6 ms·

They wrote a 50 page filing, apparently, but the issue comes down to this: AWS is an existential threat to Oracle as a going concern.

simion314 7y ago
If the accusations are correct then I would say that the Oracle part is irrelevant, were the public money spent legally?
- Someone1234 7y ago
  Oracle's argument is that it shouldn't be delivered as a single contract and should be split among multiple cloud vendors. Anyone whose used AWS/Azure/Oracle Cloud will tell you why that idea is problematic. Particularly when dealing with a hardened government version of these cloud environments. The only potential corruption their complaint indicates is the hiring of a decision maker at the DoD. It is a bad look. I'd need to see the timeline/understand more about it to form an opinion.
  - simion314 7y ago
    I did not read the full complaint, but it is possible that something fishy happened there even if Oracle has it's own interests. Having more then 1 company that provides the service could help preventing vendor locking and provide better proces c in future.
hyperpallium 7y ago
Can you elaborate on how AWS is an "existential threat" to Oracle?
- urda 7y ago
  Is it not clear that they both are competitors in similar spaces to you as the reader?
  - hyperpallium 7y ago
    That's an unusually unhelpful and unfriendly comment for HN.
    - urda 7y ago
      It's literally in the article.
- valar_m 7y ago
  They are direct competitors, as another replied said. Case in point: the Pentagon contract in question. Edit: To expand a bit further: https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/projects/migrate-oracle-to-amazon-redshift/ https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/projects/migrate-orac...
  - hyperpallium 7y ago
    Thanks! Oracle is an RDB and app provider, mostly web-based. AWS is a cloud platform provider. Unless one (or both?) have changed while I wasn't looking... but even then, is the Cloud now so central to Oracle that its existence depends on it? EDIT thanks for the link. "Oracle data warehouse" isn't Oracle's central business. Also, I'm not a fan of Oracle, but I doubt it's so easy to steal their customers. Finally, how can the loss of one govt contract be so harmful? Few of their customers, not even govt ones, are so security conscious... BTW I realize you're just reporting their claim, not making it.
    - valar_m 7y ago
      I don't think the issue is how important the cloud is to Oracle. The threat to Oracle is that AWS provides directly comparable database products (RDS, Redshift, DynamoDB) that don't require the licensing fees and (sometimes) hardware costs that come with Oracle products. As an aside, I regret not disclosing earlier that I'm an engineer at Amazon. I did not expect to participate in this discussion this much, and also, it just didn't occur to me. My apologies.
      - hyperpallium 7y ago
        Thanks. Oracle already has competing cheaper/free RDBs - though not an integrated suite. (I accept O's app businesses are secondary). From your first link, compatibility is hard: AWS SCT clearly marks any code that it cannot convert so that you can manually convert it. I would expect O to be upset that they don't even get a look in to an incredibly lucrative contract, and argue it's bad for the govt's well-being to exclude them. I can't see how or why they'd argue it threatens their existence... Oh, so you are making the claim! Your comment makes a lot more sense now. BTW congrats on winning the contract, that's amazing!

simion314 7y ago

If the accusations are correct then I would say that the Oracle part is irrelevant, were the public money spent legally?

Someone1234 7y ago
Oracle's argument is that it shouldn't be delivered as a single contract and should be split among multiple cloud vendors. Anyone whose used AWS/Azure/Oracle Cloud will tell you why that idea is problematic. Particularly when dealing with a hardened government version of these cloud environments. The only potential corruption their complaint indicates is the hiring of a decision maker at the DoD. It is a bad look. I'd need to see the timeline/understand more about it to form an opinion.
- simion314 7y ago
  I did not read the full complaint, but it is possible that something fishy happened there even if Oracle has it's own interests. Having more then 1 company that provides the service could help preventing vendor locking and provide better proces c in future.

hyperpallium 7y ago

Can you elaborate on how AWS is an "existential threat" to Oracle?

urda 7y ago
Is it not clear that they both are competitors in similar spaces to you as the reader?
- hyperpallium 7y ago
  That's an unusually unhelpful and unfriendly comment for HN.
  - urda 7y ago
    It's literally in the article.
valar_m 7y ago
They are direct competitors, as another replied said. Case in point: the Pentagon contract in question. Edit: To expand a bit further: https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/projects/migrate-oracle-to-amazon-redshift/ https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/projects/migrate-orac...
- hyperpallium 7y ago
  Thanks! Oracle is an RDB and app provider, mostly web-based. AWS is a cloud platform provider. Unless one (or both?) have changed while I wasn't looking... but even then, is the Cloud now so central to Oracle that its existence depends on it? EDIT thanks for the link. "Oracle data warehouse" isn't Oracle's central business. Also, I'm not a fan of Oracle, but I doubt it's so easy to steal their customers. Finally, how can the loss of one govt contract be so harmful? Few of their customers, not even govt ones, are so security conscious... BTW I realize you're just reporting their claim, not making it.
  - valar_m 7y ago
    I don't think the issue is how important the cloud is to Oracle. The threat to Oracle is that AWS provides directly comparable database products (RDS, Redshift, DynamoDB) that don't require the licensing fees and (sometimes) hardware costs that come with Oracle products. As an aside, I regret not disclosing earlier that I'm an engineer at Amazon. I did not expect to participate in this discussion this much, and also, it just didn't occur to me. My apologies.
    - hyperpallium 7y ago
      Thanks. Oracle already has competing cheaper/free RDBs - though not an integrated suite. (I accept O's app businesses are secondary). From your first link, compatibility is hard: AWS SCT clearly marks any code that it cannot convert so that you can manually convert it. I would expect O to be upset that they don't even get a look in to an incredibly lucrative contract, and argue it's bad for the govt's well-being to exclude them. I can't see how or why they'd argue it threatens their existence... Oh, so you are making the claim! Your comment makes a lot more sense now. BTW congrats on winning the contract, that's amazing!