On TV.com: CHUCK Spied a Return Date
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By Martin LaMonica
Posted on ZDNet News: Feb 24, 2005 3:40:00 PM

Microsoft introduced a lower cost version of its database software on Wednesday, a move that could lead to further price cuts in the database market.

The company plans to introduce SQL Server 2000 Workgroup, a version for small businesses priced at $3,899 per processor, in the first half of this year. It will also add several features to the upcoming SQL Server 2005 update, which is due in the summer, and extend a reselling relationship with Dell, which will allow its customers to get support from the PC maker.

Related story
Microsoft may offer peek at SQL Server code
Airing could allay customers' security concerns.

With the revamped product suite, Microsoft intends to offer alternatives to a range of rival software, including open-source products and databases from heavyweights Oracle and IBM.

"We want to make sure that we continue to beat the competition, no matter where they are," said Tom Rizzo, director of product management in Microsoft's SQL Server unit. "We believe the packaging and licensing is a feature of the product."

Microsoft, Oracle and IBM are the top three database suppliers. Combined, they garner the majority of money spent on relational databases, according to market research. Last year, Oracle and IBM each introduced lower-cost editions of their database in an effort to spur sales to medium-size customers, where Microsoft sells strongly.

The past year has also seen a rise in interest in open-source databases, although spending on such products makes up only a fraction of the multibillion-dollar database market. The open-source software is generally available for free; corporate customers typically pay a provider for support services.

The rise of open source in an already extremely competitive field points to growing price pressure in the database market, said Noel Yuhanna, an analyst at Forrester Research.

"We are predicting there will be a price war," Yuhanna said. "Suddenly, we're seeing most of the traction in entry-level databases (among established providers), to compete against open source."

Microsoft's strategy of transferring advanced features to cheaper products and having a range of pricing options reflects those market dynamics, he said.

The introduction of the Workgroup edition, which will be available for SQL Server 2000 and for SQL Server 2005, is meant to offer a better alternative to price-sensitive customers, particularly smaller organizations, Rizzo said. The Workgroup software is limited to machines with two processors (dual-core chips are counted as a single CPU) and 3 gigabytes of RAM.

Workgroup comes with a management tool, called Management Studio, which can be used with any SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005 database. It also has some failover capabilities, which allow a back-up database server to start up in the case of a failure.

As for the other versions in the SQL Server 2005 update, the Standard edition will have built-in reporting tools and no limitations on memory. It will cost $5,999 per processor. The Enterprise edition, priced at $24,999 per processor and designed for demanding applications, will have a new set of tools for transferring data into large analysis databases.

Having features common to the four editions of SQL Server--Express, Workgroup, Standard and Enterprise--should make it simpler for a customer to build a database application relatively cheaply and to add more robust database features as use of the application grows, Rizzo said.

Microsoft had previously planned to ship SQL Server 2005 in the second half of last year. It had to push back the delivery date of the update and an accompanying Visual Studio 2005 development tool to this summer. The company plans to initiate a third beta, or testing, program for the overhauled database by the end of March. The beta will be open to all.

Rizzo said that the lower-priced product and features were driven by customer requests rather than as a reaction to competitors. Customers and partners were seeking a database that was more functional than its free product but less expensive that the standard edition of SQL Server. Microsoft also sought to make high-end features more broadly available. But, he said that Microsoft is comfortable competing on the overall value of its database.

"We welcome the competition, but we think in the end it's a losing proposition for (Oracle) to try to compete on price with us," he said. "They're niched at the high end, and they make all their money on these expensive add-ons."

An Oracle representative was not immediately available for comment. IBM declined to comment for this story.

Forrester's Yuhanna said that for large customers, traditional database features such as fast performance and reliability continue to be very important. But for applications at smaller companies, price is central to many customers' decisions.

"The fact is there's a lot of discussion about return on investments for databases. Customers are concerned about how they can get the best value for the lowest cost," Yuhanna said.

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 133 Talkback(s)
2 words - Corporate Merger
Legacy Investments:
Company A runs Oracle, Company B runs MSSQL.
Every time two companies merge is an oppurtunity to steal one from the other, because they rarely keep both.

