William (Bill) Vaughn's Musings

Having been part of a marketing organization within Microsoft and other companies, I can understand why some folks feel it's important to show the Rolls Royce product in its best light. However, when I see how SQL Server Enterprise is being marketed, I'm dismayed. Consider that while Microsoft makes a bundle on SQL Server Enterprise Gold Trim Edition (a much as $25,000), they make quite a bit (if not more) on Workgroup and Standard (about $4000-$5000). And yes, even the free editions (Express and "SQL Server" Compact) bring in a lot of revenue indirectly.

IMHO, it does not serve Microsoft or make the Enterprise Edition Rolls Royce model look any more appealing  by slamming the Chevrolet models. By showing that SQL Server 2008 Standard Edition does not have anything but "partial/limited" support for all of the bullet points on their comparison charts, it makes it tougher for customers that can only afford Workgroup or Standard (or Express) from choosing it as a DBMS solution and going back to the office to defend their decision. It also makes it harder for Microsoft-loyal consultants and mentors to recommend any but the Enterprise Edition. What these simplistic charts don't show is that the "limited" features in Workgroup, Standard (and Express) are often far more than they need--but that's hard to discover reading this marketing fluff. The problem is, I know it's fluff and puffery--the customers might not. 

When I was in sales (I've worn a lot of hats over the years), one of our guiding principles was to not bash the competition (and not take checks). Apparently, Microsoft has not learned that lesson (yet). They might defend their assessment of Oracle 11G to the death, but any Oracle fan will look at this and see it like an Obama supporter sees one of the McCain attack ads.

I also waded into the "SQL Server" Compact edition marketing material. Nowhere did it say this (really cool) product is not based on the same binaries that all of the other editions share. I did see where it's recommended for use on "Web client " implementations. It leads customers to think this "embedded SQL Server database engine..." is another version of SQL Server like MSDE and SQL Express but somehow more limited--it's not.

I also noticed that none of these pages permitted feedback or bug reporting. I guess the SQL Server marketing team is open for output only. That's sad as there are a lot of us out here that are passionate about SQL Server and only want it to be as good as it can be and not oversold with hyped-up ads and propaganda.

Bill