IBM would add further complications for MySQL

March 19th, 2009 by atomic

The rumoured acquisition of Sun by IBM makes sense on many levels. IBM has always been a strong proponent of business-friendly open source and is probably more invested in Java than Sun itself. The indirect impact on recently-acquired MySQL is a bit personal for me, however.

Many moons ago, I worked in the IBM software lab in Toronto where DB2 UDB is primarily developed. I learned a great deal there, but something stirred within me, a desire for freedom and flexibility in software. I took a risk and moved to California, working for a number of start ups, believing that open source database technology (and software in general) was the wave of the future, and I wanted to work in companies that were willing to use OSS software.

To say the least, many of my then-current and former IBM colleagues that had taken cushy jobs with big companies to administer large DB2 installations, or were on track to do so, thought I was crazy. MySQL was a toy database, and PostgreSQL was just a research project! In retrospect I feel it was the right decision.

So, here we are, years later, and IBM may now end up owning MySQL.

On the positive side, I have no doubt of IBM’s commitment to open source and that they will continue to support MySQL with the tremendous resources it can bring to bear. It would be quite ironic if the Toronto lab had some people shift to MySQL development!

However, if IBM’s previous acquisitions are any indication, they will almost certainly push MySQL as a free “entry-level” database to a larger pool of customers and smooth the way for eventual upgrading to more expensive enterprise products. This is not inherently a bad thing, but it could translate into poor support and release-inflation (i.e. beta = alpha, GA = beta, etc) as a way to encourage captive customers to just bite the bullet and upgrade to DB2.

IBM may be able to squeeze quite a bit of profit out of MySQL in this way from enterprise customers who are used to this kind of abuse, but there are significant challenges:

They will need to go out of their way to convince skeptics like myself that quality and stability will not be compromised as MySQL gets integrated into IBM’s product offerings, otherwise MySQL users without deep pockets may begin defecting to postgres rather than be stuck with a key part of their infrastructure poorly-supported.

Then there is the still-unresolved problem of Oracle owning the maker of MySQL’s only viable transactional engine, InnoDB, an issue I wrote about last year when Sun acquired MySQL. With the release of the new InnoDB as a downloadable “plug-in”, Oracle has made it clear that they want to track and find as many of MySQL’s customers as they can.

Most important is that IBM will need to maintain MySQL’s reputation as the DB of choice for new web sites and other budget-conscious startups. Mindshare is everything. This is inherently difficult to track and acheive, because the next twitter will be developed by a few clever people who start up something for fun and just download all the OSS tools they need, based on what others before them did. Right now, typically, that’s a standard LAMP stack. If people starting up sites today begin to question the “M” part of LAMP (eg. swap postgresql for mysql), this effect on MySQL’s reputation and stature won’t be obvious for quite a while but it will be difficult to reverse.

Posted in mysql |

2 Responses

  1. Arjen Lentz Says:

    A few comments…

    Sun is not the only company supporting MySQL, there is a significant amount of expertise present in various other companies and that includes development. There are services for emergency needs (where sufficient internal expertise is available), but also sevices for remote DBA work with design and developer support. Sun itself does not actually provide a broad range of services in terms of the actual MySQL market.

    MySQL release inflation is already a fact of life, and came into play around 5.0. I’d want it to disappear.

    Finally, I still don’t believe Oracle is into InnoDB to find out about MySQL customers. People were suggesting this early on too. But most of the bigger customers are abundantly public, there’s no additional inside info that would be of such big value….

  2. atomic Says:

    @Arjen: Thanks for your comment.

    I’m really not try to kick MySQL while it is down, but I do want to speak up as a member of the user community about what things I will look for from IBM if they end up owning MySQL. You have to admit, the publicity generated in the last few months with Monty publicly blasting the 5.1 GA decision, and then leaving Sun altogether, has not been good. Of course other companies can and will step in to support the product, but what I believe has made MySQL a great success is that there has been a strong corporate backer, in touch with the needs of users, providing direction and leadership. The events of the last 6 months have made MySQL appear divided over its direction and making users nervous about what the future has in store.

    If I am running MySQL on a site right now, I’m not going to dump it just because I’m a bit nervous about direction. But if I’m planning a new project, I may actually think twice now about whether to choose MySQL, given all the signals of late. Maintaining the product front and center in developer’s minds is key.

    As for the tracking of customers, I have trouble understanding what other reason Oracle or IBM would have to be involved with MySQL. As you say, a lot of the big internet companies are forthcoming about what technologies they use, but this is only a small part of the overall (lucrative) database market.

    For example, at one financial company i worked at as a student during the dotcom era, I built a local datamart with MySQL, partly in response to the slow turnover time of changes to the main DB2 warehouse and datamarts. For all I konw, that datamart is still kicking, and has been draining IBM of revenue they “should” be getting for one of their entry-level DB2 products for all these years. IBM needs to know who these “lost” customers are so that they can monetize them, or at least this is the approach I expect them to take — giving away free, stripped-down versions of DB2 and Oracle doesn’t seem to be doing anything to stop the growth of OSS databases because cost is not everything.

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.