Open Source:<... (Read the rest)
Posted by: awhite@... Posted on: 04/17/05 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
MS, IBM and Oracle have no relational products  jorwell | 02/24/05
Relational Databases  d0ti5 | 02/24/05
IBM theory vs practice  __howard__ | 02/24/05
RDB History: IBM project started in 1973  mikew_z | 02/25/05
Oh yes they do!  neverhome | 02/24/05
Bull  jnonneman | 02/24/05
Since Codds 12 is the definition of Relational...  msalomon | 02/24/05
mathematical reason  __howard__ | 02/24/05
Metric system  d0ti5 | 02/25/05
No not relational  jorwell | 02/25/05
By what definition?  Shift4SMS | 02/24/05
A common misapprehension  jorwell | 02/25/05
if ignorance is bliss, you're a happy fool  cicuta | 02/24/05
RDBMS Defined...  neverhome | 02/24/05
Non definition  msalomon | 02/24/05
Okay, let me shed MORE light here  neverhome | 02/24/05
the blind leading the blind  cicuta | 02/24/05
Interchangeability  jorwell | 02/25/05
I fully agree  Shift4SMS | 02/25/05
You are a foolish man to jump to such conclusions  jorwell | 02/25/05
Is it a DBMS or an RDBMS?  careed | 02/25/05
What are you talking about?  kevin@... | 02/24/05
More info on "relational" db  __howard__ | 02/24/05
Many thanks your Lordship  jorwell | 02/25/05
They are basically relational.  flipper35 | 02/24/05
"Basically relational"? you cannot have it both ways  msalomon | 02/24/05
Awwww.....  neverhome | 02/24/05
SQL Standard  CAPCAN | 02/24/05
(nt) Clueless  d_jedi | 02/24/05
MS IBM have no relational DB's?  Terfenol_D | 02/24/05
Can set a primary key  jorwell | 02/25/05
Not relational?  CodeBubba | 02/24/05
Not really ignorant  __howard__ | 02/24/05
Unfortunately you are the one that is ignorant  jorwell | 02/25/05
good to see ms going back to the drawing board  liskanich | 02/24/05
Back to the drawing board...  d0ti5 | 02/24/05
MySQL  Chad_z | 02/24/05
MySQL is one of the worst  jorwell | 02/24/05
I beg to differ  ngon | 02/24/05
noticeable degradation sounds like improper configuration of sql  liskanich | 02/24/05
I had One  nucrash | 02/24/05
That's the problem, you need more hardware to get the same performance  DonnieBoy | 02/24/05
Never? Really?  cicuta | 02/24/05
The depressing thing about Open Source DBMS  jorwell | 02/24/05
What the hell is wrong with SQL  nucrash | 02/24/05
A hell of a lot  jorwell | 02/24/05
SQL just a high level programming language  voska | 02/24/05
So your problem is understrnading of the theory ?  michael-t | 02/24/05
For some applications, think BerkeleyDB. It is the absolute fastest.  DonnieBoy | 02/24/05
Performance is only a tiny part of the problem  jorwell | 02/24/05
Well, I could not agree more, but we will be living with SQL for a while.  DonnieBoy | 02/24/05
WHAT?  doe_z | 02/24/05
DEFINE RELATIONAL  cicuta | 02/24/05
You can read this up for yourself  jorwell | 02/24/05
Stop whining and do something about it  criderja | 02/24/05
Don't waste your time responding to this guy  kribor_z | 02/24/05
Expert??  jorwell | 02/24/05
Well this is something to useful to learn  pelsql | 03/14/05
A few things  awhite@... | 04/17/05
Quite right  Chad_z | 02/24/05
Thanks Chad  xsylvainhoule@... | 02/25/05
Per processor pricing is silly  voska | 02/24/05
I agree, but, it is another way of making more $  TechType | 02/24/05
Hmmm, can you say multi-core,  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/24/05
Can you say IBM???  nucrash | 02/24/05
Let me help you with the topic...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/24/05
Watch them charge you per core  voska | 02/24/05
Nope, MS said they won't.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/24/05
