Commentary

As editor of M Web Magazine, I felt that the recent news about the acquisition of Micronetics by InterSystems merits that we go online with an extraordinary edition. The reasons for this issue are numerous, the most important being that we document this event, analyze how the M world feels and put what options are available/possible.

For the first time, MWM has comment areas associated with certain articles. This innovative process is another demonstration of what is possible on the net. Whether this issue of MWM achieves the goals mentioned above depends a lot on your participation and therefore, I encourage you to participate. With your dynamic comments you can now play a greater role in making MWM better and more interesting. Eventually, your comments will be integrated into the article itself. In the Table of Contents, those articles that have the word (Interactive) have comment areas.

I want to create a document that represents the feelings of the M world in as wide a context as possible. The document will reflect the present thoughts and feelings of those who participate and can, in the future be compared to actual developments as they happen. At the moment, dust is high and everyone is speculating and coming to their own conclusions. The less we hear from official sources, the more speculation will remain high and gossip will rule the land.

Those who follow this language will observe that over the years the number of language vendors has continued to fall. Until a few weeks ago we had two major players bargaining for your M dollars and offering innovative products; today one player remains. In past issues of MWM, I had mentioned that I saw Micronetics targeting the low end, while InterSystems remaining focused at the top end. Was the strategy by Micronetics wrong? No. After all how did (and still does) the most successful software company in the world make its owner the richest person in the world? Why did Micronetics go down then? I think it was sold simply because a sufficiently high price has been paid for it. InterSystems on its part saw a two-fold gain: buy out a competitor at the same time gaining a respectable client base and technology that may supplement its high tech operation.

A point of clarification is necessary here. InterSystems Corp is a serious company experienced in this type of growth. I don't have the least doubt that this company will not pamper the acquire clients as much as its own (maybe even a bit more). I also believe that InterSystems' expansion path sets it en-route to compete and become a dominant player in the high-end database market.

Who will be affected by this move? Everyone. Let's start with the obvious:

• Micronetics users, and VARS. The first question that comes to mind is, "What will happen to my investment(s) in technology and human resources?". Does it makes sense for InterSystems to support horizontal applications? In the short term InterSystems has to respect contractual obligations made by Micronetics, but when these expire, what will happen? I don't have the least doubt that InterSystems, assuming it opts to streamline both products into one will offer a simple and transparent upgrade path although retraining and (maybe) minimal recoding cannot be completely excluded.
• InterSystems Users and VARS. Will the demise of Micronetics encourage InterSystems to assume a monopolist position in the M market? I don't think so, because today the market is not amongst M players but between global database players and InterSystems has the size and strength to compete more than ever with such companies. But, if the belief of some that M is under priced when compared to other database engines turns out the be true, we should expect a readjustment of prices. Will InterSystems become an arrogant company? I don't think so because it still has to compete with other giants in the world market.
• MDC. Will InterSystems still be interested in talking to the MDC? I publicly said that in recent times, both Micronetics and InterSystems have been going their own way more and more. Had this new development not come up, both companies would have started diverting away from M at algorithmic speeds although both would have had an interest in what the MDC is doing. As things stand now, I doubt who will lead and who will follow. While it might be in the MDCs interest to retain a standard, it is not in InterSystems' interest to follow suite. What does it stand to gain in investing time and money in making a standard, when all other database manufacturers deal directly with clients and get to keep suggestion to themselves. Why should InterSystems help an organization that in itself, encourages sharing. I see a very dim future for this body. (Check out MSM-Workstation: Last Farewell? for what MDC's new role could be).
• User Groups. I feel that user groups will become even more important. They can become the centers for collecting suggestions, explaining products, and now have the potential of earning income selling InterSystems' products. Obviously at the initial stages these bodies should rig up so as to be able to assist with problems and fears users might have (assuming InterSystems provides them with such support). And if InterSystems further increases its client base, they will see membership shooting to the sky.
• M diehards face a gloomy fate the way things stand. M is dead, long live M. When I decided to set up a page documenting M's history (http://geocities.datacellar.net/SiliconValley/7041/ref.html), there was a lot of pressure to "forget" about this facet of the language. Luckily M gave birth to Caché before it passed away. This environment will under InterSystems develop rapidly and have lots of features and capabilities as soon as these make it to the market. We might say that Caché is to M what C++ is to C, Delphi is to Pascal and Visual Basic is to GWBasic.

If you're a soccer fan, you must surely have followed the recent World Cup. Have you seen the Sybase adverts near the goal posts? Hopefully in four years time, InterSystems will take this place in Japanese and Korean stadiums.

Comments on this article

E&OE