Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle’s Cloudy Future

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 154 posts

Re: Oracle’s Cloudy Future

#121

Post by nickpsecurity »

intended wrote: post #115
TeMPOraL wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. It seems that the most sustainable business model for Open Source so far is a combination of FOSS product + paid support / consulting company. It has some potential conflict of interest (e.g. deliberately not improving some aspects of the product that brings in support calls), but being a successful open-source product often depends on outside contributions which themselves depend on reputation, and that may…

That still doesn't work because the core issue is partially addressed. Reliable on call support. Oracle is not going to vanish overnight or de prioritize you due to lack of resources. The possibility of that risk in other firms is sufficient to make them non options

Many of the companies making proprietary products with high lockin have terrible support just because they know you cant leave. Whereas it's the opposite for some startups and FOSS companies knowing how easy it is for them to loose business. So, I dont buy that as an advantage of companies like Oracle.

You want support for sure but big companies are hit and miss on support quality.

Re: Oracle’s Cloudy Future

#122

Post by AndyNemmity »

learningbot wrote: post #64
tmptmp wrote: post #3

I am happy Oracle is losing this battle (edit: or at least feeling the heat), one sort of personal reason is that they have killed/crippled many open source projects. Other reason, they are gaining money mainly because there are enough fools around running big corps, who can conveniently pass the buck if something goes wrong. Similar is true for MS too. But if you really want to see your money well spent, Oracle is n…

"Other reason, they are gaining money mainly because there are enough fools around running big corps, who can conveniently pass the buck if something goes wrong. Similar is true for MS too." - Is there any source to justify this comment ?

No. It's not even really true.

The reality when you work in these fields are that there are many different reasons why a given solution is selected, and often times people really like it.

I almost don't want to post about this here because I know it's going to be disliked, and I'm not trying to start an argument. But you never get that perspective here.

Re: Oracle’s Cloudy Future

#123

Post by AndyNemmity »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #84
b2m9 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Other reason, they are gaining money mainly because there are enough fools around running big corps, who can conveniently pass the buck if something goes wrong. Well, this can be said for any big business software company. It's the same story with SAP, IBM and friends. Business software is simply not about spending money well.

Big companies are often are complicated mess, and I can emphasize with desire to simplify and streamline operation. There's some benefit with setting your infrastructure in such a way that there's a known party you can pay to fix things quickly, and that you can sue if they can't.

Often they also like to stay understaffed in IT, so having consistent vendors, and similar systems allows them to keep just a few guys around that have any clue how it works, and supplement with consultants and vendor support.

Re: Oracle’s Cloudy Future

#124

Post by AndyNemmity »

protomyth wrote: post #62
gizmodo59 wrote: post #11

A genuine question: If you have worked with any fortune 500/1000 companies (Lets pick non software based companies) either directly or if they are your customers, how many of them use Oracle database or SQL Server? Some of the reasons why this trend WILL continue: 1. Critical software like databases needs support. To the point where there should be someone who can come on premise to fix things. 2. We need to use X be…

You missed one critical situation: "You must use X because this required / desired product uses X as a backend". Thus, I pay Oracle every year because some Software Developer used it in a product.

Certainly true with a variety of products. You are stuck with certain vendors because that's what was used, etc etc.

Re: Oracle’s Cloudy Future

#125

Post by AndyNemmity »

toyg wrote: post #25
lucozade wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4. You can buy/hire expertise in their products in pretty much any location you want to do business.

5. you can buy/hire accredited expertise as well, which is something BigCo risk-averse management often prefers over competent-but-unaccredited people.

I've never had accredited even come up in a conversation. It's more about paying someone, with deliverables to get something done. Now they must get it done.

Their in house teams are already over worked, under staffed, and usually lower skilled because they are not paying a premium for staff. Could be in some random city without a strong base of people to hire.

That's why consulting works. You pay me a ridiculous amount to fly to your random city every week, where I essentially work as staff, but with clear deliverables on a timeline that must be met.

Then I work ridiculous hours every day while your inhouse staff goes home to see their family.

Re: Oracle’s Cloudy Future

#126

Post by AndyNemmity »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #12
gizmodo59 wrote: post #11

A genuine question: If you have worked with any fortune 500/1000 companies (Lets pick non software based companies) either directly or if they are your customers, how many of them use Oracle database or SQL Server? Some of the reasons why this trend WILL continue: 1. Critical software like databases needs support. To the point where there should be someone who can come on premise to fix things. 2. We need to use X be…

Business managers will get charged with making tech decisions for projects and they will choose brands they trust.

Or with brands that others trust within the same space. Other companies, friends of theirs working in other companies, conferences, etc.

It becomes a self perpetuating system.

Re: Oracle’s Cloudy Future

#127

Post by rdm42116 »

AndyNemmity wrote: post #116
gizmodo59 wrote: post #11

A genuine question: If you have worked with any fortune 500/1000 companies (Lets pick non software based companies) either directly or if they are your customers, how many of them use Oracle database or SQL Server? Some of the reasons why this trend WILL continue: 1. Critical software like databases needs support. To the point where there should be someone who can come on premise to fix things. 2. We need to use X be…

I've worked with a ton, and they are moving from Oracle/DB2 to SAP HANA, but I work in the SAP ERP space, so that's not indicative of the broader world I don't think. Just the trends here.

Also working in SAP ERP space-many clients moving from Oracle to Hana, or planning to move to it. Of course this is only in the existing ERP space, I do migrations.

Re: Oracle’s Cloudy Future

#128

Post by AndyNemmity »

rdm42116 wrote: post #127
AndyNemmity wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked with a ton, and they are moving from Oracle/DB2 to SAP HANA, but I work in the SAP ERP space, so that's not indicative of the broader world I don't think. Just the trends here.

Also working in SAP ERP space-many clients moving from Oracle to Hana, or planning to move to it. Of course this is only in the existing ERP space, I do migrations.

Yep, I do migrations as well. Every one is Oracle or DB2 to HANA. Often away from power systems (although some absolutely love power)

Re: Oracle’s Cloudy Future

#129

Post by thomasjudge »

jdcarter wrote: post #16

What a lot of these analysts overlook is why Oracle is trying to take on Amazon, despite being years late to the party. I believe it's a defensive move: Oracle is seeing long-time customers deploy new applications in AWS, and that customer starts to realize, "hey, that went pretty well, why not move more of my stuff to AWS?" Their Oracle sales rep comes calling, and suddenly a once-reliable customer needs fewer Oracl…

But I think Oracle's "taking on" Amazon is mainly a marketing move. When you think "big cloud providers", #1 is obviously AWS, & then there's MSFT & GOOG, & then other players. Oracle is trying to elevate its offering in especially existing customers minds as a viable competitor, thus raising it's profile. It's the Avis/Hertz strategy

Re: Oracle’s Cloudy Future

#130

Post by x0x0 »

AndyNemmity wrote: post #122
learningbot wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Other reason, they are gaining money mainly because there are enough fools around running big corps, who can conveniently pass the buck if something goes wrong. Similar is true for MS too." - Is there any source to justify this comment ?

No. It's not even really true. The reality when you work in these fields are that there are many different reasons why a given solution is selected, and often times people really like it. I almost don't want to post about this here because I know it's going to be disliked, and I'm not trying to start an argument. But you never get that perspective here.

Not least of which is the time/expense/risk to replace even a suboptimal solution outweighs the benefits.
Post reply on HN