Article fails to identify if the sales figures are limited to database or whether they include the enterprise apps (i.e., EBS/Fusion).
Regardless - the quote "Does the cloud-related business grow quickly enough to offset any long-term weakness in new software licenses? To us the answer is yes" seems to indicate that this is all sales for ORCL.
Oracle relying on cloud is pitting them against some more entrenched cloud-only vendors (e.g.: Workday, Salesforce) and disrupts the business model for their main cash cows. Typical innovator's dilemma territory if that's their play.
They seem to be approaching this by offering very reduced functionality on the cloud, so that "real" enterprise businesses will still buy apps to self-host (hopefully on Exa boxes). At least this is what I'm seeing in Middleware.
It's long been known that Database would eventually see a decline, which is why they bought loads of products to ring-fence it (as well as attacking SAP). I just wish their support was still worth the money -- in most cases it's not. That's the real problem IMHO.
I think SAP is stealing a lot of Oracles non-db business ATM. From the last few years, all i hear is SAP hosting, SAP consultants, etc. Oracle has taken a backseat, with the only new Oracle software I have seen being their crappy hosted services.
The mayor problem with using open source in the Corp. world, is that many companies put rules such as:
"Any new technology product MUST have a multi million dollar company with 24/7 support available."
It never made any difference that it would be cheaper to hire two or three techs to do the job, as they come from different budgets (CAPEX vs OPEX).
It's hard to think of a situation where a new startup would use Oracle; it's a massive cost compared to alternatives and while it does offer some advantages over other DB choices those advantages are not very compelling for most uses.
For example, we did some rough testing recently and found that Oracle was faster for report generation than MSSQL but we can double the processing power assigned to the MSQQL to get equivalent performance for a fraction of the cost of Oracle licensing.
If you're a startup selling services to large enterprises you may be forced to use Oracle because it gives your customers more confidence in your solution (assuming you're offering a service where you storing information on important assets on behalf of the enterprise).
I don't even know how Oracle is still the juggernaut that they are. A $10,000 dollar computer running postgres can serve a ridiculous amount of queries.
I suspect the general idea is to spend huge amount of money to run incredibly inefficient SQL queries.
The drive time from the nearest EnterpriseDB office to my office is at least 12 hours (and that is probably quite a bit below the median). To the nearest Oracle office it's a 15 minute walk. That is probably going to have some effect on the call out time for technicians.
That's a good first step, but that's not enough for many companies.
If you're an enterprise customer with IBM, Oracle, or Microsoft, you know that you can have someone onsite within 24 hours if you have a critical failure, sometimes even sooner. You know that you can have people engaged 24/7 for as long as it takes to get you back up and running and you'll have not just technical people, but also incident managers who will keep you updated and help the engineers locate additional resources. They'll have someone sit in a conference bridge around the clock if you want, ready to provide updates.
Enterprises are also thinking about long time spans. With IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Redhat, and others, they generally guarantee at least 10 years of support for their products, plus the ability for custom agreements that go beyond their normal support dates. Offering 3+2 is a good start, but that's not long enough. Remember, many (probably most) banks still have applications written in COBOL running.
Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should look at all the available options - free and paid. At the end of the day, though, there are a lot of projects where the risks and expected application lifecycle pretty much mandate the level of support you only get from the big companies.
So much legacy still runs on it. I've seen many projects at the top of very very large companies (think telcos) that still use Oracle DB. The cost to upgrade these systems with full end to end testing is not worth the investment. Every system I've seen that has this setup is extremely archaic in every way. We're talking java applets in the browser to show a form where you choose options that compose a query in the background and every option you would want is in the interface, however there is no direct query access. Imagine creating a UI that represents everything you can possibly do in a sql query, building it in a java applet, and powering it with a database that costs a buttload of money.
Also oracle has a very large reach with salesforce so I've seen many former employees pitch oracle products heavily. Seems like once you work there you're part of the forever cult of ellison.
> Seems like once you work there you're part of the forever cult of Ellison.
