3 ms·

Just for some market cap context: AAPL Apple Inc. 251.57B MSFT Microsoft Corporation 218.24B IBM Intl. Business Machine... 164.21B GOOG Goo

by 10ren 16y ago

Just for some market cap context: AAPL Apple Inc. 251.57B MSFT Microsoft Corporation 218.24B IBM Intl. Business Machine... 164.21B GOOG Google Inc. 156.21B ORCL Oracle Corporation 138.24B <---- HPQ Hewlett-Packard Company 88.76B SAP SAP AG (ADR) 57.22B DELL Dell Inc. 24.21B CA CA, Inc. 10.55B NOVL Novell, Inc. 2.15B PRGS Progress Software Corp. 1.25B http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:ORCL http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:ORCL

rbanffy 16y ago
Market cap has no bearing on whether the keynote was or not horrible. But, come on, what did the writer expect at an Oracle conference?
- bad_user 16y ago
  The SUN keynotes were more interesting, I guess he expected that the merger would have some effect on Oracle's culture.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Scott McNeally was an endless source of fun. He should start a new company solely dedicated to make fun of Microsoft.
- 10ren 16y ago
  A keynote can only be assessed with respect to a value system. It's impossible to understand or influence someone without knowing their value system.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    So, if the company valuation is good, the keynote will be good. I fail to see any possible correlation.
    - 10ren 16y ago
      The point I'm making is that Oracle probably measures the quality of its keynote in terms of profit, not in terms of how enjoyable or ethical it was. In these terms, perhaps the keynote was in fact good. An interesting thought experiment, no? Of course, it's hard to measure whether this sales-pitching, partner-insulting keynote will result in greater profits, until those profits appear (and even then, hard to judge its causative role - if any.) I certainly don't approve or agree with it - I'm just saying that that is a fruitful (in a scientific sense) way to think about it. Whether it was enjoyable and/or ethical for a particular person is also important, but it's unlikely to aid understanding or prediction of Oracle, and very unlikely to make any difference. We can however look at how Oracle has behaved in the past, and how that worked out for them. I've observed them be quite unkind and changeable, though pragmatic in providing working products etc - and to be profitable.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        I think we had different interpretations on who was wasting time and money on conferences like this. It seems I interpreted as the attendants were wasting time and money. It seems you interpreted as Oracle wasting time and money. I agree with you that, for Oracle, this is a good form of promotion.
        10ren 16y ago
        I wasn't thinking of anyone wasting time and money, but I see now that attendants might feel that (though these things are often more about networking.) Yes, it's (probably) good promotion for Oracle. I'm thinking also that Oracle feels it is in a very powerful and dominant position, owning a whole stack, and they're letting everyone know it. It's not all bad though - like Apple and console makers, they can then integrate the stack to make a better whole product (and charge more for that greater value.) They can also charge more through lock-in, but doing that alone is a terrible long-term strategy, because it gives oxygen to new entrants. Like "paranoia" Intel and "crown-stealing" Microsoft, I think Oracle well-understands that they won't keep their success automatically
        16y ago

by 10ren 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago

Market cap has no bearing on whether the keynote was or not horrible. But, come on, what did the writer expect at an Oracle conference?

bad_user 16y ago
The SUN keynotes were more interesting, I guess he expected that the merger would have some effect on Oracle's culture.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Scott McNeally was an endless source of fun. He should start a new company solely dedicated to make fun of Microsoft.
10ren 16y ago
A keynote can only be assessed with respect to a value system. It's impossible to understand or influence someone without knowing their value system.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  So, if the company valuation is good, the keynote will be good. I fail to see any possible correlation.
  - 10ren 16y ago
    The point I'm making is that Oracle probably measures the quality of its keynote in terms of profit, not in terms of how enjoyable or ethical it was. In these terms, perhaps the keynote was in fact good. An interesting thought experiment, no? Of course, it's hard to measure whether this sales-pitching, partner-insulting keynote will result in greater profits, until those profits appear (and even then, hard to judge its causative role - if any.) I certainly don't approve or agree with it - I'm just saying that that is a fruitful (in a scientific sense) way to think about it. Whether it was enjoyable and/or ethical for a particular person is also important, but it's unlikely to aid understanding or prediction of Oracle, and very unlikely to make any difference. We can however look at how Oracle has behaved in the past, and how that worked out for them. I've observed them be quite unkind and changeable, though pragmatic in providing working products etc - and to be profitable.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      I think we had different interpretations on who was wasting time and money on conferences like this. It seems I interpreted as the attendants were wasting time and money. It seems you interpreted as Oracle wasting time and money. I agree with you that, for Oracle, this is a good form of promotion.
      - 10ren 16y ago
        I wasn't thinking of anyone wasting time and money, but I see now that attendants might feel that (though these things are often more about networking.) Yes, it's (probably) good promotion for Oracle. I'm thinking also that Oracle feels it is in a very powerful and dominant position, owning a whole stack, and they're letting everyone know it. It's not all bad though - like Apple and console makers, they can then integrate the stack to make a better whole product (and charge more for that greater value.) They can also charge more through lock-in, but doing that alone is a terrible long-term strategy, because it gives oxygen to new entrants. Like "paranoia" Intel and "crown-stealing" Microsoft, I think Oracle well-understands that they won't keep their success automatically
      - 16y ago