4 ms·

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

by hyperpallium 7y ago

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!
      - valar_m 7y ago
        I haven't made any claims about Oracle's claims in the filing. Perhaps they are entirely valid. I don't disagree with anything you've said about the details of the competing services. Perhaps you are entirely correct and Oracle has a superior offering. The thesis of my argument is that, in my opinion, Amazon represents a true threat to Oracle, and that moves like this filing should be examined through that lens. For the record, my opinions are my own and I have no knowledge of this situation or AWS decision making that is not public.
        hyperpallium 7y ago
        Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. direct competitors != existential threat But you're describing a "disruption": AWS's offering is comparable yet far cheaper. Which sounds like an "existential threat". Oracle should be immune to this disruption: the same people are doing the same thing to the same data for the same purpose - so, the cloud is a "sustaining" innovation in this context. Plus, Oracle is a sales company, not an engineering company, and I don't think AWS is oriented to compete that way. You've softened your thesis to a "threat", and yes I agree of course it is. And yes, their competitive situation will inform their actions. But... $10 billion dollars is reason enough to file in itself, right? They have huge departments devoted to just this kind of thing. And recall the fuss they made vs Google over Java, for much less (though TBF, that had strategic advantages for them). I still don't see how this particular contract would have knock-on consequences for Oracle, making it an existential threat. Maybe I'm missing something.

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!
    - valar_m 7y ago
      I haven't made any claims about Oracle's claims in the filing. Perhaps they are entirely valid. I don't disagree with anything you've said about the details of the competing services. Perhaps you are entirely correct and Oracle has a superior offering. The thesis of my argument is that, in my opinion, Amazon represents a true threat to Oracle, and that moves like this filing should be examined through that lens. For the record, my opinions are my own and I have no knowledge of this situation or AWS decision making that is not public.
      - hyperpallium 7y ago
        Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. direct competitors != existential threat But you're describing a "disruption": AWS's offering is comparable yet far cheaper. Which sounds like an "existential threat". Oracle should be immune to this disruption: the same people are doing the same thing to the same data for the same purpose - so, the cloud is a "sustaining" innovation in this context. Plus, Oracle is a sales company, not an engineering company, and I don't think AWS is oriented to compete that way. You've softened your thesis to a "threat", and yes I agree of course it is. And yes, their competitive situation will inform their actions. But... $10 billion dollars is reason enough to file in itself, right? They have huge departments devoted to just this kind of thing. And recall the fuss they made vs Google over Java, for much less (though TBF, that had strategic advantages for them). I still don't see how this particular contract would have knock-on consequences for Oracle, making it an existential threat. Maybe I'm missing something.