Oracle Sun: The MySQL Mystery
April 25, 2009
I enjoyed John C. Dvorak’s “Only Oracle Really Knows Why It Bought Sun” here. Mr. Dvorak touches on the many mysteries about the sudden, multi billion dollar deal for a company now setting up for a landing at DTA (the dead technology airport).
In New York yesterday (April 23, 2009), I had one of those famous side conversations after my Google and Publishing lecture. In that conversation, three different New Yorkers, each confident of his or her knowledge and superiority over creatures from any place west of Piscataway offered their views about this deal.
Let me summarize each, and then offer a comment. I think these observations provide some additional context for Mr. Dvorak’s “second opinion” with which I agree.
First, Oracle wants to stop IBM. I am not sure what “stop” means because the person who offered this viewpoint was in the financial services business. I interpreted this to mean have an alternative to IBM’s offerings in consulting, hardware, database, etc.
Second, Oracle wants to have a lever over Google. The azure chip consultant who floated this idea drew stares from me and the financial wizard. The consultant suggested that Google uses its MapReduce and but the Googlers rely on MySQL for some database tasks. Google, therefore, is a big fan of MySQL. His source allegedly was a NY Googler. If Oracle has the inside track on MySQL, Oracle has one more thread of connection to Googzilla.
Third, Oracle wants to have a low cost, entry level database to respond to opportunities where price is a consideration. When the data management task “gets serious”, Oracle is ready to provide the industrial strength database solution. This idea came from a professor at one of the upscale colleges in New York City.
Let’s look at each of these ideas.
Stop IBM. Oracle and IBM have been at the game of enterprise data, applications, and consulting for a long time. I don’t think Sun makes a big difference to Oracle if this is the correct analysis. On the other hand, I don’t think that if IBM had purchased Sun that the deal would have been significant for IBM. Once the services deals are migrated, the value of Sun begins to erode in the enterprise market. Oracle gets some new contracts and maybe sells some hardware, but Sun’s business was sloping down, and I don’t think a change in ownership can address that issue. Neither IBM nor Oracle can make dramatic shifts in how each company deals with their enterprise customers. Oracle, like IBM, is not suited to the smaller organization.
Oracle One Ups Google. I don’t think so. Google can create its own baby database. MySQL could be marginalized without too much pain for the Googlers. Oracle may have a viper on its hands with the open source database, so MySQL could become a distraction and provide an enterprise open source vendor with an opportunity marshal a community backlash against Oracle.
Oracle and Low Cost. This is a word pair that does not make sense at Oracle in my opinion. The company needs big revenue opportunities. The notion of a low cost anything at Oracle is a foreign one.
In my view, the New Yorkers who offered these ideas get an A for effort. I just think the views are incorrect. After reading Mr. Dvorak’s “second opinion” piece, I think the deal was a knee jerk reaction. I had heard that a Japanese firm was interested in the Sun property to get customers, technology, and patents. Oracle may find itself handling Sun the way it has approached PeopleSoft and other acquisitions. Business as usual. Make decisions when a decision is needed. In the meantime, operate in an opportunistic manner.
Stephen Arnold, April 24, 2009
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