Not just working at Oracle. Once Oracle bought Sun our Oracle DBAs started relentlessly agitating for us to buy SPARC servers because they were now the best, obviously, and a failure to use them meant we clearly were doing it wrong.
I can understand why. They specialize in a very niche product and their entire worth to the tech industry is based on the adoption of that product. I get it, but I dont like it.
A number of reasons that form an important lesson in sales at the enterprise level:
1. Oracle does provide value. They have clustering and high-availability offerings that Postgres just can't touch, and those come with service and support personnel as part of the contract. A one-stop solution is a powerful sales pitch.
2. They have a massive existing install base within the Fortune 500, which spend amounts of money that the average hacker just can't grasp. Somebody that I know very recently worked on an enterprise project to create more-or-less a web page that had a $1,000,000 budget. Oracle is not asking for unreasonable amounts of money, by enterprise standards.
3. Companies value safety over risk, and Oracle has a long track record at the executive level of providing safety. The mindset goes something like: Postgres might be good enough for Imgur or Joe Bob's Bait Shack And Social Network, but neither of those is a bank, healthcare provider, or an entity capable of ordering an air strike. Oracle is telling the story their customers want to hear.
4. Because Oracle has such a large install base and so many success stories at the enterprise level, they are one of a very few number of default choices that an enterprise will make. They have spent decades building up sales momentum.
Business decisions usually have very little do to with the underlaying technology.
Yes. In the case of a database, "safety" is safety from downtime, data loss, data theft. So companies want a database that is fault tolerant and secure.
> Postgres might be good enough for Imgur or Joe Bob's Bait Shack And Social Network, but neither of those is a bank, healthcare provider, or an entity capable of ordering an air strike.
Banks and healthcare providers strike me as far more insecure than tech companies, and especially more insecure than the large computing platforms like EC2, Google Cloud, etc. Any cloud can host a postgres database, and many of them offer database-specific services.
Oracle is competing not just with Postgres, but with literally every other database offering, many from leading tech companies.
The cloud extracts value by utility billing a large customer base. Oracle extracts value by overbilling a small customer base. Which model seems more sustainable? Eventually EC2, Google Cloud, etc will overtake Oracle completely. Maybe if Oracle is lucky they can provide the overpriced consultants to manage their client's EC2 boxes.
Enterprise operates differently. They don't care about what postgres or EC2 or whatever can do, it's all about not doing anything that someone can point a finger at you for later. Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM, Oracle or Microsoft. Also, companies that supply software to corps also supply something that's probably more valuable than the software itself. Support & Maintenance agreements. The fact that if anything goes wrong they can call up a phone number and immediately have a consultant($200+/hr) show up at the corp's location and troubleshoot the problem is a lot of accountability they don't have to directly absorb. There's also PCI compliance and just general fear of new things.
Accountability/blame is the name of the game. You want that value for yourself to be zero unless you get privileged info that the project has succeeded before everyone else finds out, in which case you then scramble to get your name on any documents or email chains related to said project so you can claim it was all due to your planning & decision-making.
I've seen this happen several times and was personally burned hard by people I thought were my friends back in 2006. I'm still bitter about it. I will not let that happen to me again. And I know it happened because I didn't properly document what I was doing and why. Or maybe, I just shouldn't have done it at all and just sit back and watch everyone else panic and burn.... whatever. It was my first job out of college, I was naive.
Nothing about EC2 precludes it from offloading accountability from its clients to itself. Amazon operates infrastructure for the CIA. Consultants are plentiful and cheap. Amazon can provide handholding-as-a-Service just as well as Oracle. At some point, Amazon may invest more resources into its service business. But now it makes sense to grow its platform. That is the difference in Amazon vs Oracle model. Amazon is platform first, Oracle is service first.
When Amazon competes with Oracle on service, what value will Oracle have to provide? Amazon is far ahead of them in platform, and catching up in service is easy. Oracle would have a much harder time doing the opposite.
Platform-first business model is quickly displacing service-first business model. Build a large customer base, use it as proof of ability to scale, then charge enterprise customers for concierge service.
EDIT: keep in mind we are discussing an article about oracle's declining sales.