I will belive that...  Patrick Jones | 02/24/05
Believe it, this is the way it is actually done  pelsql | 03/14/05
That's not binding though  voska | 02/25/05
It was the future 3 yers ago.  B.O.F.H. | 02/24/05
Per user licensing  JanglinJack | 02/24/05
That'd be per server  voska | 02/25/05
I don't agree ...  mwagner@... | 02/24/05
I can see per sever pricing  voska | 02/25/05
Wrong understanding of MS SQL Per processor licence  pelsql | 03/14/05
Closer analogy  awhite@... | 04/17/05
Per Processor Licensing  gbed | 02/24/05
Per Processor Licensing  arnold_walker@... | 02/24/05
Extremely Vendor Specific  awhite@... | 04/17/05
MS says multi core is multi processor  appletonjim | 02/24/05
Huh?  rapson | 02/24/05
I know, Oracle doesn't however  voska | 02/25/05
Also think PostgreSQL. It is improving fast.  DonnieBoy | 02/24/05
Yes, absolutely  Chad_z | 02/24/05
Competition is always good ...  mwagner@... | 02/24/05
Yep...  brble | 02/24/05
$3000+ *per processor*?!?!? Time to think Postgres or Mysql!  kensys | 02/24/05
I'll say!  CobraA1 | 02/25/05
Pay less work more a less expensive proposition ?  pelsql | 03/14/05
Wizard of failing Magics  awhite@... | 04/17/05
BALONEY! Microsoft didnt start it.  daver_z | 02/24/05
SQL Server v. Oracle 10g  tenryuu | 02/24/05
I Disagree  robert.hart@... | 02/24/05
Can you explain  michael-t | 02/24/05
SQL Server vs Oracle  JRidge | 02/26/05
Not always the same experience....  pelsql | 03/14/05
oracle is great  NemesisNL | 02/24/05
Oracle is starting to suck  NotMSUser | 02/24/05
Whats the alternative?  awhite@... | 04/17/05
The Scorpion and The Turtle  shadomn | 02/24/05
Been there dun that. - Access vs Paradox  jhawklyn@... | 02/24/05
Split MS Apps from MS OS  gordon@... | 02/24/05
Who won the 2000 election  seosamh_z | 02/24/05
"We believe the packaging and licensing is a feature of the product."  linuxoverwindows | 02/24/05
Pope Is Gonna Croak: Any Bets On When?  itanalyst | 02/24/05
Stay INSIDE - for your own safety  j.m.galvin | 02/24/05
Considering From A Religous Standpoint  itanalyst | 02/24/05
Struggling to work this into the topic...  brble | 02/24/05
Easy  awhite@... | 04/17/05
You're a sad individual  seosamh_z | 02/24/05
There are many sad individuals Joey  Jeff Spicoli | 02/24/05
At the risk of feeding the troll...  bill@... | 02/25/05
5 figure donation. Sure. Right.  Beechcraft | 02/24/05
It amazes me  seosamh_z | 02/24/05
Microsoft  tonyarm@... | 02/24/05
SQL son, SQL.  seosamh_z | 02/24/05
Im suprised...  jdahs@... | 02/24/05
The Evil Gnomes of Redmond  btkatt | 02/25/05
There are Alternatives  viswakarma | 02/24/05
No one has enough revenue  bjbrock | 02/24/05
Cheaper than Free?  awhite@... | 04/17/05
Welcome home!  seosamh_z | 02/25/05
Well sure. When they realized they couldn't  bjbrock | 02/24/05
Microsoft may not defeat Oracle in Database Price War  taye_omo@... | 02/24/05
MS DATABASE  zdnethead | 02/25/05
Would Someone Please Explain to Me...  bill@... | 02/25/05
Because their small business  awhite@... | 04/17/05
Post-Relational  zielpunkt | 02/25/05
Pros and Cons  awhite@... | 04/17/05
Whatever . . .  Sheeva | 03/01/05
2 words - Corporate Merger  awhite@... | 04/17/05

What do you think?

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Enterprise Applications

  • Check out some of the easiest and most powerful ways to boost productivity while saving money on your application infrastructure. See ZDNet's comprehensive Enterprise Application resource center, now!
  • New Online Dashboard
  • Read about top issues IT decision-makers face every day, plus get cost effective solutions to real life IT problems. Oracle Topline