Slashdot Mirror
Oracle's Larry Ellison Pokes Amazon Again With New Cloud Pricing Plan (siliconangle.com)
Oracle went on the offensive again versus Amazon.com this week with a new cloud pricing plan that gives discounts to Oracle database customers who move their databases to the cloud. From a report: Chairman and Chief Technology Officer Larry Ellison said during an event at its Redwood City, California headquarters that while Oracle has matched Amazon Web Services for base-level computing, storage and networking services known as infrastructure as a service, it's now moving to make higher-level cloud services such as databases and analytics cheaper than AWS's. Actually, Ellison claimed that Oracle's infrastructure runs faster and therefore ends up costing less, but it's clear that the company is focusing more on its traditional strengths one tier up from the infrastructure: so-called platform as a service offerings such as the Oracle Database. Oracle said it will allow customers to move their existing licenses for databases, middleware and analytics to Oracle's platform services, just as they've allowed them to bring licenses to its infrastructure before.
No way I'd ever deal with those incompetent & crooked bastards ever again.
Ever.
If you're planning a big move, take advantage of it to move away from Oracle.
Why anyone would willing move their data TO Oracle is beyond my ken. They have proven themselves to be unworthy partners over and over again.
Why doesn't the industry blackball this guy? How do people continue to give Oracle money?
Just get a lot of database licenses on the cloud, and then Oracle can raise the prices again. As Oracle is a master in the art of gouging the clients, they will design a complex update-upgrade-improve set of changes, new platforms and services, that will make very difficult to ever compare prices with what you were paying before (because now you are getting MOAH), or what other people are paying now.
It has the added advantage that Oracle can make arbitrarily difficult to return to your own metal if you are unsatisfied. I'm sure there is some subtle change in your license when you move to the cloud, or will be when some new "platform" is unveiled, that will hinder you when moving away. I'm also sure that the tools and support for moving to the cloud are far better than the tools and support for moving away from the cloud. If you thought that your organization was Oracle-dependent due to the quantity of code developed for the platform, just wait until you run on their servers. In due time, you won't be able to just get a full copy of all your data and metadata in a local computer.
Time to buy Oracle stock, I'd say.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
>> Oracle (will) make higher-level cloud services such as databases and analytics cheaper than AWS's.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I'm crying - can I have a glass of water? Is there really anyone left in IT who still believes that Oracle is good for their company's bottom line?
More seriously, it's not Oracle that Amazon needs to worry about - it's Google's cloud services. My company's already switching almost every currently Amazon-based app it can find to GCP. GCP tech is kind of AWS 2.0 (since they had the opportunity to learn from the "first mover" - think how Microsoft learned from Novell back in the day) and Google's currently trying to buy up the enterprise market with lowball pricing.
Dear Larry,
There are precisely zero people who use your product due to your business model. Your company has a decades-long history of costing customers huge amounts of money, either in licensing, legal fees, or both. Nobody looking to do a database migration is going to believe that the cost savings over AWS will last for any length of time; everybody, everywhere, ever sees right through the attempt to lock people in, yet again. Amazon, Microsoft, and OSS databases are your competition, and "We're not Oracle" is a selling point they will always possess. Even if by some miracle "Oracle is cheaper" was an argument anybody believed would remain true for any length of time, odds are good that most potential customers would be so wary of your business practices that paying more for Amazon is a better business decision.
The ability to continue increasing the cost for your current clients basically-indefinitely is the only reason your company is still in existence. Your decline will be slow, and will likely remain wealthy for the rest of your life, but when Oracle eventually goes under, your legacy will be such that there will be cheers and celebration for your demise.
Warm Regards,
Me
It's kind of a perceived strong choice in the corporate world and identifiable on a powerpoint slide as a bullet in the strength of the company being able to afford an Oracle solution. Had a friend who does HR talk about integrations for a couple companies tell me his Oracle horror stories and it sounds like absolute martyrdom for something that is terrible. I've never heard of Oracle having an "it just works" solution and usually the people who are good with Oracle in these companies are mediocre at best in terms of talent, but no one like to empty port-o-pots but they don't empty themselves.