All this stuff you're saying is possible and may very well be true eventually, but not in today's Enterprise-world.
On Enterprise-planet, all this "Cloud" talk is scary and you can't quickly conceptualize PCI compliance with some computer in the sky somewhere; nor can you conceptualize who/where a consultant will be to fix your problem immediately if a problem arises. Your IT department are a bunch of inflexible people who refused to learn anything beyond what they were using 20 years ago and will tell you "Cloud isn't safe! Didn't you hear on the news how such-n-such got hacked?" I have no problem accepting that you're right; I'm just telling you that Enterprise-world doesn't care how right you are. Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM, Oracle or Microsoft. There's no thought-process beyond that point. You join the company, learn how they do things and do your best not to rock the boat or suggest any new fancy things that might make your coworkers antiquated skillset obsolete... or you will be back-stabbed.
I work for a semi large Network and Hosting provider in Europe that is trying to provide Cloud for our Enterprise customers. We have banks and large financial firms that are "very excited" about the project, which basically means that they understood the buzzwords.
Cloud in the Corp. world normally means VMWare vCloud (which we are now offering) or just VMWare ESX hosted in a remote datacenter.
So "the cloud" does exist in the Corp. world, its just that they are on average 5 years behind the rest of the tech world. I also think that a lot of these companies need to be 5 years behind, as their decision process on anything except cost savings normally takes months to complete with feature creep etc.
I have worked in enough enterprises that the above is both true and false. True in the pathological cases, false among some surprising leaders. I have seen people get fired for choosing Oracle and IBM, massive investments by enterprises into Amazon cloud (they're $6b and rising), adoption of (actual) agile processes and cloud platforms.
PCI compliance is a solved problem, whether it can be used as a cloud cudgel says more about the state of knowledge and power at a place than reality.
The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.
Amazon does not provide SLA agreements at all. I don't think people are necc. disagreeing with your vision of how things should be, but the fact is, enterprise software just doesn't work the way you're describing.
nice writing and all, but sir you have no first hand clue about corporations. not everybody is using new cool toys of the day as backbone of their whole company. For example i work at the bank, the whole core banking package is basically app build in pl/sql on top of oracle db.
i like cool new technologies, but to even think they would run in next 20 years anything else than their super-cluster is funny and ridiculous, and... stupid.
Some non-critical apps like HR, timesheets and whatnot? Sure, have it in SAP (why isn't anybody discussing this super massive pile of crap? compared to that, oracle's offerings are slick cool lean easy-to-use tiny gadgets). Or some MS/IBM solutions.
Let's not forget quality support cost a fortune, and that quality part is more important than some numbers on budgeting spreadsheet. Bear in mind, these static part of IT budget are carved in stone, nobody is questioning them.
Amazon doesn’t have any control of its IP, Oracle does. Public clouds are becoming commoditized just like a majority of x86 vendors and eventually they'll abandon the low margin business or be required to increase pricing. Not every organization is going to move to a public cloud and therefore the areas of real growth in cloud is private and hybrid, which Amazon doesn't do. What happens when your startup company grows to an Enterprise and you start having governance requirements that don't allow you to run in a public cloud? You can't go private with Amazon. Oracle cloud allows you to seamlessly move from private, hybrid to public cloud and back, providing cloud goers freedom of choice with different levels of security and integration.
You are correct. Many projects are doomed to failure or impossible to even start if you are going to base them on the big names. In 2005 we brought in a recommended "storage consulting" firm to help us figure out options because going with EMC was going to be far too costly. In the end they recommended EMC so we shelved the report and built our own storage servers based on cheap SATA controllers and consumer-grade drives.
15 years in the enterprise. Not everyone is like ATT.
They DO care about what products do. Obviously engineers/managers wan't the best technology they can get. The difference is they also care very much about support, long term roadmap, company health, ability to hire staff etc. They are often dealing with systems which tend to stick around for a decade or longer.
I can put an ad up for Oracle and get a lot of really good people or I can hire a consultancy or get support from Oracle. I can't do that with many open source technologies.
