Search results matching tag 'Marketing'

“There is now more data than water!” Err…what?

jamiet — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:10:47 GMT

I've heard some nonsensical marketing claims in my time but this one takes some beating:

Digital data is now more vast than all the world’s oceans (there is 2.7 zetabytes of data on the planet versus the 1.37 zettalitres of seawater)
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/2013/feb13/02-13BigDataSolutions.aspx

I could complain about the folly in comparing discrete and continuous values or in comparing physical volumes with abstract notions of data but I don’t really need to, do I? I do wish marketers wouldn’t sully our industry by coming out with ridiculous, meaningless statements like this.

Adam Machanic expertly mocked this one with his deadpan:

I suspect Dilbert would have something similar to say…

A rose by any other name...

AaronBertrand — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:55:00 GMT

At the PASS Summit, one of the most anticipated announcements was the release date, and marketing label, for SQL Server code-named "Denali" - the release date is "first half of 2012" (which probably means somewhere around June 25th), and the official name is SQL Server 2012. The logo was revealed on stage, and in a previous blog post, I crafted up my own quick, dirty and horrible rendition with the limited tools available to me on my laptop while sitting at the blogger table. Here is the official version:

Now, you will probably see many people continue to call it Denali in writing and conversation, both formal and casual alike. It will take a while for the new name to take hold, never mind be manually updated in Books Online, other forms of documentation, and even in GUIs and dialogs within Management Studio and other client components.

When the name was revealed, I heard some minor objections to continuing with the "year of release" theme. Some folks thought that it should be SQL 11 or SQL 12, corresponding to the actual version number (depending on whether you consider 2008 R2 a full version). Let me explain why I think the chosen naming scheme makes the most sense, at least to Microsoft.

The year of release is a fantastic model when dealing with customers down the road. In 2016 it makes it so much more obvious that their software is four years old than if it was called SQL Server 11.0 or SQL Server 12.0. What does this mean? A more compelling upgrade story. "Come on, you're on SQL Server 2012!" sounds a lot more antique than "Come on, you're on SQL Server 12.0, which was released in 2012."
SQL Server 2012 will likely be released in conjunction with Windows 8 Server, which will also likely be named with a 2012 suffix. In the 2000 and 2008 timeframes, this story was consistent; with Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server 2005, they got a little out of sync. If I were a betting man I'd say they'll be back in step in 2012.
Be quite thankful that they're not using the previous method of just appending some release flag to an existing version, yet still trying to maintain that it is a full release. We know that in reality they didn't give it a "full release name" because there really wasn't a whole lot to it in the core engine - Unicode compression for Enterprise customers, and backup compression for Standard customers. And we also know that this horrible naming blunder causes unending confusion with customers:
- "Is this service pack for 2008 also applicable to 2008 R2?"
- "Do I need to install 2008 SP3 before or after 2008 R2?
The fun never ends. So while I joke occasionally that they should have named it...

...I'm really not serious. I believe (or at least hope) that they've learned their lesson with that one. Though, I had hoped they'd learned their lesson with bad data type names like TIMESTAMP, yet they came out with DATETIME2 amidst very loud objections from several MVPs. And who could forget entities with multiple personality disorders, like user-defined types and DAC? They also recently announced that Crescent will be officially named "Power View" with a space, unlike PowerPivot, PowerPoint, and PowerShell, which have no spaces. Since consistency is such a priority, early in 2014, I wouldn't be too surprised to see the announcement of:

Will I still be excited about it? Probably at least as excited as I was about SQL Server 2008 R2. And I'll leave it at that.

Paying for Free

ArnieRowland — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:45:00 GMT

It seems like there is a widespread malaise in the country these days. Everyone's clamoring to cut taxes -but no one wants to have their neighborhood school closed, or fear bridges collapsing underneath them, or damage their automobiles while driving over deteriorating streets and roads. They expect Fire and Police personnel to magically appear when needed. The list can go on and on. Folks want and expect so many things to be available, yet they don't want to pay for them. They don't care if someone else has to pay more, they just want to pay less.

In the computer technology field, there is an excellent array of 'free' professional activities. User Groups, Code Camps, and SQLSaturdays are just a few opportunities often provided where you can pick up information about upcoming technology changes, gather a few tips and tricks, network with others, and even find a job. These events are made possible with the generosity AND self-interest of Vendors –companies that want the opportunity to put their message in front of the audience. In exchange for their money, these Vendor/Sponsors get exposure for their products and company message. Their logos may be on signs, they provide printed material, they offer raffle items, and they even send their personnel to be on hand to talk with attendees. They are trying to be noticed. They are trying to have the opportunity to put their product or message before a receptive audience for consideration.

To me, it seems like such a simple bargain. I go to the event and consume whatever learning / skill / networking opportunities that fit my interests. I have rarely left an event thinking that it was a waste of time -I always gain from being there. In exchange, I listen to a few sales pitches, see a few new products, pick up some literature, and even expect to receive an email or two. It's not too burdensome. If the vendor's products and my needs are out of sync, then I ask to be removed from their mail lists. I get a great free opportunity, and the vendor gets the opportunity to show me their product.

In my experience, Vendors that sponsor technology events are reputable and ethical. If, upon receiving their after-event email, I ask to be removed from their mail list, they readily do so. And on occasion I have actually discovered that I really do wish to continue contact with a particular vendor.

As a 'free' event organizer, I am personally dismayed about how many folks, when registering for the event, automatically 'opt out' from receiving after-event email contact from the event sponsors. It seems like they just can't be bothered to receive an email from a Sponsor, and then, after receiving that after-event email, make an educated decision about remaining in contact with the sponsor.

That just seems so wrong!

Life is about balance. Everything has a cost. It's not sustainable to always expect and never be willing to pay. If you are going to accept the opportunity to improve your knowledge, skills, and professional network (and I truly hope that you are) -be willing to play the game and pay the Piper. It's not only fair, but it will help ensure that in the future, similar opportunities are available for you. If everyone opts out, one day the sponsors will all opt out too. Then we all lose.

Support FREE events, give yourself and Sponsors a chance.

Am I wrong here? What are your thoughts?

(Originally published at http://1568.com/arnie)