4 ms·

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

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.
- valar_m 7y ago
  I'll be honest, it seems disingenuous to argue that Oracle is immune to disruption in a debate about whether Amazon poses an existential threat, and then later reveal that you were using a specific, hidden meaning of the word -- especially when the plain, obvious meaning is directly applicable to the discussion. I will try to assume positive intent. The last thing I'll say is a bit of advice: In future debates, it would be useful to indicate at the beginning when you're using a specific, non-obvious definition of a word, especially when the broadly accepted meaning is directly consistent with the debate topic, and especially when the definition you are using has little to do with the overall discussion. It will save time and will help avoid misunderstandings that damage your credibility among your counterparts in the discussion.
  - hyperpallium 7y ago
    Sorry, no ill intent, I thought the technical meaning was common knowlwdge on HN, since the technical meaning is where the term originated. I was actually afraid I was being condescending by referencing the source. But I only introduced it in my 4th comment in the debate, and clarified it in the next one, when I sensed there might be a misunderstanding. I didn't use it at the "beginning" of the debate. The definition is central to the debate. I see now it's hard for us to discuss this, as disruptive vs. sustaining determines whether the incumbent (Oracle) or entrant (AWS) wins. The debate turns on the distinction. "Disruption" is just a theory, doesn't have a perfect track record, and I sense you're not interested in it, but the original research on the hard disk drive market was pretty influential, about how some dramatic tech changes in e.g. the magnetic surface made no difference to who led the market ("sustaining"), while changes in form-factor (8", 5.25", 3.5" etc) "disrupted" the market by changing who bought them and why... and also changed who led the market. Wikipedia on "the innovator's dilemma" is a pretty good summary, IIRC. It's a shame a misunderstanding has prevented you from participating in a discussion. I thought we were reaching the crux of the issue... oh well. It was interesting to me, at least.
  - hyperpallium 7y ago
    After sleeping on it, I agree it is an existential threat. Disruption usually happens from the low-end, but in this case, Oracle is being threatened from the top-end. That's terrifying. Oracle must address these security concerns. It's just that I'm not sure the existential threat will succeed (because I'm not sure cloud scalability/pricing will change the reasons to buy Oracle - I find that an interesting question). BTW When people quote a term, it's to alert you to usage of that term.

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.

valar_m 7y ago
I'll be honest, it seems disingenuous to argue that Oracle is immune to disruption in a debate about whether Amazon poses an existential threat, and then later reveal that you were using a specific, hidden meaning of the word -- especially when the plain, obvious meaning is directly applicable to the discussion. I will try to assume positive intent. The last thing I'll say is a bit of advice: In future debates, it would be useful to indicate at the beginning when you're using a specific, non-obvious definition of a word, especially when the broadly accepted meaning is directly consistent with the debate topic, and especially when the definition you are using has little to do with the overall discussion. It will save time and will help avoid misunderstandings that damage your credibility among your counterparts in the discussion.
- hyperpallium 7y ago
  Sorry, no ill intent, I thought the technical meaning was common knowlwdge on HN, since the technical meaning is where the term originated. I was actually afraid I was being condescending by referencing the source. But I only introduced it in my 4th comment in the debate, and clarified it in the next one, when I sensed there might be a misunderstanding. I didn't use it at the "beginning" of the debate. The definition is central to the debate. I see now it's hard for us to discuss this, as disruptive vs. sustaining determines whether the incumbent (Oracle) or entrant (AWS) wins. The debate turns on the distinction. "Disruption" is just a theory, doesn't have a perfect track record, and I sense you're not interested in it, but the original research on the hard disk drive market was pretty influential, about how some dramatic tech changes in e.g. the magnetic surface made no difference to who led the market ("sustaining"), while changes in form-factor (8", 5.25", 3.5" etc) "disrupted" the market by changing who bought them and why... and also changed who led the market. Wikipedia on "the innovator's dilemma" is a pretty good summary, IIRC. It's a shame a misunderstanding has prevented you from participating in a discussion. I thought we were reaching the crux of the issue... oh well. It was interesting to me, at least.
- hyperpallium 7y ago
  After sleeping on it, I agree it is an existential threat. Disruption usually happens from the low-end, but in this case, Oracle is being threatened from the top-end. That's terrifying. Oracle must address these security concerns. It's just that I'm not sure the existential threat will succeed (because I'm not sure cloud scalability/pricing will change the reasons to buy Oracle - I find that an interesting question). BTW When people quote a term, it's to alert you to usage of that term.