I've been recently involved with a software procurement process /rfp recently.
The manager in charge of the process was A LOT more interested in CYA and selecting the product that had the most documentation to defend his choice (Gartner quadrants, other customers, etc.) than in taking risks or actually selecting the "best" product or sticking his neck for whatever he believed the best provider was.
Not unsurprisingly, Oracle and IBM provide a lot of what he needs to show upper management, and so tend to be in the discussion a lot.
You don't have to defend hiring IBM, but you DO have to defend using open source software X with support from local company Y. RedHat and similar do provide a level of "IBM-like" services for large companies, but most open source software doesn't have the support levels and on-site teams required (or sometimes IBM offers those !! Edit: as someone else pointed out, Oracle offers MySQL support too).
smtddr's point about having someone to phone is VERY true for these kind of conservative companies. (also, I've seen the kind of behaviour he documents about people trying to - and succeeding at - claiming credit for projects)
To be fair I think there's a certain amount of momentum and economy of scale when you reach enterprise levels of anything. Incrementally it's quite cheap to toss one more of widget X on the pile when you have a room full of widget X experts.
If you decide widget Y is now the way to go, you get to answer all the questions already answered for widget X: Who supports it? How? How to do we back it up and restore it? Who can tune queries? How does this differ from our build patterns for servers that host X? Can the two live on the same machine or are there potential conflicts? Etc.
Don't get me wrong - with proper planning you can educate the X guys on how to support Y and smoothly add it or even transition to it. But for large-scale systems it requires a great deal of planning and forethought if you want to do it without any bobbles.
> The fact that if anything goes wrong they can call up a phone number and immediately have a consultant($200+/hr) show up at the corp's location and troubleshoot the problem is a lot of accountability they don't have to directly absorb. There's also PCI compliance and just general fear of new things.
My experience with [current] Oracle support and the ability to "call things in":
(via the sort-of-usable support portal)
My org has paid millions for software and support on the Oracle products we run, and have "dedicated" support team ... it's worthless.
Dumb, uninformed 1st/2nd tier "engineers" who do not understand the products they are supporting, or basic tenets of system and application administration (https, sql, oel mgmt, etc), let alone understanding how their products integrate, or how to debug issues with those integrations.
It takes days to get a real response to a P1 ticket, and even if we've supplied all of the logs and information needed for the case, the first response we get is always canned "please supply xxxx logs" -- if we have an info level ticket, responses can take weeks even with escalation.
> Eventually EC2, Google Cloud, etc will overtake Oracle completely. Maybe if Oracle is lucky they can provide the overpriced consultants to manage their client's EC2 boxes.
Oracle is an option in AWS RDS, though I'm not sure what the instance count is relative to the other options.
> Yes. In the case of a database, "safety" is safety from downtime, data loss, data theft. So companies want a database that is fault tolerant and secure.
"Safety" is also having someone to blame when things go bad. That's the hardware/software vendor or the integrator doing the implementation. Where do you think the "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" saying came from?
Exactly right. They have a really good product with great reputation, a ton of support resources and skill availability. Besides the features like RAC, RAT, Various security stuff (redaction, encryption etc) that enterprise customers demand are not in any open source database I know of.
I don't know why people always mention clustering. It provides so many downsides and complications that it hardly ever seems worth it. I don't know my people never mention instrumentation, monitoring and plan management. These things are there you help you when you need them.
Somebody that I know very recently worked on an enterprise project to create more-or-less a web page that had a $1,000,000 budget.
This is uncomfortably close to the truth, and the reason why government procurement projects often overrun so badly with so much spent is that the budget is set high in the first place. This creates an opportunity to pile on consultants and complexity which can all be billed for.
The size of the budget determines the size of the solution, not the other way round.
... to choose an established vendor with a big name and large resources, so that you won't get fired if things don't work out. Even if your project goes down in flames, you can blame the vendor, snatch a "compensation" discount or freebie on some other license renewal, and you'll be fine.
Nobody in the enterprise space will ever get fired for choosing IBM, Oracle, Microsoft or SAP.
