeing with Neilson's TV figures. There's good reason to question both, but there is also reason to trust them as genuinely independent sources of data. GartnerGroup's Dataquest is one of the two most reliable sources of comparative data for computer markets. Those are figures -- as stated in the part I posted -- for "New License Revenue". So it isn't a figure showing installed base. The figures do, however, show momentum for a particular company. One would expect that Microsoft will show much more momentum in next year's figurs since SQL Server 7 was finally released only late in 1998. I posted it in a prior message on the same subject, but here, again, is a link to the full DataQuest press release on the data I posted: gartner12.gartnerweb.com But generally, I agree with your point: Companies manipulate "market share" figures in remarkable way. Both IBM and Oracle released PR on that same DataQuest study that focused on different cuts of the same numbers. IBM crowed that it had become the market leader. Oracle crowed that it had retained a huge lead over IBM on Unix systems and over Microsoft on NT systems. For its part, Microsoft ignored these numbers, but has emphasized the astounding year-to-year growth in SQL Server licenses. It is impressive, but fails to note that a year ago SQL Server 7 was long-delayed and wasn't yet available.