I'm curious if anyone has had any experience using the Oracle compatability pack on Postgres? It's supposed to let you drop an oracle schema into postgres and have it work unmodified, PL/SQL and all.
They run it because they have to. Didn't always used to be that way, but I've not seen significant technical innovation out of Oracle in a very, very long time. And given their other disasters with managed services, if I were running Oracle, I certainly wouldn't entrust it to their cloud service.
Loading...
I worked with Oracle 7 in the mid-1990's, and since then PostgreSQL, MySql, and SQL Server. In the 90's, SQL Server was making inroads into my company (Alcan Aluminum), but us 'old dogs' were fighting back, saying it wasn't ready for prime time. But since then, it has grown up and now I view them as pretty much interchangeable for straight-forward apps.
Back then, SQL Server's advantage was price. Oracle was $8k/cpu(on a small/mid Alpha-OpenVMS box), and SQL Server was much cheaper, but Windows-only. These days, OpenVMS has pretty much relegated itself to a niche, and SQL Server is about as expensive as Oracle for equivalent performance. So my vote, these days, goes to PostgreSQL, the only open-source database that is pretty much feature complete (for the day), and has been around for decades.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
Why the requirement of a single node? Why are you baking in a MASSIVE anti-pattern into your DB requirements from the get-go? One that artificially makes scaling difficult and expensive, one that makes HA far less A? All with zero upside for anyone save the hardware vendors balance sheets?
And PostgreSQL's PL/pgSQL is a close and highly effective match for Oracle's PL/SQL.
Honestly, the only legitimate reason for swallowing Oracle's BS is if you're running Oracle's applications. For absolutely anything else you could possibly do, you should be fired as grossly incompetent for selecting to hobble your company with Oracle.
My
And I really can't imagine having my database in the cloud, it just sounds hideous.
A great many databases are in the cloud these days. Equifax, OPM, Ashley Madison, Friend Finder, RockYou, TJ Maxx, Heartland, Sony Pictures, Card Systems, Target, Yahoo, and many more.
I have a huge posting history that shows that I don't do a whole lot of hating. I can't even say that I hate Larry Ellison, but I can say that I hate his company. Hate isn't even too strong a word. Oracle can suck my unwashed left nut, metaphorically.
I have dealt with incompetence, dishonesty, and malicious and only Oracle managed to exceed expectations in all three categories. I am truly bothered by the fact that they still exist. I can't even think of a nice thing to say about them, and I can usually find something nice to say about anyone. Hell, I can even find something nice to say about Nazis.
After they cost us a bunch of money, productivity, and morale, I refused to pay them. They literally failed every aspect of the contract. They met not one goal and even got extensions to meet their goals. They failed in every way possible, so I kicked them out and didn't pay them.
They took me to court. Yes, they sued me - even though I had a copy of the contract and they'd not met even one single part of that contract. In six months, they literally got not one thing running effectively. Not one... From installers to consultants, they sent them all to us. They were more incompetent than even I, and I hate databases and don't know much about them.
And they sued... Then they delayed everything in court, up to, and including, failing to send the appropriate people and being granted an extension.
When it finally got to the point where we were all in front of a judge, we largely presented a bunch of documents - including the contract. They presented the idea that we should pay anyhow. It was a quick decision by the judge and our legal expenses were, partially, covered by them. They did nothing to cover our many, many other expenses.
Either way, that's the short version. The case took a couple of years to conclude.
At the end, their representative said they hoped we would have a better outcome the next time they worked with us. I was flabbergasted by the temerity. Indeed, they would even send salesmen and call, trying to work for us again.
What I find amazing is that a company that touts their databases somehow was unable to out together past results and still felt it would be beneficial to contact us in the future. Somewhere, in their database, they should have an option for, "Already fucked over, don't try again." I don't think they do.
Seriously, fuck Oracle.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."