The handful of companies that I've dealt with using Oracle bought into a product that Oracle sells (like payroll) that runs on an Oracle database (obviously). Oracle convinces them to pay for way more than they need for that application and in-house development ends up being done using Oracle rather than MySQL, SQL Server, etc...
$40m is quite affordable. I've seen not super complicated SAP implementations of GL and FICA hit $100m+... Let's not forget telecom billing systems where Amdocs easily charges $200m and up in customization.
What is this money spent on? Well, if you consider knowledge a scarce resource.... Capital is a poor substitute but all you've got when you're clueless.
Simple -- the crowd who picks and buys Oracle doesn't hang out on HN. So if you are on HN then you think everyone runs Docker, Kubernetes, RethinkDB, Go, and something...something Reactive.
Exactly. There is a huge world of professional IT that HN is almost blind to. Though I'd wager that there is someone on HN from just about every niche in IT.
If you really need Oracle, no open source products can replace it. That said, there are a lot of people who buy Oracle but don't actually need it: they just use it as a fairly simple-minded CRUD database. That is just wasting money.
Besides purely political and technical reasons, the more you move towards enterprise software, the more the database will need to be required to work with other enterprise software. E.g. if you run data warehousing, you might find that the solution you picked only supports Oracle DB.
For what I see in the entreprise world they play it like that :
1. lock entreprise in a 5 year contract.
2. when contract is about to expire lower prices to match wathever other companies are offering for the next 5 years + migration cost.
3. Win the deal as you offer the best value for the money : same ammount + no risk.
4. repeat
This is the main reason why you can see companies running on mainframe in 2015.
There are a lot of large third party enterprise applications that only support Oracle. I know several places that I deal with that are still on Oracle, not because replacing Oracle with Postgres is particularly hard per se. but because replacing everything that talks to the Oracle database is too hard.
They do what they always have done - they buy companies that are behind their prime time and then provide legacy support for their systems. That is their bread and butter. If sales go down? Buy some more faded companies and watch sales improve again.
Queries per second is simply not a relevant question.
From what I've heard about how Oracle treats their customers and the industry, this is good news. We need to move away from juggernauts who try to control things, and towards a more distributed, robust methodology.
Although surprised it is Cassandra, and not mysql thats taking the market share. Is there some technical reason for this? I'm not intimate with what Cassandra offers.
Cassandra is a distributed database that easily scales more or less to infinity. As you add more nodes to a cluster, it automatically redistributes data throughout the cluster. It "just works", and that's pretty exciting. So Cassandra at the moment seems to be enjoying a bit of the hype cycle that MongoDB enjoyed 5 or 6 years ago. It's the thing that everyone wants to try out and get onto their resume at the moment.
However, like all "NoSQL" databases, the trade-offs come with the usual severe limitations (e.g. no joins, no foreign keys, no transactions in the usual sense of the term, eventual consistency, etc). Curious people diving into Cassandra (or most NoSQL databases for that matter) typically have zero understanding of these trade-offs at first, and think that they will be easier to work with. It isn't, and it isn't supposed to be. It's harder to work with, and has fewer features, because that's the trade-off you're making for scalability. There's little reason to use it if you don't need to scale like that.
So, curiosity and RDD ("resume-driven development") aside, I don't think there are many situations in which one would be choosing from Cassandra or MySQL/MariaDB/PostgreSQL. If you are working with multiple terabytes or more of data, then there is seldom a good reason to consider a relational database. If you are working with less than a terabyte of data, then there is seldom a good reason to consider anything OTHER than a relational database. I just don't see much overlap in which these technologies seriously compete against each other.
Hiya. I wrote the article (for verification see Twitter handle @mappingbabel). In poll of 20 $1bn> startups vast majority used MySQL, though I saw a few mentions of Cassandra and MongoDB. Additionally (though not really DBMS) tons of ElasticSearch and Redis. We pull out Cassandra DB specifically because we were able to find a reasonable price comparison example for it (most people I spoke to were just rolling their own MySQL rather than going to a vendor).
