It's well-known that Oracle isn't a technology company, but one that uses technology. It's not that their engineers are bad in any way, it's just that that's no

It's well-known that Oracle isn't a technology company, but one that uses technology. It's not that their engineers are bad in any way, it's just that that's not a focus of the company as an organization. Instead, technology becomes a background issue (or a hygiene factor, as some economists call it.) It has to work, it has to be good; but it's not what makes the company go - they don't depend on Research and Development to produce a stream of new products. Any new tech they get is bought, via acquisition; and it is followed up only if it is of immediate value to their existing customers. They aren't creating new markets either (though recently they've bought some life sciences companies, which is a big branch out, and might shake up the health care sector in interesting ways.) Of course, once upon a time, they created the very first commercial relational database, before even IBM (where Codd invented it.) But in the following decades, Oracle didn't keep on developing entirely new technologies. Sun, IBM and HP all have or had strong engineering traditions (in particular HP used to, though not so much today.) Other examples with strong engineering are Sony, Nintendo, Adobe, TI, Intel and Apple. Another business company, like Oracle, is SAP. It's not intended as an insult, just a description of a company's approach. IBM has certainly moved much closer to that these days, it's almost a consulting company (like the big accounting firms), and its R&D has become very directed towards their client's immediate needs - at least, that's what they said at a presentation a few years ago. I've read of Mark Reinhold's comments about what's happening with Java now (but not listened to that specific podcast.) He made an interesting point about the JRockit tech (acquired from BEA.) Let me ask you: is it realistic to imagine the new platform architect not saying positive things on this point, given his job and employer? If he thought otherwise, would he be given the job, with its significant Public Relations component (which is what that podcast is, from Oracle's perspective)? In my view, I'm just stating well-known and accepted facts that I think Oracle itself would agree with. Can you tell me why you don't agree, please? You seem a little angry about it, too. I think it's possible you have misinterpreted me.