4 ms·

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,

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.
    - valar_m 7y ago
      I have not softened my thesis. For the sake of brevity I assumed that just saying threat was sufficient. > 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. The idea that any company is immune to disruption seems obviously wrong to me. But in this case, it seems very clear. You're correct that people use databases the same way for the same purpose on cloud vs self host -- no one disputes that. What the cloud dramatically alters, among many things, is pay-what-you-use pricing and scalability. AWS database offerings render license fees obsolete. How could that be anything less than an existential threat to a company that is reliant on license fees?
      - hyperpallium 7y ago
        They're not immune from losing, but they are immune from the technical definition of disruption (from The Innovator's Dilemma, where "sustaining innovation" also come from). But you're right, pay-per-use is different from license fees (though they do try to approximate volume), and scalability is also different. Oracle have also been shifting to the cloud, so they are scalable. I'm assuming they also modify their fee structure to make sense with SaaS, i.e. charge-per-usage. In the following, I'm arguing in good faith not just to score points or win but seeking insight, and I hope you are too: I'm not sure if that transition matters. It might matter, if Oracle can't adjust to it: organisationally (internally), can't sell in this new way (e.g. sales pitches and sales schedules must change), etc. Whereas, for AWS, it's business as usual, their systems and people all deal with it, have overcome the problems, and have been optimising it, and continue to. It is a big change, and it's not clear that Oracle will do it smoothly, although they have made big changes before. But here we return to disruptive innovation vs. sustaining innovation... does this change in scalability and pricing structure make a difference to the business relationship? For example, if it became a smaller monthly fee rather than larger annual contract, and a different person lower in the customer organization was in charge of it, it could make a huge difference. Different contact, different stakes, different metrics. OTOH, if the total is similar, they'd probably have the same person handle it the same as before.

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.
  - valar_m 7y ago
    I have not softened my thesis. For the sake of brevity I assumed that just saying threat was sufficient. > 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. The idea that any company is immune to disruption seems obviously wrong to me. But in this case, it seems very clear. You're correct that people use databases the same way for the same purpose on cloud vs self host -- no one disputes that. What the cloud dramatically alters, among many things, is pay-what-you-use pricing and scalability. AWS database offerings render license fees obsolete. How could that be anything less than an existential threat to a company that is reliant on license fees?
    - hyperpallium 7y ago
      They're not immune from losing, but they are immune from the technical definition of disruption (from The Innovator's Dilemma, where "sustaining innovation" also come from). But you're right, pay-per-use is different from license fees (though they do try to approximate volume), and scalability is also different. Oracle have also been shifting to the cloud, so they are scalable. I'm assuming they also modify their fee structure to make sense with SaaS, i.e. charge-per-usage. In the following, I'm arguing in good faith not just to score points or win but seeking insight, and I hope you are too: I'm not sure if that transition matters. It might matter, if Oracle can't adjust to it: organisationally (internally), can't sell in this new way (e.g. sales pitches and sales schedules must change), etc. Whereas, for AWS, it's business as usual, their systems and people all deal with it, have overcome the problems, and have been optimising it, and continue to. It is a big change, and it's not clear that Oracle will do it smoothly, although they have made big changes before. But here we return to disruptive innovation vs. sustaining innovation... does this change in scalability and pricing structure make a difference to the business relationship? For example, if it became a smaller monthly fee rather than larger annual contract, and a different person lower in the customer organization was in charge of it, it could make a huge difference. Different contact, different stakes, different metrics. OTOH, if the total is similar, they'd probably have the same person handle it the same as before.