Postgres is at last eating Oracle from the bottom up, doing what MySQL tried to do fifteen years ago and wasn't quite technically up to.
We're busy replacing our Oracle with Postgres. It's just ridiculously more agile. Actually-good databases without having to think about licensing? Heresy!
2) Lawsuits. With the right incentives to lawyers and politicians, Oracle might be able to get Lotus v. Borland effectively reversed; then they could start licensing the use of SQL itself!
> 2) Lawsuits. With the right incentives to lawyers and politicians, Oracle might be able to get Lotus v. Borland effectively reversed; then they could start licensing the use of SQL itself!
That's what they're very close to achieving with Oracle v Google.
However, I don't think Oracle would be the winner in the "Who owns SQL?" conversation.
If that happened and IBM said to Oracle "We want 30% of your database revenue if you wish to keep using our SQL API", would there be anything Oracle could do?
The first thing I thought when I saw the heading was. "They will just milk existing customers with higher maintenance contracts and fees". Sure enough, went to the article and the first graph shows declining sales but increasing fees.
It's good that more companies are adopting free software, but most of them do not, in turn, release their core applications as free software. This indicates they do not value freedom more than they value saving money.
That headline was prevalent back then. Oracle responded to the threat by eating the ecosystem around them. Had they not done that, their financial picture would be drastically worse today. It's entirely plausible that Oracle would have unraveled as a major enterprise player if they hadn't acquired so much of the industry. Ellison knew what was happening, his acquisition moves were meant to guarantee Oracle's long-term survival. It was: become a monster, or eventually be eaten by one.
Judging by the graph there was a serious inflection point in 2008. Which seems about right from what I remember. So it probably should have been a headline long before now.
The 2008 inflection would have come from the financial crisis. Lots of large firms got hit by that, and a few went under. Since the plot is of _new_ licenses, it suggests that companies weighing the benefits of Oracle vs. one of the alternatives (Postgresql, NoSQL), went with cheaper.
"Doesn't cost anything": This is a meme that is largely false.
Any large organization will buy support for open source software which can sometimes be actually more than the cost of a database license (see Datastax and Cassandra).
License, support, take your pick. It takes people to keep systems running.
We're moving from Oracle to Postgres. From three huge Oracle instances to, pretty much, a cloud of Postgres boxes, a pair per application. Because we can.
Oracle is a superlative database, but it's the polar opposite of agile. This turns out to be important.
In China, there is a hot trend called de-IOE (to remove IBM,Oracle and EMC or other big foreign IT companies' technologies and products from IT systems) in enterprise IT.
Instead, we use open sources, or cloud/ X as a Service, or local technologies.
I wonder if it is the same in USA or other countries?
Is that why Go is so popular in China? The "Our well-known customers" section on the Beego framework homepage (http://beego.me/) seems to list most of the largest Chinese internet companies, for instance.
I'm not sure if 'new sales' vs 'upgrades' is a useful metric for a company like oracle. They're already prevalent in the enterprise infrastructure of the Global 2000. Oracle's new in-memory database with columnar compression is considered an 'upgrade' to their flagship DB product.
Don't underestimate the gap between what is foolish for a company and what is foolish for an individual employee at an enterprise IT department.
I think that IT staff of large enterprises are not foolish when they cling on to overpriced Oracle installations as that creates job security and high wages for them even if they are mediocre (not all of them are mediocre of course)
Also, it may not be foolish for a large enterprise that runs on Oracle to keep doing so, because any benefits from switching could be dwarfed by the cost and risk of switching.
But I think there are a lot of medium sized companies outside the tech sector for whom a decision to go with Oracle is foolish and not switching is foolish too. They're not just overpaying for Oracle licenses but also for DBAs, and they are creating a stagnant IT culture that is less likely to come up with innovative solutions for new business problems.
I see this phrase repeated over and over: nobody got fired for chosing Oracle, ibm, or Microsoft.
I wonder: did anyone got fired for chosing Postgres, Linux, or even new and risky stuff like Mongodb or nodejs? And being told at their exit interview "you should've decided to use Oracle"?
I guess tech people are fired for lack of talent in hustling company politics much often than they are for chosing a technology.
I'd love to read a blog post by someone fired for not using MongoDB; I suspect the justification their employer gave for the firing decision would be quite entertaining.
It's not so much that someone will say "you should've used Oracle". It's that when your application is down for two days they'll say "you should've picked a vendor with 24 hour support and good penetration in the job market".
Now, your Oracle-hosted application might go down for two days as well, but then people would shrug and say "sometimes this happens."
To be fair to Oracle, though, it does seem to happen less often.
With our Postgres move, we worried slightly about Postgres support for the trickier bits, but (b) our Oracle support does Postgres as a sideline (a) there are less of them when you can do a PG cluster per app, and nothing actually has to play nice with anything else.
From first hand experience, it is much harder to maintain a FOSS environment. It feels like putting more on the line. And I cannot deny that I do it partly out of ideological reasons.
So I can totally imagine people being fired for getting in over their heads and messing something up, maybe repeatedly.
On the other hand, I've seen techs be banned from a client environment while dealing solely with proprietary software too.
I would disagree it's harder. It's trepidatious, but that's not the same.
We're in the middle of taking all our internal apps talking to a single huge Oracle database, and giving each app its own cluster of two PG boxes. Nothing has to play nice with anything else - that alone suddenly makes life ridiculously easier.
We have expensive paid Oracle support, who do PG as a sideline. But we've yet to have occasion to call them about PG.
I've been in a similar situation, a story I love to re-tell because it feels like a victory for open source.
We asked Oracle for a quote for two replicated mysql servers for HA. Because they were VMs we got a quote for 3 years that was 410,000 SEK (almost $50k). So we built our own replication solution with mariadb for free.
If you need support, there's nothing wrong with buying support, even quite expensive support. I'm sure Oracle would have provided the some of best MySQL support available.
But yes, it's good to have the option of doing it yourself :-D
(For our few services that run on MySQL, I'm really hanging out for MariaDB to make it into Debian and hence Ubuntu, which is what we run on live - a mix of 12.04 and 14.04. Oracle runs on our last two remaining Sun Niagara SPARC boxes. We will be killing our last Oracle this year.)
This article is a bit sensationalist and misleading.
It mainly talks about the database whereas Oracle does many other things these days (amongst other things some high value SaaS applications in the marketing space that can't be replaced by open source.
Also, the article criticises their growth but come on! They're the 2nd largest enterprise software company in the world - they aren't going to have the kind of 100% YoY growth that a small startup could have.
My prediction is oracle will eventually tighten down and freshen up a bit, cut some of the fat and continue to be a juggernaut for another 10 or so years at least.
(Disclaimer: I liked oracle for many years and recently used to work for and still have a soft spot for them somewhere despite their challenges :) )
Sent from mobile
Oracle never really cared about the developer experience. Eventually that wears out whatever market lead a company might have.
Oracle can be very fast and well setup but the tools to work with are not good and the general optimization now is not as needed with cheaper hardware and more horizontal systems.
There are so many other options out there now. PostgreSQL is great to work with and is so good now that it just might be the leader. Oracle was late to embrace usage on cloud instances and licensing models in that environment don't do as well, that is why Microsoft created Azure and it is their new platform essentially.
Oracle Sales are far from eroding, and the opposite is true. Very misleading article and analysis, and questioning which vendor is in writers pocket? "Figures don't lie but liars do figure"
According to the leading analysts, Oracle has grown software revenues by over ~2.5% in 2014 vs 2013 and Oracle has grown Database revenue as well having a world wide DBMS share above 40% with growth of over 4% in 2014. If you look at who's got the most popular database(s) in the world, by ranking, Oracle Database is ranked #1 and Oracle MySQL is ranked #2. http://db-engines.com/en/ranking
While the article infers fewer licenses sold means Oracle is eroding, article doesn’t mention that Oracle is showing growth in software upgrades, DBAAS, and overall, growth in cloud- private, hybrid and public. The “c” in “Oracle DB 12c” stands for “cloud”. Oracle has over 400,000 customers, where over 310,000 are Database customers according to the Oracle Fact sheet http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/oracle-fact-sheet-079219....
You say Oracle Database is expensive-compared to what? Its all about what level of business value you require? Oracle sells several editions of Oracle DB from Oracle Database Personal Edition that starts at $92 per named user license to Oracle Database Standard Edition One with License costing as little as US$180.00 to the Oracle Database Standard Edition version starting at $350 per User license. Not everyone requires the enterprise features of Oracle Database Enterprise Edition. https://shop.oracle.com/pls/ostore/product?p1=Database&p2=Or...
Theres no such thing as free software unless you consider peoples time free, from administration, patching, management, support, upgrading, etc. You can surely download any open source Database but no ones going to support it for free. If you’re an enterprise, you're surely seeing your OPEX budgets sky-rocket, and a lot of that is due to "free" software and commodity hardware and the integration and management of a very complex, multi-vendor stack requiring armies of people to get it and keep it running.
I won't argue that support is not a necessary cost of doing business. Of course it is.
It's nice to be "free" to spin up a handful of disposable test instances of a database when doing test driven / agile type development.
Oracle is difficult and arcane to create a DB instance. I had the sys admin at work help me to try to set up an instance (he insisted it was "easy"). It takes MANY steps, some of which were shown to me in tools that did not lend themselves to scripting.
I have a script that can create a ready to rock PostgreSQL instance in 5 seconds, no "Mother, may I???" required to run it. Well, ready to run a schema creation / migration, but the "tablespace" and schema name with admin/app user were in and ready to go.
If you are twiddling a few lines in a legacy app, this doesn't matter. If you are doing a big chunk of new development, automated regression testing data sources matter.
I disagree. Startups have always embraced Free software since I know of this field.
What changes is when those startups become mature business, and they realize they don't need Oracle as much as "Mammoth" companies do.
It is the reason a company that disrespect geeks has not a good future.
When years ago I went to a geek convention and everybody had a mac, I instantly thought: Microsoft future is not good and bought Apple stock, even when people doubt about the company. It was a great decision.
Oracle has this attitude of "You are shit if you don't bring me a million dollars". They are not even neutral, they are hostile to startups. But startups grow and they don't forget how Oracle treated them.
Oracle doesn't care about the developer experience? Oracle doesn't care about startups? Disrespect geeks? Huh? Do you have any real justifications to these or are you just basing this on your perceptions? Why would Oracle continue driving developments in JAVA, MySQL, OpenSTACK, etc and many other open source projects if it wasn't after the developer community? And have you seen the latest Software in Silicon Cloud Development platform that’s free?
https://swisdev.oracle.com
And did you know that Oracle has the Oracle Database Personal Edition which is designed to provide software developers a cost effective, yet full featured Oracle Database environment on which to develop, test and run custom or packaged applications?
I think the MySQL strategy is something like this: Oracle knows MySQL is defective, so they promote it as THE open source database, in the hopes that serious customers will get frustrated and just buy a license for a real (Oracle) database.
Elsewhere on this thread, somebody posted a link to a DB use survey which showed PostgreSQL as the #4 DB, behind Oracle, MySQL and SQL Server. Can't let that leak out, though.
As a 15 year Sybase, SQL server and Oracle DBA. Oracle compared to the 2 mentioned requires a platoon of DBAs because of the complexities involved. We have all 3 RDBMS and 1 Sybase SQL server DBA can administer 10x what our Oracle DBA can. I'm not even including tyhe Monster OEM 12c Cloud which takes complexity to a new level to include a Gigantic resource Hog. Add cost, Human resources and Oracle is a Huge over glutton Pig!
Regardless - the quote "Does the cloud-related business grow quickly enough to offset any long-term weakness in new software licenses? To us the answer is yes" seems to indicate that this is all sales for ORCL.
Oracle relying on cloud is pitting them against some more entrenched cloud-only vendors (e.g.: Workday, Salesforce) and disrupts the business model for their main cash cows. Typical innovator's dilemma territory if that's their play.
reply